Watch: A Professor’s Amazing Idea On Dealing With Open Carry Activists

Posted by | July 26, 2014 13:45 | Filed under: Politics Top Stories


A philosophy professor offers an amazing response to open carry activists who enter family-friendly establishments with guns strapped to their backs. He notes,”As many have pointed out, there is no way for bystanders to know whether the people with guns are “good guys” or “bad guys.” It is rational to be afraid of someone with a weapon, especially if you know nothing about them.”

That’s been my argument for awhile when gun activists claim there’s nothing to fear from an “inanimate object” but we don’t know the person whose hand is on the trigger. We do see their blatant disrespect for others though.

Jack Russell Weinstein, professor of philosophy and director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life at the University of North Dakota, came up with a solution as to how we should respond when witnessing these gun toting groups entering a store.

Weinstein writes:

My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.

But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.

Following this procedure has several advantages. First, it protects people. Second, it forces the businesses to really choose where their loyalties are. If the second amendment is as important as people claim, then people should be willing to pay for it. God knows, free speech is tremendously expensive.

Watch:

A YouTube commenter writes, “The best way to react is to thank them for supporting your rights and the Constitution. Advocating theft at restaurants is not a moral argument.”

We can thank our founding fathers, not gun carrying gangs, thank you very much. As for the allegation of “theft,” the professor covered that topic in the video.

There’s nothing to thank these two young men for after their group entered a Chipotle restaurant in Texas.

While activists have certain “rights” — which they have abused — nowhere on our favorite restaurant’s menu does it read, “Cheeseburger with a side of gangsta, yo.”

H/T:  Shamelessly stolen from Wonkette.

Image: Crooks and Liars.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Liberaland

2,668 responses to Watch: A Professor’s Amazing Idea On Dealing With Open Carry Activists

  1. krysmas01 August 3rd, 2014 at 00:15

    I agree that the companies need to feel the financial impact of not creating a safe environment for all customers. However, I take issues with leaving a bill unpaid or stiffing a hardworking server and other staff.

    Just ban the idiots already. You don’t to hunt a burrito so there’s no need for the rifle.

  2. PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 02:04

    Endorsement of bigotry and hysteria merely perpetuates bigotry and hysteria.
    Don’t do that.

  3. PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 02:04

    Endorsement of bigotry and hysteria merely perpetuates bigotry and hysteria.
    Don’t do that.

  4. PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 02:06

    Your advocating of violence against people you disagree with is noted.

    • Jesse Redden August 3rd, 2014 at 14:22

      I would advocate violence against those who would bring a machine designed to kill mass amounts of human beings into a restaurant with families with no problem. They do in fact inspire terror, uncertainty, and uncomfort to many of those surrounding them knowingly. They are terrorists.

      • PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 21:48

        Your claims of peoples’ intent is erroneous, your definition of ‘terrorist’ is faulty and your desire to have violence committed by proxy is noted. How very brave of you.

        And despicable.

    • PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 21:48

      Your definition of ‘terrorist’ is faulty and your desire to have violence committed by proxy is noted. How very brave of you.

      And despicable.

  5. Harlan Roberts August 3rd, 2014 at 06:32

    Run away!! Run away!! Typical liberal response. If he was practicing his 2nd Amendment rights, he would have nothing to fear.

    • Carla Akins August 3rd, 2014 at 07:13

      No one is concerned with his fear. Its the others in the establishment that have no idea of his intent. Is he simply practicing his 2nd amendments rights, or just off his meds and hearing voices. Since we are unable to tell by looking, I’d rather not wait to find out. Since I can find no reasonable explanation why one would need to carry a long gun into a diner to order some bacon and eggs, I can only reasonable and rationally assume he’s up to no good.I have a right to protect myself and my family as well.

    • diggity dog August 17th, 2014 at 15:50

      I would have everything to fear. That tubby blubber in the Chipotle looks like he is compensating for his weight problem by getting an assault rifle. I would not be able to NOT make fun of how big he is. He might shoot me. I have EVERYTHING to fear from idiots with guns.

      • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:44

        Fat-shaming? Your bigotry is noted.

    • Taymie August 30th, 2014 at 11:57

      Yeah, stupid liberals. Acting like people who carry guns into public places might actually use those guns. Imagine the level of ignorance that one must possess to think that someone willing to use a gun in a public place might be dangerous.

      WAY better idea to stick around, and wait for the shoot out to start. Because we all know, innocent bystanders and armed “protectors” NEVER get shot.

  6. Harlan Roberts August 3rd, 2014 at 06:32

    Run away!! Run away!! Typical liberal response. If he was practicing his 2nd Amendment rights, he would have nothing to fear.

    • Carla Akins August 3rd, 2014 at 07:13

      No one is concerned with his fear. Its the others in the establishment that have no idea of his intent. Is he simply practicing his 2nd amendments rights, or just off his meds and hearing voices. Since we are unable to tell by looking, I’d rather not wait to find out. Since I can find no reasonable explanation why one would need to carry a long gun into a diner to order some bacon and eggs, I can only reasonable and rationally assume he’s up to no good.I have a right to protect myself and my family as well.

    • diggity dog August 17th, 2014 at 15:50

      I would have everything to fear. That tubby blubber in the Chipotle looks like he is compensating for his weight problem by getting an assault rifle. I would not be able to NOT make fun of how big he is. He might shoot me. I have EVERYTHING to fear from idiots with guns.

      • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:44

        Fat-shaming? Your bigotry is noted.

    • Taymie August 30th, 2014 at 11:57

      Yeah, stupid liberals. Acting like people who carry guns into public places might actually use those guns. Imagine the level of ignorance that one must possess to think that someone willing to use a gun in a public place might be dangerous.

      WAY better idea to stick around, and wait for the shoot out to start. Because we all know, innocent bystanders and armed “protectors” NEVER get shot.

  7. SA Kiteman August 3rd, 2014 at 07:59

    What the man proposes is illegal in the case of the restaurant. And leaving perishables in a shopping cart is actionable too.

    • diggity dog August 17th, 2014 at 15:54

      No it is not. Really? You can arrest me for leaving a gallon of milk in a cart IN THE GROCERY STORE? I think the better idea is to fire the stock boy who didn’t put it back in the case after I fled because the store let some unhinged moron in with an assault rifle strapped to his chest.

      • DrVonEvilPants August 29th, 2014 at 12:36

        Nothing would happen to the stock boy either. Wal-Mart has been known to leave perishables in cart for hours until it’s eventually put back.

      • SA Kiteman August 31st, 2014 at 19:37

        Yes, it IS actionable. I did not say it would necessarily BE acted upon. However, if you did it a number of times in my store, I would seriously consider banning you from the store until you paid for your past spoilage and restock effort.

        • Taymie December 27th, 2014 at 16:10

          Not is not actionable, you can not press charges on a person for taking reasonable precautions when they fear for their safety. Check your store policies and make me safe in your store and you have nothing to worry about.

          • SA Kiteman December 27th, 2014 at 19:09

            Sorry Taymie, Your paranoia is not my problem. If I agree with the constitution and you don’t like it, don’t come into my store. But if you leave food out to rot, and I see you, you could be charged with a number of things.

            • Taymie December 28th, 2014 at 00:04

              my right to be in a safe environment IS protected by law. nationwide. It is not paranoia to not know if the person with the big gun is a maniac or just someone compensating for something missing in his/ her life. All I know is that I am more likely to be shot when there are guns present, and I have every LEGAL right not to be there. May not be your problem to fix, but it is your problem to create an environment where customers reasonably feel safe.

              • SA Kiteman December 28th, 2014 at 15:17

                Please cite chapter and verse. Nowhere in the constitution is “safe environment” mentioned. Right to keep and bear arms is. Right to freedom of association is. Where is your “safe environment”?

  8. SA Kiteman August 3rd, 2014 at 07:59

    What the man proposes is illegal in the case of the restaurant. And leaving perishables in a shopping cart is actionable too.

    • diggity dog August 17th, 2014 at 15:54

      No it is not. Really? You can arrest me for leaving a gallon of milk in a cart IN THE GROCERY STORE? I think the better idea is to fire the stock boy who didn’t put it back in the case after I fled because the store let some unhinged moron in with an assault rifle strapped to his chest.

      • DrVonEvilPants August 29th, 2014 at 12:36

        Nothing would happen to the stock boy either. Wal-Mart has been known to leave perishables in cart for hours until it’s eventually put back.

      • SA Kiteman August 31st, 2014 at 19:37

        Yes, it IS actionable. I did not say it would necessarily BE acted upon. However, if you did it a number of times in my store, I would seriously consider banning you from the store until you paid for your past spoilage and restock effort.

        • Taymie December 27th, 2014 at 17:10

          Not is not actionable, you can not press charges on a person for taking reasonable precautions when they fear for their safety. Check your store policies and make me safe in your store and you have nothing to worry about.

          • SA Kiteman December 27th, 2014 at 20:09

            Sorry Taymie, Your paranoia is not my problem. If I agree with the constitution and you don’t like it, don’t come into my store. But if you leave food out to rot, and I see you, you could be charged with a number of things.

            • Taymie December 28th, 2014 at 01:04

              my right to be in a safe environment IS protected by law. nationwide. It is not paranoia to not know if the person with the big gun is a maniac or just someone compensating for something missing in his/ her life. All I know is that I am more likely to be shot when there are guns present, and I have every LEGAL right not to be there. May not be your problem to fix, but it is your problem to create an environment where customers reasonably feel safe.

              • SA Kiteman December 28th, 2014 at 16:17

                Please cite chapter and verse. Nowhere in the constitution is “safe environment” mentioned. Right to keep and bear arms is. Right to freedom of association is. Where is your “safe environment”?

  9. Darkfox Bill August 3rd, 2014 at 18:48

    Unholy matron of backward sheltered thinking. This guy is a whole other level of stupid.

  10. Darkfox Bill August 3rd, 2014 at 18:48

    Unholy matron of backward sheltered thinking. This guy is a whole other level of stupid.

  11. PavePusher August 3rd, 2014 at 23:10

    No-one is being endangered.

  12. pearlbasehore August 5th, 2014 at 17:50

    Bad guys with guns look exactly like good guys with guns. I’m not waiting around to find out which kind of yahoos I’m looking at. It’s not fear. It’s risk management.

  13. pearlbasehore August 5th, 2014 at 17:50

    Bad guys with guns look exactly like good guys with guns. I’m not waiting around to find out which kind of yahoos I’m looking at. It’s not fear. It’s risk management.

  14. diggity dog August 17th, 2014 at 15:59

    The 2nd amendment states (even if the logic behind it is outdated) that you have the right to own arms. NOT to carry it around with you everywhere. Not to have it slung – loaded – and with extra ammo – across your chest when you enter into a Chipotle. That was definitely NOT in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. And any fool who says that “bear arms” means you can carry it – I will point out that the word arms has two meanings as well and we choose to have it mean weapons and not your actual arms.

    This just defies logic and common decency. No one wants to infringe your right to bear arms. If you want to hold fast to an outdated amendment that is no longer necessary, then you are all free to carry muskets around with you – but don’t start selectively interpreting the spirit of the law.

    • PavePusher December 4th, 2014 at 11:14

      “…keep AND BEAR arms…”

      Please invest in a good dictionary.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

      Also: http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

      P.S. Where is this “common decency” defined?

      • Lori Lanham December 27th, 2014 at 10:48

        “Well-regulated militia” comes before “keep and bear arms.”

        • PavePusher December 27th, 2014 at 11:44

          Your application of grammar is incorrect.

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

          • Lori Lanham December 28th, 2014 at 12:40

            If you’d like to discuss grammar, you’re welcome to entertain the students in my English class with examples of my writing “mistakes.” These two phrases still exist in the 2nd Amendment, and I’ve cited them in the correct order.

            • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 13:33

              You haven’t been able to refute my citations. Mere order of appearance does not dictate meaning.

              http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

              I fear for your students.

              • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 14:53

                Spare us the gun manufacturer’s lobbyist websites, and fear for your OWN lack of knowledge.

                A small excerpt from An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
                Approved, May 8, 1792.

                “Militia how to be arranged, and That
                within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division,
                brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record
                made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in
                the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment
                shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or
                lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade
                shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each
                battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates.

                by whom officered.

                That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each
                division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also
                as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one
                lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company
                one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one
                drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to
                consist of

                1803, ch. 15, sec. 3.

                one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one
                fife-major…..

                • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 15:10

                  Not sure what you are trying to get at here. The Militia Act of 1903 is now the controlling law.

                  “U.S. Code Title 10,
                  Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311:

                  (a) The militia of the
                  United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and
                  … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
                  to become, citizens of the United States…

                  (b) The classes of the
                  militia are—

                  (1) the organized
                  militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

                  (2) the unorganized
                  militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of
                  the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
                  Also known as the Dick Act. Notice, how the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 also specified the arms to be acquired by the militia members, which were ALL freemen, except for a few public officials. The 1903 Dick Act didn’t specify arms for the “un-organized militia”.

                  • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 15:19

                    That does not necessarily have anything to do with the intent of the Founders.

                    Even the The Militia Act of 1903 doesn’t include anyone who can shoot himself in the foot or various other body parts.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 15:25

                      Correct, it addresses only the militia. Which has nothing to do with private ownership.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 15:28

                      Got it. Intent of the founders. OK.

                      “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
                      —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

                      “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
                      —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

                      “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
                      —Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

                      “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

                      –Patrick Henry, VA Ratifying Convention, June 2 to 26, 1788.
                      I appreciate you clearing up my confusion.

                    • sgthwjack December 28th, 2014 at 15:33

                      Speaking of founders,

                      “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, Federalist Papers #46

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 15:51

                      That has nothing about the intent either.

                      There was no standing army nor was there a ‘well regulated militia”.

                      All these quotes were from before those entities came into being, at the hands of the same Founders.

                      When Washington used the VERY well regulated militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, was HE and the militiamen from the 4 states, the NEW tyrants??

                      Do you really think that those founders were thinking that the citizenry would require fighter jets and Bradley tanks?

                      That they be armed like our small town police are today?

                      I fear YOU are STILL confused.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 16:04

                      Actually, you may be confused. The founders very much intended that the People, all of them, to be members of the militia. And the Congress did, for over 100 years, issue to the states the training regimen as outlined in the Constitution. That was what the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 was all about. That same law specified the minimal weapons each of the members were to acquire, and maintain.

                      As for what the founders were thinking, I can’t be certain. But there is no law stating that fighter jets or Bradley FIGHTING vehicles can only be owned by military. Their intent was, as evidenced by the words of Tenche Coxe, “…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” To assume anything else in the face of other such evidence is simply delusional. Nothing you have cited supports what you seem to be asserting.

                      BTW, the Militias of the states existed even under the Articles of Confederation. An Army also existed, though it was never more than a few hundred professional officers and senior enlisted, meant to be the core of any Army needed when calling forth the militia.

                    • sgthwjack December 28th, 2014 at 16:13

                      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Samuel Adams

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 16:16

                      The key is; “training regimen as outlined in the Constitution.”

                      So get back to me when all the wackos who are leaving their guns for one child to shoot a sibling, and shooting themselves in the WalMart parking lot, killing the person upstairs because they use their gun as a crutch, Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza are part of a training regime.

                      This is the tyranny under which we suffer today.

                      Meanwhile, there are other interpretations like;

                      James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his
                      constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use
                      its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming
                      the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. His argument is based
                      on a multiplicity of the historical evidence, including debates between James
                      Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying
                      Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the First
                      Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision in
                      the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 16:20

                      The actions of some do not impact the Rights of the people. The Army already existed, via the Constitution. The COnstitution laid out the responsibility of the Army and the Militia, which have no Rights. They have only Duties. The 2d ensures that the people have the Right to keep and bear the arms necessary in case the militia is called forth, but it does not limit us to active duty, or duty in the National Guard.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 16:43

                      1) That’s only an opinion.
                      2) That does not mean that the right to bear any arm by anybody is absolute.

                      That is why, Chief Justice Warren Burger said,
                      “The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest
                      pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special
                      interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in
                      1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the
                      right to have firearms at all.” In his view, the purpose of the Second
                      Amendment was “to ensure that the ‘state armies’—’the militia’—would be
                      maintained for the defense of the state.”

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 16:48

                      The Courts have stepped all over the Constitution, as you know. But there are NO limitations, concerning our Rights, within the Constitution. So yes, it was absolute!
                      Burger was an idiot and a Socialist. He used no, absolutely no, quotes from our Founders or from previous court cases. He was expressing a Leftist philosophy only!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 17:02

                      The Courts have stepped all over the Constitution, as you know. But there are NO limitations, concerning our Rights, within the Constitution. So yes, it was absolute!

                      ______

                      That’s hooey.
                      Again, there is the old, screaming fire in a crowded theater, you don’t have to right to kiddie porn, or to spew obscenities in the public square or to slander another person.

                      Burger was a conservative, but then YOU guys called Eisenhower a communist, so I have little confidence that you know what these words even mean.

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 17:09

                      As for yelling fire, if you do not give warning, you could be held criminally liable. Our Rights are limited ONLY to not harming others Rights. Carrying a firearm does not harm others’ RIghts.
                      Burger was no conservative, as evidenced by the majority of his opinions. Again, on this opinion he gave zero Constitutional backing for it!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 17:28

                      Carrying a firearm does not harm others’ RIghts.

                      ______

                      Until it does.

                      That is why Scalia said, in Heller;

                      Scalia in Heller;

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

                      Burger was very conservative. You guys just lost touch.

                      That’s why : Bruce Bartlett said, “I still consider myself to be a conservative in the tradition of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley. I don’t think most of today’s conservatives have any idea who those people were.”

                    • Guest December 28th, 2014 at 19:56

                      “Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
                      I agree, we have enough gun control laws now, but it interesting that the decision mentioned “commercial” sales and left out private sales.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:08

                      I think we need better screening and we don’t need high capacity magazines.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:20

                      What do you mean by “better screening” and “high capacity magazines”?

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 23:27

                      If the gov’t can decide that say 20 round magazines is too much, then why not 1 round magazines, why not zero. Besides, a magazine is nothing more then a box and a spring, they can be made quite easily, I have even made them on my 3D printer, and there are well over a billion of them or more (not kidding) in the US already.

                      The age of a gov’t “banning” magazines, is over. I would wish you good luck, but I really wouldn’t mean it! :)

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 06:28

                      That’s silly.
                      That is like saying that there can be no guidelines as to how much pollution you can spew out, or where and to whom you can sell cigarettes and alcohol.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:47

                      All anti gunterds leave out some of the details and context of scalias opinion, especially that he is pointing out the laws pertaining to the ABUSE of the 2A, not the lawful exercise of the 2A.

                      Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. Scalia’s statement is what is called a DICTA!

                      http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d047.htm

                      The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge’s editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.

                      Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case.

                      “Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.

                      As one judge said, ‘If general dicta in cases turning on special circumstances are to be considered as establishing the law, nothing is yet settled, or can be long settled.

                      What I have said or written, out of the case trying, or shall say or write, under such circumstances, maybe taken as my opinion at the time, without argument or full consideration; but

                      I will never consider myself bound by it when the point is fairly trying and fully argued and considered.

                      And I protest against any person considering such obiter dicta as my deliberate opinion.’

                      And another said it is ‘great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions.'”

                      From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right
                      was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
                      courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see
                      generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
                      imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

                      Reading this exact excerpt from the Heller ruling, dont see any mention or claim that additional laws were constitutional, or that additional laws were consitutional upon the law abiding, or any confiscations much less a limitation on the common use firearms in existance which this ruling did not in fact repeal Miller VS US 1939 which established the two pronged test for what is an acceptable fireamr, and geez, semi-auto weapons in common use for over 100 years are indeed qualified.

                      Oh darn, that footnote #26 states what?

                      And I quote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory
                      measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive”

                      Examples, hmmm, not specific, not ruled upon, not qualified or ruled as constitutional, SUCKS TO BE YOU!

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:04

                      Scalia’s remarks have no force of law. The Decision, throwing out the D.C. restrictions, have the force of law. All the others are open to voter influence, and we’ve generally been winning the argument.
                      Semper fi

                    • sgthwjack December 28th, 2014 at 18:29

                      The entire Bill of Rights presupposes that those rights enumerated, were pre-existing, not “granted” by the document.

                      As such, they, as well as those referenced by the 9th amendment, are not subject to approval or denial by any government. If any one of us,including our would-be rulers, violate the rights of anyone else, then punishment is in order, not before. Mucking about in the weeds with what ifs, and other such emotional, hypothetical claptrap, is simply so much Bravo Sierra!

                      Life itself is risky business, always has been and always shall be. The true nature of Liberty requires responsibility, for good or ill. Excuses do not matter, that is the truth. Simply apply logical, rational thought, and remember that whatever government can do to one, it can, and will, do to all of us. History teaches, if one expends the effort to study, THINK, and learn!

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:03

                      Sarge, I’m not sure whether you were responding to me, but it certainly seems as if we agree.
                      Semper fi

                    • sgthwjack December 29th, 2014 at 10:42

                      In support of your post, fire support of a sort. ;-))

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:05

                      I know of no such labeling of Ike. Burger was appointed by a Republican, but was not conservative in his decisions.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:13

                      Robert Welch (founder of the John Birch Society), claimed Ike was a “conscious agent of the
                      international communist conspiracy”
                      Now, they sponsored last year’s CPAC.

                      Basically, the Tea people of today.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:27

                      No, it isn’t the “Tea Party” of today. The Tea Party is about taxation, the reason why it attracts a broad spectrum of political agreement. The JBS was about Communists, and it was proved right about Eisenhower’s protection of several of his advisors.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:31

                      Oh please.
                      The Tea people know nothing about taxes.

                      The are the “Get Your Government Hands Off My Government Handouts” crowd, corporate welfare and calling everyone their leader hate, “communists”.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:38

                      The Tea Party know as much about taxes as any American! And inconsistency is immaterial, and very human!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:46

                      Pardon me if I am not impressed.

                      The Misinformed Tea Party Movement
                      http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 11:49

                      I don’t really care if you’re impressed. Most Tea Party adherents know what they want, and why. If they are inconsistent, tough.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 13:13

                      That’s what EVERYBODY says.

                      Meanwhile, They never uttered a peep when Bush was running up huge deficits or the GOP was running the K street Project.
                      They questioned the patriotism of everyone who disagreed with them and called them ,“anti-American” and “With the terrorists”.

                      Once Bush’s numbers plummeted, they just tiptoed backwards out of the room put on a tri-cornered hat and said, “George W Who?? Oh, we never liked him! He’s not a REAL conservative!! We’re Tea partiers now!!!”

                      Then they were chanting, “WE HAD ENOUGH!!” 2 1/2 months AFTER a new government took office, at the behest of the elites who caused the problems to begin with, when they feared TRUE reform.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 13:17

                      Actually, they began to organize in response to Bush’s spending. But you apparently weren’t paying any attention then.
                      Semper fi

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 16:56

                      BTW, what is only an opinion? That the Army and militia were accounted for in the Constitution? Or that the Army and Militia have no Rights? If the latter, precisely what Rights do the Army and/or the Militia have?
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 16:59

                      That the Founders intended everybody and anybody to be armed.
                      I ask again;
                      In the Whiskey Rebellion, who represented the “tyranny”?

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 17:11

                      That was the government who represented tyranny! The whiskey producers of Pennsylvania were being oppressed by those who wished to profit from whiskey, and there was no justification for the taxes being levied on them. For this reason, the tax was later rescinded!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 17:21

                      The duly elected thought otherwise.
                      But if the government has been tyrannical (meaning they disagree with you), since it’s inception, then perhaps Somalia is a better fit.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:04

                      It’s illegal to own firearms in Somalia. I believe I’ll stay here and continue to help those who try to restrain government back to it’s original limitations.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:15

                      No it’s not, just as everyone was armed in Saddam’s Iraq.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:25

                      Somalia’s regulations concerning firearms are easily available on line, where I found them. Ownership of firearms in Saddam’s Iraq was limited to his tribe.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:33

                      I found them as well.

                      And “Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.”, (including the Shia).

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:37

                      That was allowed, but the laws were different from what was allowed!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:48

                      The guns didn’t help them any more than they helped the Jews in the The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising .

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 11:49

                      The Jews of Warsaw knew they would lose the fight. They decided to resist anyway, knowing it’s better to die on your feet than on your knees. They tied down most of 3 German Divisions and a host of police units. The Divisions were slated for the Russian front. While not a deciding factor, the temporary lack of those Divisions helped ensure that Von Paulus’ Army Group was defeated by the Russians, ultimately surrendering. Your lack of historical knowledge does you no benefit. But your preference of slavery over death is noted.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 13:05

                      We know that.
                      Those without guns would do as well against similar lopsided opposition.
                      Too bad YOUR ignorance of history does not serve you and too bad you expect me to bow to the tyranny of the gun lobby.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 13:19

                      The gun lobby’s “tyranny” extends only to demanding that you leave us alone! Leave the Constitution alone. Do that and there is no “tyranny”! The only tyranny I see is from you anti-Constitution people demanding that government be allowed to operate in unconstitutional manners.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 13:35

                      The gun lobby’s “tyranny” extends only to demanding that you leave us alone!

                      _______

                      Nobody’s buying it.

                      The gun lobby’s “tyranny” extends only to demanding that you leave the next man who used his rifle as a crutch and accidentally killed 5 year old upstairs neighbor alone, and those who leave their guns out so that children can shoot each other and that we respect the rights of Adam Lanza’s mom over the rights of the victims.

                      And you don’t have a lock on the Constitution, which is why at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.”
                      Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

                      “.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

                      The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 13:46

                      No, we don’t demand what you claim. Nor has the NRA claimed to have a “lock” on the Constitution. We claim that the 2d Amendment protects our Rights from government infringement. As for what the NRA puts on it’s wall, that’s none of your business. We haven’t “edited” anything out, keeping marksmanship on the front burner at all times.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 14:04

                      And we claim that the 2nd amendment protects our right to have a “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State” instead of a standing army.

                      “There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.” –Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

                      WE claim that Scalia was correct in Heller (even though I disagree with the decision);
                      “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is
                      not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
                      in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
                      prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The
                      Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions
                      on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws
                      forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
                      and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications
                      on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the
                      sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds
                      support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous
                      and unusual weapons.”

                      The NRA is now just a lobbyist for gun manufacturers.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 14:53

                      The NSSF is the lobbying organization for gun manufacturers.
                      You Lefties love to quote Scalia, but forget that ALL 9 Justices held that the Right is an individual one. As for Miller, the Court held that firearms protected by the 2d are those designed for “militia use”! That would include ALL rifles, pistols, submachine guns, and automatic rifles. It does not, and never did, include crew-served weapons or explosives, although ownership of such was completely unregulated until 1934.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 15:16

                      No they didn’t.

                      The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

                      And no one disputes the right of some or many individuals to have arms to protect themselves.

                      The 2nd only guarantees that right to those willing to subject themselves to the rigors of the well regulated militia.

                      And who are “You lefties”?

                      I question the usage here, as “Righties” USED to think as I do.

                      Remember ;

                      ” There is no reason why on the street today a citizen
                      should be carrying loaded weapons.”

                      Governor Ronald Reagan upon signing the Mulford Act in 1967, “prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.”

                      ???

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 15:55

                      Read his dissent. He begins with an agreement that the Right is individual!
                      Reagan was the best President of the 20th century, but that doesn’t mean he was always correct in the end.
                      Cruikshank would be stare decisis, and came before the post-Miller cases, by your reasoning making them moot!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 16:01

                      Frankly, I think Reagan was one of the worst presidents.

                      What exactly did Stevens say??

                    • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 09:00

                      Here are the first two sentences of Stevens’ dissent. ” The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 30th, 2014 at 19:37

                      Then he goes on to explain,” But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.”..” Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question. The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

                      In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.”

                      Which is EXACTLY what gun control advocates say.

                    • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 19:44

                      Why yes, he does go on, in his failed dissent. But, as you saw, he and the other three dissenters ALL believe it an individual Right!
                      Miller did not, in any manner, hold that the people of the states have a Right to arm themselves to maintain a well regulated militia. The Miller decision does NOT address that subject, in any way. If you did an iota of research, you know that full well, and yet you post Stevens’ dissent as if it holds truth??
                      Read the 2d paragraph you posted. The court addressed the efficacy of a sawed off shotgun, and NOT the militia. What they actually said is that military arms are precisely what the 2d Amendment protects, to the people. Stevens says it applies to an individual Right!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 30th, 2014 at 19:59

                      Yes. An individual right that is not absolute and can be regulated by the state.

                      And yes; “We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

                      In other words, it is not used as part of the well regulated militia, therefor it is not an absolute right.
                      “The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the
                      Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that
                      “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
                      [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation
                      or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
                      Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307
                      U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding
                      the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.

                      Since United States v. Miller, most federal
                      court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as
                      preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.”

                      And Stevens dissent as well as Miller holds as much truth as the opinion of any other justice…. IF you did any research.

                    • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 20:10

                      You forget that this was a decision driven by an anti-Constitution former Governor, and that the claimant had died some time before, and therefore wasn’t in Court to present his case! Further, the case was NOT about the militia, but about the efficiency of a sawed off shotgun as a military weapon. It was not, and is not, though shotguns are legitimate battle weapons, in use by the Marine Corps and the Army. Read the plain English. Military firearms are those which are protected to the individual citizen, specifically! No court decision held as you claim!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 30th, 2014 at 20:19

                      Perhaps YOU forget that it was a very PRO-Constitution former Governor. (see you don’t get to decide WHO is PRO or ANTI Constitution)

                      The decision was based upon the premise that if you don’t use it in the well regulated militia, it can be regulated by the state.

                      NO ONE says, “Military firearms are those which are protected to the individual citizen,”, else the individual could have an RPG.

                    • John Crawford December 31st, 2014 at 08:51

                      No, the governor (also a judge) had an ax to grind, and he ground it in the Supreme Court, which ruled very differently than he wished. Miller clearly stated that military weapons are those which are most applicable under the 2d Amendment. It never mentioned service in a militia. And while the 2d Amendment WAS open to the states, it has been incorporated and is no longer applicable in that manner.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 31st, 2014 at 13:56

                      No, the governor (also a judge) had an ax to grind, and he ground it in the Supreme Court

                      ________

                      That’s what EVERYONE says when they don’t get the ruling they want.

                      That’s what they say about David N. Bossie and Citizens United , and Hobby Lobby.

                      The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

                      Miller clearly stated that the 2nd Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia, implying membership in such a militia).

                    • John Crawford December 31st, 2014 at 14:08

                      Yep, but the judges in the CU case weren’t driving it, nor had any Governors a beef with the claimants, as was the case in Miller.
                      No such implications exist. Court decisions say what they mean. It is military weapons that are specifically protected to individual ownership and use.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 31st, 2014 at 14:17

                      ep, but the judges in the CU case weren’t driving it,

                      ______

                      ??????

                      Of course they were.

                      Bossie only broke the law to get it into the SCOTUS and pass new campaign finance law, with judges with whom his crowd fund raise.

                      It is military weapons that are specifically protected to individual ownership and use.

                      _______

                      I agree. If the individual is part of a well regulated militia, not just any yahoo who shots at raindrops as we have now.

                      That why Burger was correct in saying that it has become a fraud.

                    • John Crawford December 31st, 2014 at 14:25

                      Nothing in the 2d Amendment requires membership in an organized militia. That isn’t how Rights work! Or, are you a member in good standing at a newspaper? If not, how is it you have a Right to type on your computer?
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 31st, 2014 at 14:39

                      Nothing in the 2d Amendment requires membership in an organized militia.

                      ______

                      At least half of the legal scholars believe that that is EXACTLY what 2nd amendment requires.

                      And it has nothing to do with being a member of a newspaper and the first amendment, as my right to free speech can be regulated the same as my right to own any gun.
                      No right is absolute, especially when it diminishes the right of another.

                    • John Crawford December 31st, 2014 at 15:30

                      And yet, none of those scholars can point to anything in the words of our Founders to support their assertions, nor in the deliberations that lead to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. English scholars have parsed the 2d Amendment to death, and cannot come up with a meaning to support them.
                      Your last is incomplete! Until my exercise of my Rights DOES diminish the Rights of another, they are absolute!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 31st, 2014 at 15:52

                      And yet, none of those scholars can point to anything in the words of our Founders to support their assertions, nor in the deliberations that lead to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

                      _______

                      That’s EXACTLY what THEY say to YOU.

                      It is clear from the language of the amendment, especially the debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the
                      First Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision
                      in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

                      ….”Rights DOES diminish the Rights of another, they are absolute!”

                      _______

                      No, they are not.
                      Before you speak, you don’t have the right to libel me.
                      I don’t have the right to speak in public to give your name and address to incite violence against you.
                      One doesn’t have to right to distribute pornography to children or to yell “BOMB!” on an airplane.

                    • John Crawford January 1st, 2015 at 12:39

                      Libel diminishes your Right to your good name. That is the first piece of evidence that you don’t know what you’re speaking of. And so do the others.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 1st, 2015 at 14:29

                      Thou dost project too much, Methinks. (especially about knowing what you are talking about.)

                      Libel, (including defamation and slander), obscenity, fighting words, sedition, incitement to crime, and causing panic are all examples of speech that can be restricted.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 12:38

                      All of those violate the Rights of others. They are NOT restricted. They are punished, which is far different.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 12:45

                      All of those violate the Rights of others. They are NOT restricted.

                      _______

                      Punished MEANS they are restricted.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 13:21

                      No, it doesn’t mean restricted. If you use fighting words to me, or libel me, but I don’t complain, you are NOT penalized. That means there is no restriction!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 13:33

                      Don’t be silly.

                      If you obtain an illegal fire arm and don’t use it against anyone, it’s STILL restricted, as is certain speech.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 13:41

                      Libel is NOT illegal. Neither is slander. They are grounds for civil suit only.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 13:50

                      Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libels liability is constitutional.

                      Threatening terrorism against the United States is a class C felony punishable by 10 years imprisonment

                      Threatening the government officials of the United States is a serious crime under federal law. Threatening the President of the United States is a Class D felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 13:56

                      Threatening terrorism is a matter of definition, means, opportunity, and intent. Lots of people “threaten”, and are rarely prosecuted because it is words only!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 14:03

                      That is true.
                      It is still an example of how the first amendment is not absolute.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 14:17

                      No, it is absolute until you harm the Rights of others, as I said. That is the ONLY way in which it is not absolute, and NO ONE has claimed otherwise. Only the Left attempts to take this to the extreme you (again) try. Not the Right.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 14:32

                      No, it is NOT absolute. That is why you can not purchase a stinger missile.
                      All the right has, is taking EVERYTHING to the extreme, to pander to a niche audience.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 14:45

                      Who has told you that you cannot buy a stinger? They lied. If you have the money, and can fulfill the bureaucratic requirements, you may certainly buy a stinger!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 14:54

                      January 27, 2013 at 4:20 PM

                      After buyback program, Seattle police try to track history of missile launcher

                      Posted by Beth Kaiman

                      The Associated Press

                      Seattle police are tracking down the history of a nonfunctional missile launcher that showed up at a Saturday weapons buyback event in Seattle.

                      Detective Mark Jamieson said a man standing outside the buyback event bought the military weapon for $100 from another person at the event. The item, a single-use device that had already been used, is a launch-tube assembly for a Stinger portable surface-to-air missile. He said detectives will notify Army Criminal Investigation on Monday.

                      Jamieson said the launcher is a controlled military item and is not available to civilians through any surplus or disposal program offered by the government. He said the launch tube was most likely obtained unlawfully from the military, and would likely be returned to Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

                      http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/01/after-buyback-program-seattle-police-try-to-track-history-of-missile-launcher/

                    • John Crawford January 3rd, 2015 at 14:50

                      The launcher is available for sale. Being a multi-use launcher, it is covered by regulation. So it’s either stolen, or the government lost it. Both happen.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 4th, 2015 at 08:37

                      From where is it available?

                    • John Crawford January 4th, 2015 at 10:57

                      I haven’t looked in a while, and don’t bookmark those sites, not having any use for such.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 4th, 2015 at 11:08

                      I think you are mistaken.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 18:28

                      You want to know what is really funny? Burger pronouncing the 2A was a fraud on the people of the US, yet, when his liberal brethren had the opportunity to say the exact same thing, in 2008, DC v. Heller, they missed that boat completely.

                      “In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.”

                      Justice Breyer,with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsberg join, dissenting.

                      Then there was the OTHER dissent,

                      “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “Individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.”

                      Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
                      So, it seems as if the decision, in Heller, was 9-0 when it pondered if the 2A was an individual right, or ONLY for the militia units of the state. Seems as if even fellow liberals couldn’t even accept his nonsense.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 18:46

                      You want to know what is really funny? Burger pronouncing the 2A was a fraud on the people of the US

                      _______

                      1) That’s not what he said. He said that ““The
                      Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I
                      repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that
                      I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

                      The key word here being “subject”.

                      2) Burger’s conservative brethren are dupes of the gun manufacturers.

                      And in the dissent of the 5-4 decision;

                      The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 19:10

                      Conservative brethren? The 4 who voted in the dissent aren’t his brethren, and Burger is no conservative. He never has been. Like I said, his LIBERAL brethren could have said the exact same thing.
                      Now, as for Stevens dissent, he lost. As did Breyer. So, while their dissents are interesting, they are irrelevant to the fact the 2A protects an individual right. It is also irrelevant what he thought the framers actually desired, because he is projecting HIS ideals and beliefs upon the framers.
                      I would be happy to read over any quote from the framers which would support your thesis. The problem is, they don’t exist.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 19:35

                      Of course Burger is a conservative.

                      And I refer to the conservatives on the Court.

                      “It is also irrelevant what he thought the framers actually desired, because he is projecting HIS ideals and beliefs upon the framers.”
                      _______

                      That is what the NRA and their supplicants in government do.

                      As for any quote from the Framers; I would suggest the entire 2nd amendment.

                      Also see;

                      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

                      Then you have to tell me if Washington was guilty of tyranny when he used the “well regulated militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, (so that as soon as the Founders BECAME the government, they BECAME the tyrants that the people had to be armed against?) …..

                      Then, you need to explain allowing the military and the police from acquiring overwhelming force.
                      Better get an RPG and a Bradley.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 20:19

                      CARL T. BOGUS? Please, tell me you are kidding. He is a hack, that has been refuted more times than Raquel Welch has been held by men. No original research on his own, but lifting the idea wholesale from a 1949 book.

                      http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/30/the-second-amendment-was-not-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

                      As for your ridiculous question concerning the Whiskey Rebellion, why don’t you answer your own question? Only you are even suggesting Washington engaged in tyranny, you answer your loaded question, because any answer I gave, you would consider WRONG, regardless of accuracy.
                      As for the military getting overwhelming weapons? All for it. I would never want to go into a war zone with a potato gun, but you are welcome to do so.
                      As for police, we agree! The police have been militarized, mostly because of the “War on (some) Drugs”. Time to admit defeat in that “war”, force the police to get rid of the military weapons, and drastically scale back the SWAT teams. While I personally abhor illegal drugs, the feds have NO power ceded by the states for the manner in which this ill conceived pogrom has been implemented.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:34

                      I think Bogus is pretty much accurate, he supplies a lot of excellent sources. You give the right wing Independent Institute?

                      Clearly, Washington intended the VERY well regulated militia to put down the rebellion.
                      I think the idea of an armed citizenry fighting the government with their little phallic symbols today is ludicrous and childish, and meant only to line the pockets of the gun industry.

                      I agree about the war on drugs, but now we need to fear the tyranny of the gun makers and wacko gun owners and their sycophants.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 20:46

                      If you think Bogus is accurate and legitimate, then there is no hope to have a fairly polite discussion about this subject.
                      Interesting that it seems you didn’t even look at the citation, just dismissed it because you are afraid to look at this honestly, I guess.

                      As for “armed citizenry fighting the government with their little phallic symbols today is ludicrous and childish”, have you seen what happened to the military in the Middle and Far East? The citizenry of those countries were able to defeat the French, the Russians, and gave us a run for the money. And they used “their little phallic symbols”

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 21:12

                      That’s what I say about you and your sources.

                      So what?

                      What citation? Anthony Gregory??

                      Read it. Not impressed.

                      as for; what happened to the military in the Middle and Far East?

                      Oh, please.
                      Most were armed by others.
                      The Viet Cong had Chinese and Soviet weapons, but most homemade booby traps.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:24

                      reagan did help by arming them

                    • Guest December 28th, 2014 at 23:22

                      Does that mean what happened to the French in Vietnam, qualifies as being cocksmacked? :)

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 22:49

                      If it were only a question of what level of force a nation can bring to bear, then we wouldn’t still be waging a war in Afghanistan after 13 years. Whether or not, another revolution is viable in the modern era is of course debatable, but there certainly could not be any victory against a tyrannical gov’t if there were no weapons with which to fight with.

                      I don’t believe such a scenario will ever come to pass, but for the sake of discussion, lets say it did, do you really think Americans would to go toe to toe with the worlds most powerful military? The US Military is a small, and technologically sophisticated machine, designed to utterly destroy other armies, and trust me when I say, we do this well. However it is contingent upon knowing where the enemy is, what they’re doing, and being able to attack them effectively.

                      However, as seen in our conflicts in recent years and in the past, our military has a much tougher time against combatants who engage in unconventional warfare. When fighting insurgencies, their military command and control structure is highly decentralized, and thus, very difficult to diminish or destroy. Practitioners of guerilla warfare, utilize hit and run tactics, harass supply lines and infrastructure and use an overall strategy of slowly bleeding out and weakening a militarily superior enemy, thus denying it, a fight on it’s own terms, this same strategy was used against us in Vietnam.

                      Our military is a broadsword, its not a scalpel, it’s simply not designed that way, urban and asymmetric warfare, are the toughest types of warfare to wage, and history is replete with example after example of small or less powerful forces defeating larger or more powerful ones.

                      This is just an academic exercise, but there is more to warfare then just rolling in with over whelming force. The United States is huge you have no idea the logistics involved in securing a nation this size. No offense, but you might consider sticking to topics you’re better versed in, war is not a game.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:23

                      “I think the idea of an armed citizenry fighting the government with their little phallic symbols today is ludicrous and childish…”

                      Apparently, you need to read up on “asymmetrical warfare” and “guerilla warfare”. Then explain why we’ve been in Afghanistan for 13 years. (Been there myself, so do your homework.) Then you need to look at whether the U.S. military would side with the People or the Government in any particular scenario.
                      By the way, firearms are not “phallic symbols”. Get some counseling. Soon.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 06:41

                      Apparently, you need to read up on “asymmetrical warfare” and “guerilla warfare”.

                      ________

                      Oh, please, grow up.

                      We’ve been in Afghanistan for 13 years because no one wants to be the one to give up and because they have minerals.

                      US military side with the people???

                      The “People” are torn and divided, and can’t decide with whom to side.

                      In YOUR naive scenario, we would see ALL the people and military and police against a few bureaucrats and elected officials. Guns would hardly be necessary.

                      What’s wrong with you?

                      As for; “By the way, firearms are not “phallic symbols”

                      They are EXACTLY that.

                      As another poster called it; “the Teeny Weeny Peeny Club”.

                      I would not tell others to seek counseling if I were you.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:42

                      Only pedophiles and rapists obsess so much with others junk, do tell!

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 20:53

                      BTW, Burger is anything BUT a conservative!

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 21:04

                      He is absolutely a conservative.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 21:10

                      Look at his decisions and his court.
                      There is rarely a conservative case he voted with the dissent. He ALSO voted in the majority in Roe v. Wade. No, Burger was no conservative.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:15

                      You can buy almost anything available to the police or military, if you have the funds. And then you can band together with other like-minded Citizens. All perfectly legal.

                      Have at it.

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 19:46

                      Chief Justice Warren Burger laid out no evidence to support his claims, remember, any assertion made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, thus burger’s personal opinion is meaningless.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 19:51

                      Chief Justice Warren Burger laid out no evidence to support his claims,

                      ________

                      That’s what they say about the other side.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 19:53

                      That’s what we say about the other side.

                      And about EVERY 2nd amendment case in our history.

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 19:59

                      It was not a ruling though, it was his own personal opinion. In Heller, even the more liberal justices in the dissent gave reasons, and pointed to historical precedents to support their claims, Burger, nothing.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:07

                      That is true, but that doesn’t make Burger’s point less true.

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 20:20

                      Nothing is true unless it is verifiable though the use facts and rational discourse, otherwise, crazy stuff like “last thursdayism”, “creationism”, “geo centrism” and “flat earthism” would be valid assertions.

                      in science theories are not proven, only disproven, with the exception of mathematics, thus Burgers” opinion is meaningless. If he had had any information to back him up, I’m certain he would have laid it out in the article, but he didn’t, and we are left to assume, that he couldn’t.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:42

                      Nothing is true unless it is verifiable though the use facts and rational discourse,

                      _______

                      That is basically true of every decision made by the Courts and every bit of legislation passed.

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 21:18

                      All of that may be true, but you’re drifting off topic, which is Burgers assertions in regards to the 2A. If Chief Justice Burger is right, we should expect that legal materials of the nineteenth century would clearly support his claim. In the period before the founding of the NRA , we should not expect to find assertions that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

                      Unless you care to do some research as Burger’s proxy and produce valid evidence showing that the 2A confirms and protects a “collective” right, then, once again, Berger’s assertion is invalid, and may be dismissed without further ado.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:12

                      Except that there’s nothing to support him in history or legal precedent.

                      Otherwise, yeah, whateveh….

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:10

                      Burger was wrong, and couldn’t get 4 other justices to agree with his legal opinion. So he’s irrelevant on this issue.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:37

                      The actions of some do not impact the Rights of the people…why do you and the gop push voting restrictions, it is a right?

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:42

                      No-one is “pushing” anything more than our current Second Amendment screening. Prove your eligibility.

                      If it’s O.K. for one Amendment, it’s O.K. for the other, right? After all, all the arguments against ID for voting would also apply to ID (and hence the NICS) for buying a gun. Right?

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:42

                      What do you demokrats have to hide…..nothing, so why then are you so for an ID to exercise the 2A but so against an ID to vote, when a country like India, where 40% of the population makes less than $1.25 USD a day, but EVERYONE has an ID……

                      Maybe the poor should buy an ID rather than a Colt 45 Malt Liquor eh sweety!

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 13:02

                      troll babble, yuck

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:01

                      No such restrictions have been proposed.
                      Semper fi

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 13:00

                      you are kidding, right?

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 13:19

                      Not a bit. There are no restrictions proposed, and you cannot show one!
                      Semper fi

                    • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:10

                      if “minorities” were to enter a restaurant where you were dining with your family, you’d be the first on the phone with the police, calling the manager and threatening to walk out w/o paying if they weren’t removed because they were carrying guns. wrong skin color or wrong ethnic group. go figure.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:09

                      YOU are a liar and a bigot. Play your filthy Race Card(tm) elsewhere.

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 01:28

                      liar and bigot? you would hope that to be true about me. sorry, but here’s what’s true; that a black man in walmart was shot to death while holding a fake gun in the walmart toy section, was because a white man called and lied to the police that he was pointing it at people, when the video clearly showed that not to be the case. there is open carry there, but, by him being black, he was automatically a threat. so who was playing the paranoid race card there? he wasn’t doing anything that might suggest he was going to harm anyone. i, and quite frankly, you, shouldn’t be afraid of him. i would be afraid of a white male first doing that. and there is a reason for the race “card” if you will, its been obvious for centries that “minorities” have been a target for everything under the sun, even when its not warranted. and they are all genetically bad. but, let a white man do worse, and they are all mentally ill. by that standard, all white people should be on meds.

                    • Guest December 29th, 2014 at 02:05

                      Yeah, a paranoid “white man” who called the cops like yourself? My heart grieves for that poor guy, all because idiots like you run rampant with your absurd paranoid ways. You want to what kind a person could make that call, go look in the mirror.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:00

                      If you think so, you don’t know me. All such decisions are completely dependent on apparent attitude of the carrier. A man or woman who merely enter with a slung rifle or shotgun would pose no threat to me.
                      Semper fi

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 18:16

                      Then let’s let Congress send to the states the requirements for training. But Congress managed to get around that in 1903, when they passed the Dick Act, which divided the militia into 2 distinct classes of militia. The formal militia, which is the National Guard, and the unorganized Militia, which is everyone not a member of the National Guard.
                      Firearms can be used for more than crimes. They are used for both good and ill. 2 of the most anti-gun economists I am aware of even claimed, in 1997, the latest time the government has done such a study, there were 1.46 million lawful DGU incidents annually. Whether you will accept that is not important, because there is NO WAY of knowing how many homicides have been averted because of lawful self defense with a firearm. I know I may have stopped at least 1, over 25 years ago now when I stopped 3 30ish thugs from beating a 79 y/o, 100% combat disabled veteran. Long story short, not a single person was injured, except my dad, who was severely bruised and battered by these punks. I used a shotgun, and they all ran like the cowards they were.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 18:38

                      So far the point is that it is doubtful that the founders intended that any doofus who wants a gun should have any gun they can afford to buy.

                      I think that gun owners should be required to carry insurance to compensate those whom they hurt.

                      As for stopping homicides…
                      Funny how everyone has facts that back up their preferred outcome.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 19:05

                      There are some 13 prohibited classes of persons who are not allowed to own, or even touch, firearms. How many more do you want, and what are they?

                      I can say about anyone else, but my homeowners policy protects me for any accidental injuries due to firearms. What is does not protect against, nor will any insurance carrier insure for, is the deliberate misuse of firearms in crimes. Won’t ever happen, so why even propose such, unless you, like many GCZ, think it a backdoor way to limit gun ownership.

                      Stopping homicides, yes, there are quite a few different studies. None, as yet, have ever been refuted. I invite you to show us the refutation of this particular study, which is the one I referenced above.

                      wwwDOTncjrsDOTgov/pdffiles/165476DOTpdf

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 19:13

                      There are some 13 prohibited classes of persons who are not allowed to own, or even touch, firearms. How many more do you want, and what are they?

                      __________

                      Clearly, it is not enough when we have so many deaths and injuries.

                      What is does not protect against, nor will any insurance carrier insure for, is the deliberate misuse of firearms in crimes.

                      ________

                      That is why people who harm others either accidentally thru negligence or deliberately, present a a greater risk and should carry more insurance, or be uninsurable.

                      Nothing comes up with that site, plus, why are they so afraid??

                      CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage

                      The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

                      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UWqhghyBiDs

                      How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun
                      Violence Research

                      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1#ixzz2JbYmnpvQ

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 20:31

                      As for the site not coming up, probably the government doing maintenance. Keep trying, it will be back tomorrow or the next day. You do realize that site is a US Government site, right?

                      “Clearly, it is not enough when we have so many deaths and injuries.” What a non answer. Get specific. Do you even know the classes that are prohibited, and do you know it is mostly the prohibited persons who commit the vast majority of gun crimes?
                      Do you have any idea of what “deliberate MISUSE of a firearm” means? Be careful, deliberate MISUSE of your 1A rights can ALSO land you in hot water.
                      What NONE of those links tell readers, is that the CDC had been engaging in POLITICAL ADVOCACY. A crime when done by federal employees, on federal time, using federal money. I very well remember this, and applauded my federal representatives for their vote when they voted to withhold funds for POLITICAL ADVOCACY.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:41

                      “deliberate MISUSE of a firearm” means? Be careful, deliberate MISUSE of your 1A rights can ALSO land you in hot water.

                      ____________

                      It doesn’t matter.
                      We see hundreds of “accidents” or misuse, deliberate or otherwise every month.
                      If gun owners were responsible, we would not be calling for more control.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 21:05

                      Gun owners are responsible, for the most part. Over 300,000,000 firearms in the USA, about 100,000,000 gun owners, and then 411 true accidental deaths of 0-14 y/o children in 2012, according to the CDC.
                      Misuse is the DELIBERATE actions of a person usually in the commission of a crime. NO INSURANCE COMPANY IS GOING TO INSURE AGAINST THAT.
                      At most, you see a few accidents with firearms in a month. And the CRIMINALS who are not supposed to even touch a gun are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes. Instead of infringing on MY rights, how about instead we keep violent criminals locked up till they are incapable of harming another innocent? But the leftist politicians don’t want that. It takes away from their voter base.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:30

                      you are using numbers culled and changed by a group gunfacts.info. Their byline is “gun myths” they changed the parameters, ages and locations to make the deaths seem lower, very disingenuous.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:07

                      Who are you talking to, and on what subject?

                    • Old Jarhead December 29th, 2014 at 08:43

                      The only number is the 411, which I got from the CDC WISQARS report for 2012. That was strictly for the accidental shootings, as that is what the poster specified. I do appreciate the link, and will study it later. Have a wonderful New Year.

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 13:01

                      which came from the same source, brietbarting is lying

                    • Old Jarhead December 29th, 2014 at 14:38

                      The CDC is getting their numbers from a website called gunfacts? Please, explain this a little better, because I have never seen gunfacts before today, which you linked.

                    • Old Jarhead December 29th, 2014 at 08:48

                      After a cursory glance, all I can say is thank you. This seems it may be an invaluable source when debating the hoplaphopes.

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 13:00

                      you used that site to cull your numbers and they were changed from the original to fit your narrative

                    • Old Jarhead December 29th, 2014 at 14:36

                      Nope. I went directly to the CDC WISQARS site. It is quite simple, and I don’t need to “cull” my numbers, when I get them directly from the CDC site. Even you could go there, specify age group 0-14, firearm accidents, and let the site do the work for you. At least, that is how I found only 411 ACCDENTAL deaths for all of 2012. So, are you saying the CDC is using the site you linked?

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:07

                      So, some 90-130 MILLION gun owners are “irresponsible” because a few hundred have accidents?

                      Obvious broad-brush is obvious. Tell us, do you use such stereotyping on groups other than gun-owners? Perhaps certain minority groups?

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:03

                      Try this link: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
                      You have to replace “DOT” with “.”……

                      See page 8.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:01

                      And your “point” has been refuted.

                      Repeatedly.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:15

                      Since it is a proven government data fact that 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers and not law abiding gun owners, explain again how you will not violate those bad guys 5th amendment right of no self incrimination to force them to 1) carry liability insurance 2) get an insurance underwriter to write an insurance policy for an intentional criminal act….aint happening sunshine!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 06:22

                      1) The Republikans stopped the data.

                      CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage

                      The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s,
                      but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle
                      Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s
                      budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

                      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UWqhghyBiDs

                      How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun
                      Violence Research

                      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1#ixzz2JbYmnpvQ

                      2) We are just as concerned about the negligent, irresponsible legal gun use.

                      3) Everything else you said about insurance is silly.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:29

                      Since my friend is an insurance underwriter for State Farm with 28 years in the industry and is a Lawyer by trade, good luck proving him wrong sweety!

                      Now back to reality of your inferred lies!

                      http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm

                      Amazing how in 1986 ER Dr Kellerman presented a study to the New England Journal of Medicine

                      This was the 43 times more likely false science study.

                      Well, see in the academic world, one submits the data for peer
                      review so that your hypothesis can be verified, or debunked. Funny, Dr. Kellerman didnt provide that data for 4 years, hmmmm, why would he have done such a thing? Afterall his results clealry claimed guns were a disease (epidimology study methodology)?

                      Then when he did provide the data, it had missing data, e.g. he
                      removed every incident of valid self defense as that would change his predetermined desired results!

                      Not to mention he had glaring holes in his methodology, refusing to acknowledge the criminal life style many of the surveyed indivudals led, the drug dealing, theft rings, etc, etc, etc they participated in as a lifestyle.

                      So since Kellerman decided that exercising ones 2A is a
                      disease and didnt seperate between criminal & law abiding and his blatant refusal to allow independent review of his data for 4 years, then the obvious intentional manipulation of said data to reach a desired result, and the results being disproven, the studies were blatant academic fraud, blatant lies.

                      The CDC refused to discontinue producing such politcially motivated junk science so in turn they got spanked by congress for lying.

                      You know it is a pretty blatant lie when even congress critters, the most prolific pathological lairs known to mankind,
                      paddles your backside for lying!

                      Sadly it appears polticial ideology still carries more weight
                      today with the CDC still, rather than trying to show real root causes of violence, you know, greed, lust, avarice, poverty, gangs, drug & alcohol abuse, broken family unit, 1 momma w 8 kids & 8 different daddies…..

                      The newest study put out in 2013, also by Dr Kellerman,
                      intentionally did not include District of Columbia data (among other things), we are on to his false tricks and would tear his methodology to pieces cause he is too stupid to change to method that would provide some credibility to his position, but then again, anti gunterds aren’t endeared with much in the way of common sense, and amazingly if one does include the D.C. data, his results don’t show correlation.

                      One who actually wants to find the truth wouldn’t do such a
                      thing, but Kellerman is not interested in the actual truth, only to sell his agenda!

                      Then this 3rd fake science study only included guns in suicides
                      when one must look at the actual number of suicides attempted to ascertain an effect on the population.

                      See, we can go to ANY country where strict gun controls are
                      implemented, and show EVERYONE how the number of suicide ATTEMPTS didnt decrease after they implemented strict gun control. so sad.

                      Yeah, so sad that the 1st amendment allows such pathological lies to be passed off as science, when it is junk science.

                      For a specific disproving of Kellermans bias and lies, review:

                      Disarming the Data Doctors: How To Debunk The “Public
                      Health” Basis For “Gun Control”

                      Friday, 16 January 2009 03:07 By Richard W. Stevens** Adjunct professor, Legal Research & Writing, George Washington University School of Law.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 06:51

                      Aren’t we ALL lawyers and insurance underwriters, (and ex-milirtary)

                      Why do you guys keep providing these bogus, unsourced “studies”, from ” from a local fellow who works in the health care field”???

                      Don’t be silly.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:59

                      All you keep posting is disproven pathological lies, so you really arent qualified in any sane world to judge what is or isnt real or silly sweety!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:13

                      Thou dost project too much, methinks.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:15

                      ^So sad oh king of projection who only relies on emotions and therefore isnt thinking to begin with as thinking implies the use of logic, facts and data….you dont!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:25

                      nly relies on emotions and therefore isnt thinking to begin with as thinking implies the use of logic, facts and data….you dont!

                      _______

                      Isn’t that EXACTLY what YOU are doing??

                      But you can have your little toys and shoot yourself in the foot and various other body parts, but the fear is that you will shoot someone else by accident, or leave the gun for a child or crazy person to pick up.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:31

                      I am not the one too stupid to prove world leading criminologists and government data wrong about career criminals committing 80% of all the violent crimes, you are!

                      I am not the one too stupid to prove USDOJ studies and data wrong, you are!

                      I am not the one too stupid to prove FBI UCR data wrong, you are!

                      Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc………

                      All we hear from you is emotional blithering WAAAHH DATS NOT FWAIR USING FWACTS I CANT PWOVE WONG, WAAAAAAHHHH!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:37

                      I am not the one too stupid to prove world leading criminologists and government data wrong about career criminals committing 80% of all the violent crimes, you are!

                      _______

                      Oh, please.

                      You have proved nothing but that you can copy and paste facts that are irrelevant to the discussion, while ignoring ;

                      http://ajph.aphapublications.org/

                      http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

                      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

                      And…

                      CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage

                      The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s,
                      but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle
                      Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s
                      budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

                      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UWqhghyBiDs

                      How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun
                      Violence Research

                      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1#ixzz2JbYmnpvQ

                      So, sorry, if I’m unimpressed.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 07:41

                      Lets identify who exactly is responsible for the majority of that violence first.

                      http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

                      We see where the FBI has repeatedly show how gangs commit the massive majority of violent crimes each year!

                      For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice.

                      These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals.

                      Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.

                      Wolfgang et al ., 1972;
                      Petersilia et al ., 1978;
                      Williams, 1979;
                      Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982;
                      Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982,
                      Martin and Sherman,1986.

                      http://www.temple.edu/prodes/adobe/dhs_chronic_offenders.pdf
                      http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-articles/career-criminals-who-are-they-and-what-should-society-do-about-them-1012040.html
                      http://www.academicroom.com/users/joan-petersilia
                      http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2814z1.html
                      http://www.soc.iastate.edu/staff/delisi/DeLisi%20Scaling%2Archetypal%20Criminals%20AJCJ.pdf
                      http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2815.html
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb00381.x/abstract
                      http://www.threestrikes.org/walsh_pg_one.html
                      http://www.cgu.edu/include/Evaluating%20criminal%20justice%20programs.pdf

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 07:42

                      You have proven nothing but that you can cherry pick data to support your lies!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:55

                      That is EXACTLY what you are doing.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:07

                      So sad, I am not cherry picking, try again sweety!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 07:44

                      Disarming the Data Doctors: How To Debunk The “Public
                      Health” Basis For “Gun Control”
                      Friday, 16 January 2009 03:07

                      By Richard W. Stevens** Adjunct professor, Legal Research & Writing, George Washington University School of Law.

                      Epidemiology: Public Health’s Chief Weapon

                      Epidemiology is often used to address a public health problem. Epidemiology is the study of how and why
                      disease is distributed in a population. Epidemiology tells us how much disease there is, who gets it, and what specific factors put individuals at risk.8

                      Epidemiologists gather and use statistical data to explain disease conditions in a population. Epidemiological
                      studies try, among other things:

                      (1) to calculate the number of diseased persons there are;

                      (2) to predict the number of diseased persons there will be in the future;

                      (3) to predict the future costs of treating and caring for the diseased persons;

                      (4) to isolate the cause(s) of the disease;

                      (5) to determine how the disease is transmitted.9

                      The gun prohibitionists used a clever ploy to gain “scientific” support for their position and then multiply its public relations value. First, the doctors devised and published epidemiological studies in medical journals, which showed that the problem of gun injuries is large and serious. Then, follow-up studies and articles would quote the earlier studies’ conclusions as fact, without ever mentioning the limitations or qualifications on those conclusions.10

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:55

                      Why are you copying and pasting from political websites who cite only other partisan political writings??

                      I’ll stick with science.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:08

                      George Washington UNiversity isnt a political web site sweety, try again!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:23

                      That is not where his research comes from, sweety.
                      He is an adjunct.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:27

                      So sad, you havent proven his analysis wrong yet, unless you further wish to demonstrate your lack of proficiency in statistics and promote a narcissistic personality disorder formerly called megalomania, where you by word alone, inferring you are GOD and magically with no substantiated data to prove your position, infer you are right, LOL!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:35

                      The CDC, The American Journal of Public Health, the AMA, Harvard and Stanford has.

                      This guy is a kook.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:43

                      No, they havent proven didley squat, other than being lap dogs to the anti gun leftists who put money into their pockets!

                    • Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 09:00

                      You do know Obamacare covers mental health, right?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:01

                      Yeah, hope lefty gets to use it before he flips!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:45

                      So sad, you nor they havent proven anything!

                      The 1991 American Medical Association (AMA) campaign against domestic violence (and towards gun control) launched for public relations and media consumption went hand in hand with a previously articulated (1979) U.S. Public Health Service objective of complete eradication of handguns in America, beginning with a 25% reduction in the national inventory by the year 2000!(1)

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:45

                      Hard to believe that scientific and medical research has been perverted for political ideology! Let me cite the following
                      statement by CDC official, Dr. Patrick O’Carroll as quoted in the Journal of the American Medical Association: ” ‘Bringing about gun control, which itself covers a variety of activities from registration to confiscation was not the specific reason for the section’s creation,’ O’Carroll says. ‘However, the
                      facts themselves tend to make some form of regulation seem desirable,’ he says. ‘The way we’re going to do this is to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes death.’ “(5) Although, in a letter to the editor, O’Carroll later claimed he was misquoted, Dr. William C. Waters IV, Eastern
                      Director of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), points out that Dr. O’Carroll does not claim to be misquoted when in the same article, he blurted, “We are doing the most we can do, given the political realities.”(6)

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:58

                      Hard to believe that scientific and medical research has been perverted for political ideology!

                      ________

                      Isn’t that exactly what your sources do?

                      These sources have no links, the doc you quote is from The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a group of conservative activist doctors, many linked to the Birchers.

                      I may as well give you Michael Moore’s site.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:01

                      So sad, statistics rely on signals, for a DOE, for any kind of analysis, and that proper disproving of the data, method, and statistical manipulations by the anti gun advocates doing the studies proving just how weak the statsitical signals and indicators for your argument is and always will be, is rejected by you because it just doesnt agree with your fragile ego and fantasies, so sad!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:46

                      Speaking of Harvard, lets identify how they really feel there, LOL.

                      Prejudice against gun ownership by ordinary citizens is pervasive in the public health community, even when they profess objectivity and integrity in their scientific research. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health in a moment of lucidity encapsulated in words (in a recent book) the typical attitude of her professional colleagues: “My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns — and can not imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”(7)

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:48

                      And we could say that your sources are all coming from the gun industry.
                      Most people who work in ERs and see gun shot wounds hate guns.
                      Refute their facts if you can.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:56

                      Already have, that and since 1960 per US govt. data, law abiding gun owners have prevented over 1.131 mil murders, prevented over 6.5 mil injuries, and prevented over $2.17 trillion in medical expenses….

                      But we understand, you would have preferred those people to be shot and wounded instead because you havent the intellect to accept whom the actual bad guys are, pathetic!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:03

                      Oh please, we understand that YOU would prefer that more innocent people, including children get killed and maimed rather than ask the industry to be a little more responsible.

                      Grow up.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:04

                      Your right, when is the medical industry going to be more responsible and quit killing 195,000 a year to medical malpratice eh sweety!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:10

                      Speaking of responsibility, lets review the BATF failures to enforce the existing background checks more than .5% of the time!

                      For those who don’t click the link:
A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,326 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:


Firearm Use by Offenders,Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

                      
• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
                      

• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
                      

• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
 

                      • 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market


                      • 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop


                      • 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets




                      78.8% criminals purchased their guns from unlicensed sources, and BS law that only punish the law abiding will d o what to change this, ROTFLMFAO!




                      We see how the USDOJ survey (18,326 people surveyed) in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from SUMMARIZED ROUNDED TOTALS

                      80% street buys/theft/family
straw buys,
                      12% retail stores,

                      2% gun shows.

                      

Then that -68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street
                      buys/theft at 95.52%,

                      1-(12% x .68%) = 3.84% retail stores,

                      1-(2% x .68%) = .64% gun shows in today’s numbers

                      (100% – 4.48%) = 95.52%.

                      

USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2008/bcft08st.pdf

                      2012 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5157

                      Isnt it amazing how 95.52% of bad guys (21 million plus, since 1997) dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with and more laws will do what to change that, oh
                      nothing as normal!

                      We see a total of 2.056 million valid rejections, a -68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons.

                      2010, 44 successfully prosecuted out of 139,651 total rejections


                      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf



                      2009, 32 successfully prosecuted out of 129,357 total rejections


                      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf

                      

2008, 31 successfully prosecuted out of 135,933 total
                      rejections

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf



                      2007, 39 successfully prosecuted out of 128,277 total
                      rejections

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/227604.pdf



                      2006, 62 successfully prosecuted out of 134,442 total
                      rejections

http://www.jrsa.org/events/conference/presentations-08/Ronald_Frandsen.pdf

                      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf

                      Oh wait, those same reports show a 93.8% false positive
                      rate, that means that the govt. had bad data and 93.8% of the 139,651 weren’t actually bad guys, the govt. screwed up, how consistent, the govt. being wrong or incompetent!

                      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/03/21/national/main280557.shtml

                      Undercover congressional investigators using fake IDs were able to skirt mandatory background checks and purchase guns in all of the five states where they tried, according to a report
                      issued 3/21/2001.

                      The General Accounting Office study concluded that the national background check system for purchasing guns “cannot ensure that the prospective purchaser is not a felon.”

                      The system checks only whether the gun buyer had a criminal history but does not require any check to see whether the name or identification being used by the buyer is real.

                      Has any of the above changed, ever….NOPE!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:12

                      Clearly we need more.
                      That is why we need better background checks.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:14

                      http://usanewsbreaker.com/news/2615

                      “The reason the ATF doesn’t make it a high priority to target people who attempt to buy a gun from the gun dealer is they spend the majority of their time targeting violent offenders who use guns illegally,” said Mike Brouchard, the former assistant
                      director for field operations of the ATF. “By taking that person and arresting them it has little to no impact on violent crime.”

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:15

                      BATF prosecutes less than .5% of the 2.056 mil rejected since
                      1997.

                      BATF doesn’t do anything about the 95.52% of bad guys (21 mil + since 1997) who don’t even try to buy from a licensed source to begin with.

                      BY THE WAY, WHAT DOES UBC DO TO CHANGE THE 95.52% OF BAD GUYS WHO REFUSE TO BUY FROM A LICENSED SOURCE TO BEGIN WITH………ECHOES OF SILENCE!

                      BATF doesn’t allow civilians access to NICS for background checks on private sales.

                      BATF out of 139,651 rejected in 2010 only prosecuted 44, 26 straw buyers, 11 felons, 7 domestic violence abusers, no
                      crazies.

                      BATF let over 472,241 straw buyers (over 3.14 mil+ since 1997) pass the background check and buy over 708,632 guns in 2010 (OVER 7.3 MIL GUNS SINCE 1997) from a licensed source!

                      Govt. refused to resource to input the mentally ill & felons into NICS database with only 5.1 mil severely mentally ill and
                      felons in NICS database as of July 2014 while there are over 31.793 mil of both in the US.

                      Govt. refuses to resource people and moneys to pursue the 1.221 mil + people wanted on open felony warrant of whom 50% are probably severely mentally ill as are 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners.

                      Man them are some nasty loopholes the government & BATF have created.

                      When are you lefties going to fix these BATF & Govt. loopholes instead of making more useless laws that per Haynes vs.
                      US 390, 85, 1968 & Freed vs. US 401, 601, 1971 which affirm the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, makes 85% of all gun control laws not applicable as a prosecutable charge eh?

                      You know, licenses, registrations, background checks etc, etc, etc…all require someone to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

                      So explain again how a law, you cant punish a bad guy with, will reduce violence by said bad guy eh?

                      Oh that’s right, you lefties will wave your magic fairy wand and sprinkle your magic fairy dust and wish it to happen, LOL!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:17

                      Then of course one must also look at how many people the
                      background check supposedly saves.



                      Since physically stopping a person from acquiring a gun, is only accomplished by putting them in jail, one only has to work from the avg. number of incidents a gun is used by a bad guy in a crime and calculate against the number of bad guys actually put away!

                      Of course you UBC supporters can prove that people
                      stop trying to lie, do evil by comparing the 4.48% of bad guys who are supposedly stopped from buying a gun results in the well publicized and proven human trait of giving up, as you UBC supporters have clearly demonstrated how you give up your lies, hate and ridicule after being stopped in oh so many of your gun control anti rights efforts!

                      

In 2010 using NICS, FBI, USDOJ, Police Firearm discharge
                      reports, CDC data, we see…..

1.248 mil violent crimes reported, 74.65% not reported, 322,000 involved a gun, 85% of incidents no shots fired, 15% of shots fired hit target 1 in 7 injuries fatal.



                      Which if one calculates out the multiple USDOJ studies
                      showing that over 80% of all violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members, crazies & domestic 
violence abuser’s..we see the following.

                      

(total successfully prosecuted by BATF in 2010) 44 x 15%
                      = 6.6 total people involved with shots fired

 6.6 x 15% = 1
                      person hit by shots fired

 1 x 20% = .2 people hit by shots fired by non criminals, .8 people hit by shots fired by bad guys



                      Wow, you do realize that the cost of the near 3,000 plus
                      people employed by BATF, FBI and state agencies for background check process cost the US over $330 million each year, dang.



                      So explain again how that $330 mil in background checks is
                      justifiable to save maybe just 1 or two people?



                      http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014justification/pdf/fbi-justification.pdf

                      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:28

                      Show me exactly where in these cited reports I can find whatever it is you are talking about, or from you are drawing your conclusions, because so far it is nothing but a Gish Gallup mess.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:20

                      COLORADO UBC

                      Lets look at Colorado’s UBC as it was implemented just last year and how it ties in with Gun Control, the largest money scam in the world.

                      NICS & BATF Operations and budgetary reports show it cost over $330 mil a year for 21 mil background checks in 2013
                      or roughly $15 per background check.

                      Which at 192.5 mil total background checks since 1997 x $15 = $3.025 billion in cost to taxpayers for an avg. 45 successful prosecutions per year, and between 1 to 2 maximum injuries prevented = 16 to 32 total injuries prevented in 16 years by the existing background checks!

                      Wow that’s REALLY SOMETHING, LOL, NOT!

                      It has been noted that in Colorado, over the first 6 months they have had UBC, of which from somewhat dubious numbers of
                      13,000 UBC checks that wouldn’t have occurred they have claimed 104 rejections in that 6 months……hmmmm!

                      You do understand that in 1 year Colorado had over 455,000 background checks to start with, of which the UBC supporters claim 13,000 were from the UBC, although that’s an unproven claim!

                      Even if that claim is true 26,000 / 455,000 = 5.7% uh that’s not the 40% marxist 594 supporters claim to be justification eh, typical leftists!

                      Reality is that 93.8% of those rejections are FALSE POSITIVES as per NICS Operations reports as the Background checks have proven to be over the near 17 years!

                      1-(104x .938) = 6.448 actual bad guys in 6 months!

                      So for one year of private sales Colorado claims to control there would be 12.896 actual bad guys rejected in one year /
                      26,000 = .0496% of all private sales for another 2 million dollars……..that’s justifiable how again?

                      Now it is a proven fact per FBI UCR that only 26.8% of all violent crimes committed is the use of a gun occur

                      12.896 X .268 = 3.456 incidents where a gun would probably be used

                      3.456 x .15 = .518 incidents shots were fired, uh that’s less than 1 time (number of times shots fired as per USDOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001, only 18,326 criminals polled so rather LARGE sample size eh)

                      .518 x .15 = ..07776 number of shots hit their target as police firearm discharge reports only show at best 15% of shot fired
                      hit their target!

                      Wow so 1 year in Colorado = .07776 shots hit their target maybe prevented by the UBC provided the bad guy was actually locked up.

                      Oh wait, since the bad guys are prosecuted less than 1% of the time we have to reduce that by 99% to be realistic so .0776 x .01 = .007776.

                      Dang so how many years would the UBC take in Colorado to save 1 injury?

                      1/ .007776 = 128.8 years

                      Oh wait, so what the UBC supporters are claiming, is that 128.8 years, at an extra $2 mil per year just in Colorado is
                      justifiable expense for the UBC how again? (that’s over $257 million in today’s money)

                      Reality gun control is only a scam to get more taxes out of the citizens!

                      So were the UBC to be implemented in 2014 nationwide at $2 mil extra per state on average, the cost would be $430 mil
                      that year, on top of the $3.025 billion already spent.

                      2014 32 max injuries prevented +.0776 = 32.00776 into $3.455 billion = $107.942 mil cost per injury prevented!

                      2015 34.01552 max injuries prevented into $3.885 billion = $114.213 mil cost per injury prevented!

                      2016 36.0233 max injuries prevented into $4.315 billion = $119.783 mil cost per injury prevented

                      Get the picture……it all about control and the money, not one
                      dang thing about reducing violence!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 07:49

                      When one reviews the first (1) Table 1 Data in Kellermans original study we see….

                      Table 1 in the Kellermann article provided information about the homicide victims in the study:32

                      (2) Comments on Table 1 Data

                      Look at the “Circumstances” data. Notice how the categories are artificially broken down. A very large fraction of the homicides (86%) fell into one of two more general categories: a conflict between friends or relatives (56%), or
                      illegal activities in the victim’s presence (30%). The remaining number (15%) are not adequately described. By subdividing these major categories, for no
                      apparent reason, the researchers lessened the impact of the percentages in any one category in the table.33

                      They used the same technique in the “Relationship to offender” categories in the table. Using multiple
                      categories tends to obscure the underlying common features. In the text of the article, however, the authors grouped the categories back together and admitted
                      that “the great majority of victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them.”34

                      By contrast, under “Method of homicide,” the table emphasizes firearms’ role by separately listing different types of firearms. When the firearms and non-firearms homicides
                      figures are totaled, however, the results seem different: 50% firearms-related, and about 50% non-firearms related.

                      The vast majority of homicides (84%) reported in the table did not involve forced entry. In these cases, the killer likely had permission to enter the area or had a key to the house.

                      The study offered no data about whether the victim tried to get his or her gun, or other weapon, before being killed. The study also omits any mention of whether the killer used the
                      victim’s own gun or other weapon. These are critical points.

                      The Kellermann researchers could not properly conclude that guns in the home provide no protection against homicide, if they did not know whether the victims tried to
                      get them, or even if the victims knew where their guns were? The Kellermann researchers could not properly conclude that having a gun in the home is a “risk factor” when there are no data about whether the gun was even involved in the killing?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 07:53

                      (3) Table 3 Data

                      Table 3 in the Kellermann article shows the degree of association between various “risk factors” and the “disease” (death by homicide in the victim’s residence).37 Portions of Table 3 are set forth

                      (4) Understanding the data in Table 3

                      Table 3 is a typical “univariate analysis of risk factors.” Here is how it works. Consider entry (a), “Victim or control drank alcohol.” The “Odds Ratio” tells you how much more likely it is that the victim drank alcohol than did the “control” person.39 In this case the victims were 2.6 times
                      more likely to be “exposed” to the risk factor of drinking alcohol, than were the controls.

                      Epidemiological statistics often are reported in this way: “Exposure to second-hand smoke is associated with
                      increased future health problems.” The term “is associated with” simply reports a statistical result. An odds ratio greater than 1.0 shows a “positive association.” The more the value exceeds 1.0, the stronger the association. An odds ratio equal to 1.0 means there is indicates “no association.”
                      An odds ratio less than 1.0 shows a “negative association.” A
                      negative association suggests that the exposure to the factor actually decreases the likelihood of contracting the disease.40

                      The size of the odds ratio shows the strength of the association. The larger the odds ratio, the more likely that
                      exposure to the risk factor might have caused the disease. Epidemiologists classify the strength of an association according to the size of the odds ratio. An odds ratio from 1.1 to 3.0 shows a “weak or nonexistent” association.
                      An odds ratio between 3.0 and 8.0 shows a “moderate” association; between 8.0 and 16.0 shows a “strong” association; and above 16.0 shows an “extremely strong” association.41

                      On other public health issues, a survey of scientists showed that most “would not take seriously a single study reporting a new potential cause of cancer unless it reported [an
                      increased risk factor or odds ratio of at least] 3.”42 Even
                      then, these scientists would remain skeptical unless the study were “very large and extremely well done, and biological data support the hypothesized link.”43

                      A positive association, even an “extremely strong” association, does not by itself prove that the
                      factor caused the disease.44 Here is an obvious example: there is a perfect positive association between having lived in New York and eventually dying. Everyone who has lived in New York will eventually die. That association by itself does not prove that living in New York causes death.

                      In Table 3 (a), the drinking of alcohol is positively associated to being a victim of homicide in one’s own home. The odds ratio of 2.6 shows a weak association.

                      Consider entry (l), “Victim or control lived alone.” The odds ratio for that entry shows that the victims were 3.4 times as likely to live alone, as compared to the controls. The victims were thus 3.4 times as likely to be “exposed” to living alone than were the controls. Living alone was associated with being a victim of homicide in the home. With an odds ratio of 3.4, this association is “moderate.”

                      Table 3 also reports the “95% confidence interval” for each odds ratio. The confidence interval describes the uncertainty surrounding the odds ratio.

                      Consider again Table 3 (a). The odds ratio is 2.6. The 95% confidence interval is 1.9 – 3.5. In other words, there is a statistical 95% chance that the actual effect of having drunk
                      alcohol could be anywhere between 1.9 and 3.5.45

                      Here are some important things to know about the confidence interval. First, if the 95% confidence interval for a
                      given odds ratio ranges from below 1.0 to above 1.0, then there is a likelihood that exposure both causes and prevents the disease. This contradiction makes the odds ratio statistically insignificant; epidemiologists can draw no
                      conclusions from it.46

                      Second, when the confidence interval is a narrow range around the odds ratio, then it tends to reinforce the
                      accuracy of the odds ratio.47 For example, the association (measured by odds ratio) between drinking alcohol and being a victim of homicide was 2.6. The 95% confidence interval for this figure was fairly narrow (1.9 – 3.5). It is fair to conclude that the odds ratio of 2.6 is an accurate estimate of the risk in the study population.

                      Third, when the confidence interval is a wide range, it suggests that there is an increased likelihood of risk from
                      exposure, but also that the risk cannot be accurately measured.48 Table 3 (d), “victim or control had trouble at work because of drinking,” indicates an odds ratio of 20.0, with a 95% confidence interval of 4.9 to 82.4. This result suggests a strong association between the victim’s
                      trouble with drinking at work and his eventual death by homicide, but that the actual risk cannot be accurately measured.

                      (5) Comments on Table 3 Data

                      Having a grasp of odds ratios and confidence intervals, consider Table 3 again. Which factors have the largest
                      odds ratios? The top 7 are (d), (c), (h), (e), (g), and (b).
                      These factors all implicate using alcohol, using drugs, and a history of physical fighting in the home. The confidence intervals for all of these factors show at least a moderate to strong association between them and death by homicide. The factor most strongly associated with homicide in the home was (d) (trouble at work because of drinking).

                      The five factors in Table 3 with the lowest odds ratios, from lowest to highest, are (n), (q), (o), (p), and (m). The four factors with the lowest odds ratios involve having
                      a gun in the residence. All five odds ratios are below 3.0, suggesting a weak or nonexistent association between them and the incidence of homicide in the home. The confidence intervals for all 5 of these factors are relatively narrow, suggesting that these odds ratios more accurately reflect reality.

                      Because of their relative weakness, the data in Kellermann’s Table 3 do more to undermine than to support the claim
                      that guns in the home are a risk factor for homicide. This conclusion comes from a careful look at the data. The data simply do not support the researchers’ conclusions in their article.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 07:59

                      (6) Table 4 Data

                      Kellermann’s Table 4 shows the results of additional mathematical massage of the data.49 Table 4
                      provides this information:

                      (7) Comments on Table 4 Data

                      Table 4 shows how critical it is to read the actual study, rather than relying on headlines about its conclusion.
                      Of the five factors analyzed, the factor with the lowest association with homicide was “guns kept in the home.” The odds ratio of 2.7 for this factor suggests that the association is “weak” at best. The 95% confidence interval reinforces the weak association.

                      D. The Kellermann Researchers’ Admitted Limitations on the Study Results

                      News stories reporting epidemiological study results often omit the authors’ own statements about the limitations in the study.50 The Kellermann researchers admitted the
                      potential for several sources of bias in their study,51 including:

                      (1) the emotional impact of a homicide in the home can “powerfully” affect the survey respondents’ accuracy and completeness of their recollection;

                      (2) respondents might misreport sensitive information;

                      (3) respondents might have under-reported instances of domestic violene;

                      (4) respondent controls might have to under- reported gun ownership.

                      The Kellermann researchers also commented on “four limitations”52:

                      (1) the study was restricted to homicides occurring in the victim’s home. “The dynamics of homicides occurring in other locations … may be quite different.”53

                      (2) the studied urban counties did not have any substantial Hispanic population. Accordingly, their “results may not be generalizable to more rural communities or to Hispanic households.”54

                      (3) possible “reverse causation”: some of the association between gun ownership and homicide may have come from the victims having previously “acquired a gun in response to a specific threat.”55

                      (4) possible confounding:56 “we cannot exclude the possibility that the association we observed is due to a third, unidentified factor.”57

                      The many admitted potential biases and limitations in the study do not appear in headlines. They are rarely
                      reported in news magazines, newspapers, or on broadcast news.58 Also, follow-up journal articles often recite the conclusions without checking whether the underlying data support the conclusions claimed by the authors. Moreover, other kinds of limitations and biases possible in the Kellermann study might not be obvious to the lay reporter or reader. Few, if any, of these sobering considerations seem to matter much to the doctors and others who seize on these study results to support their “gun control” agenda.

                      Potential Flaws, Limitations, and Biases in Epidemiological Studies and Their Conclusions

                      Epidemiological studies and the validity of their conclusions are subject to a number of limitations. Understanding these limitations is the key to being able to rapidly separate epidemiological hogwash from solid research. The following discussion of these limitations draws some examples from the Kellermann study.

                      A. When can a Risk Factor be considered a Cause of the Disease?

                      The public health approach to “gun control” has relied heavily on epidemiological studies to support its conclusions that “gun control” is an effective and desirable cure for “gun violence.” This approach to “gun control” argues that possession of firearms is a cause of deaths and injuries by firearms. Therefore, by eliminating possession of firearms, the number of deaths and injuries will decrease. The key word in this argument is “cause.”

                      The Kellermann researchers, for example, tried to show a link between the presence of a firearm in a person’s
                      home and the death of that person by homicide, particularly homicide involving a firearm. In other words, the Kellermann researchers wanted to add evidence that the possession of firearms is a cause of death (by homicide). By showing
                      a statistical association between firearm possession and homicide, the researchers sought to establish a causal link.

                      The Kellermann researchers did not use the methods that epidemiology normally use to prove a causal link.
                      Statistical association does not alone prove that a factor caused the disease. Epidemiologists use several criteria to prove a causal link.59 These criteria are set forth below, together with a brief analysis of the Kellermann study.

                      (1) Probability: A statistically significant association between the risk factor and the disease tends to support the case that the risk factor caused the disease.

                      In this Kellermann study, there is a statistical association between the presence of a firearm in the victim’s home
                      and the victims death by homicide in that home.

                      (2) Strength of Association: A strong association supports the case.

                      In the Kellermann study, the associations for the gun factor were weak, not strong.

                      (3) Dose-Response Relationship: If there is a steady increase in disease with an increase in exposure, then the case for causation is supported.

                      In the Kellermann study, there was no analysis of a “dose” of exposure. The study considered a homicide victim to have been “exposed” if the victim’s home had contained a firearm in it before the homicide. The study does not analyze hether the length of time the firearm was in the home was a relevant factor. The study does not even report whether the victim actually knew there was a gun in the home or where it might be located there.

                      (4) Time-response relationship: If the incidence of the disease rises at some time after the exposure to the factor, and then later decreases, then that fact supports the
                      causation case.

                      The Kellermann study did not consider any time-response effects.

                      (5) Predictive Performance: If facts about the risk factor help predict the occurrence of the disease, then this supports the causation case. If not, then it weakens the case.

                      The Kellermann study did not analyze the predictive performance of their model or data.

                      (6) Specificity: If the disease is related to only one risk factor or a related set of risk factors, then this may support the causal link between the risk factor and the disease. (The fact that a risk factor is linked to only one disease contributes little to the conclusion.)

                      In the Kellermann study, homicide in the victim’s home was linked to a number of risk factors — but there was no
                      physical link between the victim’s gun ownership and his or her death. The Kellermann study did not even determine whether the victim’s gun was used in the victim’s homicide. The homicides were not related only to gun ownership or
                      possession — they were much more directly and physically related to a number of other factors, such as the killer’s possession of a weapon, and other behavioral factors such as drinking, drug use, and previous violence. The Kellermann
                      study did not establish that homicide in the home was related only to a related set of causes.

                      (7) Consistency: If the same association between the risk factor and the disease appears repeatedly in different studies, that would support the argument for causation. Other (different) study results that are inconsistent, and cannot be reconciled, will weaken the argument.

                      The Kellermann article said that the subject of the study — the supposed link between firearms ownership and
                      homicides in the home — was “poorly understood. This admission suggests that the Kellermann study was not similar to previous studies. Thus there is little evidence of “consistency” in study results on this subject. The lack of consistency limits the conclusions which can properly flow from the Kellermann study.

                      (8) Coherence: If the proposed causal link fits in with current theory and knowledge, then that supports the case. If the causal link is incompatible with known facts, then that weakens the case.

                      The Kellermann study fits into the current public health approach to “gun control.” The authors
                      however, admitted several facts that make their conclusions “valid” only for their study. Moreover, the public health approach to “gun control” is suspect on other grounds.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:08

                      As above;

                      What does this have to do with the time and resources spent in hospitals on gunshot wounds?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:12

                      As stated repeatedly, what does your persecution of the innocents have to do with the crimes of the 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and doemstic violence abusers who were already adjudicated as felons ending up in hospitals and such sweety, not one thing!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:18

                      As stated repeatedly, what does your persecution of the innocents have to do with the crimes of the 97.3% of killings by

                      _______

                      That’s a strawman argument.

                      It can be countered with ; “what does YOUR persecution of the innocent victims have to do with the crimes of the hundreds of thousands of irresponsible gun owners.

                      How is asking them to carry insurance to cover the liability of maiming and death “persecution”?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:21

                      Sorry, you have no government data disproving that 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers already adjudicated to have lost their 2A right, and not law abiding gun owners to begin with, therefore the strawman arguement is yours sweety!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:29

                      Sorry, you have no government data disproving that 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career

                      _______

                      What does that have to do with ANYTHING???
                      What does that have to do with the fact that this only happens because of the ease in obtaining guns, and what does it have to do with the tons of accidental deaths from people who are allowed to get as many guns as they want, but are too irresponsible?

                      Make them carry insurance and let the market decide.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:40

                      You want to blame someone for the bodies and shootings in your emergency rooms, wouldnt it be better if you actually went after the actual CRIMINALS…………you know the people committing the vast majority of those SHOOTINGS………..

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:42

                      Oh sorry, it is ILLEGAL to force the career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers who commit 97.3% of those killings by illegal use of a gun, who already adjudicated as having lost their 2A by due process, to pay for liability insurance as that is a violation of their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:03

                      B. Problems with the Definition of Disease

                      As noted above, an epidemiology study must start with a clear definition of the disease to be analyzed.60 In the Kellermann study, the researchers defined the “disease” as
                      death by homicide in the victim’s home. The causal link they sought to establish was:

                      Risk Factor

                      Disease

                      Presence of gun in victim’s home —–>

                      Homicide of Victim

                      Kellermann’s study results, however, suggested:

                      Risk Factors

                      Disease

                      History of violence

                      History of drinking ——————–>

                      Homicide of Victim

                      History of drug use

                      Presence of guns in home

                      Has the “disease” been defined wrongly? The Kellermann study ignored the possibility that a history of violence, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse, are not “risk factors,” but are symptoms of the disease itself.61 The disease is perhaps
                      anti-social behavior, socio-pathology, or a tendency to adopt self-destructive practices.62 As part of this disease, the person involves himself or herself in situations that lead to violence.63 A certain percentage of such situations result in the victim’s death.

                      The homicide victims in the Kellermann study were mainly killed in connection with disputes with people whom they
                      knew. This fact supports the idea that the disease manifests itself as the victim’s behavior. The victim’s behavior affects people with whom he or she interacts. The victim’s behavior starts, invites, or continues violent disputes or heated passions. These passions and disputes can lead to a violent event that ends in the victim’s death. A new model emerges:

                      In this model, firearms play a role as a tool for violence, or defense against violence. But sharp and blunt instruments also play that role, according to the Kellermann study. The
                      presence of firearms does not cause the disease of anti-social, or self-destructive behavior. Thus, the mere presence of firearms did not cause the deaths of these victims.

                      C. Problems with the Definition of Exposure

                      When dealing with a biological disease — the usual case — an epidemiological study tries to determine whether certain risk factors contribute to causing disease in exposed persons. For example, researchers might study the effects of exposure to radiation or polluted water. The researchers would try to estimate how much each person in the study had been exposed to the factor.

                      In many real-world cases, the answer to the exposure question is not just “yes” or “no.”64 The Kellermann study assumes that the presence of a firearm in the victim’s
                      home constitutes “exposure.” In other words, being in the physical vicinity of a firearm is the equivalent of being near a person with small pox or influenza.

                      Does the mere presence of firearms infect a person, resulting in the person being killed by somebody else? Does
                      the mere presence of firearms make a person violent or disruptive? The Kellermann study does not attempt to answer these questions. It would be relevant to know how long the victim had possessed the firearm, whether the victim had ever used the firearm for any purpose, whether the victim had ever hurt or threatened anyone with the firearm. Apparently the Kellermann researchers did not collect
                      these data.

                      It is vitally important, when designing an epidemiological study, to define what constitutes “exposure” to the risk factor. The Kellermann study overlooks all of the possible types and durations of the victim’s “exposure” to firearms. According to the Kellermann exposure definition and conclusions, if a firearm were ever in a house, the resident’s chances of being murdered increase.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:07

                      This has nothing to do with anything.
                      It certainly has nothing to do with the time and resources spent in hospitals on gunshot wounds.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:10

                      Funny, then why do you refuse to admit that 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers who had already lost their 2A rights and hence were not law abiding gun owners to begin with eh sweety?

                      Already posted dozens of government data sources and links proving this……………you should probably take your blinders off!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:20

                      Funny, then why do you refuse to admit that 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career

                      ________

                      ?????

                      What does that have to do with all the homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings by non criminals???

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:24

                      The career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies & domestic violence abusers are the ones committing 97.35 of the killings by illegal use of a gun, yet all you insist on doing in a perfect simile is beating the dog for the cat schiiting in your shoe and expecting the cat to quit schiiting in your shoe.

                      Only the clinically insane believe beating the dog will magically stop the cat from schitting in your shoe!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:26

                      You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
                      That is why you have to resort to these stupid straw man arguments.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:28

                      You really have no sane clue about that which you claim, that is why you repeatedly regurgitate the same old lies and libel against law abiding gun owners!!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:33

                      Isn’t that EXACTLY what you are doing?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:39

                      So sad, you have failed to prove your claims that law abiding gun owners are the majority cause of violence, I have presented governemnt data proving your position a lie, try again sweety!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:07

                      D. Sources and Types of Bias in Retrospective Studies

                      Epidemiological studies are subject to several types of bias. A “bias” is a fact that affects the accuracy of the data or their interpretation. Here are some of the biases that can affect the Kellermann study or other retrospective studies.

                      (1) Selection bias: Occurs when the population being studied is especially more, or less, likely to have the disease than the general population.65

                      The Kellermann researchers looked at the most populous urban counties in three states. They gathered their cases
                      from records of homicides, and gathered their controls from the neighborhood near where the homicide victims had lived. The sampling was not random. The persons most likely to be studied were already victims or still lived in neighborhoods where such murders occurred. In a true random sampling, anybody in the population would be equally likely to studied.

                      (2) Information bias: Occurs when there are shortcomings in the way information is obtained from the respondents. Examples of this bias arise when the respondents: do not actually know the answers but guess anyway; have a
                      motivation to give socially acceptable answers; or, give answers they think the investigator wants.66

                      The Kellermann researchers “poisoned the well” in the first place by telling the respondents the nature and purpose of the study before asking the questions. Then, they obtained information from persons who likely had a motivation to misreport the truth: the grieving friends and relatives (proxies) of the victim.

                      Although the researchers found a “control” person for each victim, they apparently accepted answers about the “control” person from any adult in the same household as the actual “control” person.67 The researchers also offered the respondents money for the interview — they paid for the
                      information, rather than obtain it by objective means.

                      Many of the proxy respondents (40%) requested a telephone interview rather than a face-to-face interview. A smaller
                      number of controls (13%) requested the telephone interview.68 Using a validation technique, the Kellermann researchers themselves found that the control respondents underreported domestic violence in their own homes.69
                      These facts suggest a certain level of discomfort with the interview questions. By avoiding a face-to-face interview, these respondents seemingly demonstrated a concern for the effect or credibility of their responses in the eyes of the
                      interviewer. The respondents apparently also underreported their own domestic violence, doubtless for fear of public scorn or legal action.

                      The Kellermann article did not report any attempts to assess the credibility of individual responses. Even had the researchers wanted to evaluate the credibility of responses, using telephonic interviews made that goal much harder to achieve.

                      (3) Recall bias: Occurs when the respondent’s memory is incomplete or uncertain. This bias can occur because of the human tendency not to remember events that they considered to be less important when those events occurred. This bias can also arise when researchers repeatedly ask the same or similar questions to get an answer from the exposed respondents, while accepting the first answer they
                      get from members of the control group.70

                      Although the Kellermann article reported that the interview proceeded on a strictly structured format, the questioners’ actual conduct is unknown. Also unknown is whether the questioners tried to explain questions to the respondents.

                      (4) Volunteer bias: Occurs because persons who are willing to volunteer for a study might differ in important ways from the general population.71

                      The Kellermann study depended upon the willingness of persons to answer interview questions. There is no way to
                      know how the respondents’ personal experiences or opinions might have influenced their decision to participate in the study.

                      (5) Rumination bias: Occurs because persons who are exposed, ill, or injured may ruminate about (reflect upon) the causes of their condition and thus report different facts about their exposure. By contrast, members of the control group
                      may not ruminate about the matter.72

                      This bias likely affects the data from the proxies for the victim. The Kellermann researchers intentionally delayed questioning the proxies “to allow for an initial period of
                      grief.”73 Of course, this delay time allowed the proxies to
                      ruminate about the circumstances, causes and reasons for the victim’s death, and to discuss these factors with other interested persons. A grieving person’s desire to fix blame on some person or thing could influence their responses in
                      ways not even discussed in the Kellermann article.

                      (6) Wish bias: Occurs when there is a tendency of the investigator or the respondent to reach a desired result. This bias can arise because persons often prefer to give a more emotionally acceptable explanation for a contracting a
                      disease than exposure by personal choice. Accordingly, respondents may want to blame inanimate objects like toxic chemicals, or external factors like workplace or living environment, rather than attribute their problems to their own choice of lifestyles.74

                      The wish bias especially taints case-control studies that use subjective questionnaires. This problem is even more severe
                      when proxies or other family members answer the survey questions instead of the actual patients or controls.75 Also, when an interviewer knows what the study is trying to show, the interviewer may consciously or subconsciously influence respondents to give information consistent with the desired outcome.76

                      The Kellermann study methods provided many opportunities for wish bias to arise. The interviewers and the respondents were not “blind,” that is, they both knew the purpose of
                      the study. There is no evidence that interviewers were screened for personal biases concerning the study’s objectives. The Kellermann researchers’ study was
                      a “case-control” study using proxies for the victims and sometimes for the controls. Their procedure thus carried an increased likelihood of wish bias.

                      Finally, the respondents might well have wanted to blame the drugs, alcohol, guns, or some other person or factor
                      for the victim’s death, rather than the victim or his lifestyle. Consciously or subconsciously, this desire could have influenced their recall of the facts.77

                      (7) Non-random sampling bias: Occurs because the sample of the population may not be perfectly random; questions on a questionnaire are only a sample of the potential questions; and respondents provide only a sample of their possible
                      “correct” answers to the questions. For a sample of anything to be “random,” every member of the potential set must have an equal chance of being chosen.78

                      The Kellermann researchers never claimed that the study population was “random.” The article provided little information about the “randomness” of the interview questions or their answers. The researchers admitted that they “had no way to verify each respondent’s statements independently.”79

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:34

                      You mean the same Harvard school of medicine whom anti gun Bloomberg gave $350 million to, would perform an UNBIASED study, ROTFLMFAO!

                      So lets see, the Harvard study by Hemmenway, states the entire premise of his cherry picked data is:

                      Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

                      Across states, more guns = more homicide

                      Funny, lets review the US FBI data to see what has really been going on!

                      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_04.pdf
                      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1997/97sec2.pdf
                      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/mv41_12.pdf
                      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html

                      In the US Per FBI UCR & CDC in 1991 24,700 murders, consistent % where firearms used is 67.8% =16,747 murders by illegal use of firearm, 15,383 suicides by firearms, 657 justifiable homicides, 1,463 accidental firearms
                      deaths =34,250 deaths where firearms were used

                      2011 14,612 murders 67.7% used a firearm = 9,892, 591 justifiable homicides, 835 accidental deaths, 19,766 suicides = 31,084 deaths where a firearm was used.

                      Since 1991 to 2011, that is a reduction in…..


                      Totals / Rate


                      Violent Crime -37.04% / -49.04%
                      
Murder w gun -41.31% / -52.51%
                      
Rape -21.73% / -36.59% 

                      Robbery -48.47% / -58.31%

                      Assault -31.26% /-44.36%
                      Accidental deaths -41.9% / -52.14%

                      Amazing how those are the highest total reductions of ANY country in the world during that time!

                      So explain again how since 1991 there has been a 42% increase in firearms in civilian hands there hasn’t been a 42% increase in violence or suicide?

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:39

                      As opposed to Jews For Firearms?

                      What does any of this have to do with more control or insurance??

                      You just keep repeating the same crime stats that actually prove the gun control advocates point more than anything.

                      If you REALLY care, go after the corrupt federally licensed gun dealers who send more guns to the criminal market nearly 60% of the guns used in crime , which are traced back to just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:50

                      What does punishing the law abiding with liability insurance do to reduce violence by the bad guys when per proven US governemnt data that 97.3% of all killings are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers who had already lost their 2A by due process, other than to punish the law abiding for the acts of the few criminals?

                      Oh thats right, you magically wave a mystical fairy wand, sprinkle some mystical fairy dust, and claim punishing the 2.7% will magically stop the 97.3% of killings by bad guys eh….LOL….really….LOL!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:54

                      Oh you mean the same dealers that the BATF let 3.14 mil straw.fake identification buyers to pass the background checks to buy over 7.3 mil guns from licensed sources since 1997, do tell sweety, LOL!

                      So 69,000 gun stores 67 licenses revoked = 67/69,000 = .000097 = .097% (that’s less than 1/10th of a % for you math illiterates)

                      http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html

                      Being that the normal audit cycle is 4 years, that means that on average 268/69,000 = .388% at best….you stated 1.2%, LOL……….amazing how governemnt facts destroy anti gun advocates lies all the time!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:05

                      Then we need MORE gun control.
                      Look at your own facts. Do you even read them?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:12

                      More gun control of the law abiding when violence has dropped so dramatically, why?

                      Oh thats right, you like beating dogs for no reason, we understand!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:38

                      Now even more hilarious, is the so called Stanford study, where it claims that concealed carry has resulted in an 8% increase in violence, ROTFLMFAO!

                      Lets review the states concealed and open carry and do the totals before and after of murders and such!

                      No Open Carry – Texas, IL, NY, FL, CA, D.C., SC

                      Open Carry w permit – UT, MN, IA,OK, TN, GA, MD, NJ, CT, RI, IN, MA, HI

                      Open Carry wo permit – ME, NH, VT, PA, OH. KY, WV, VA, NC, AL,MS, LA, AR, MO, KS, NB, SD, ND, WI, MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, NV, ID, OR, WA, AK

                      Just horrible that even bad guys, can lawfully defend themselves eh!

                      Now for concealed carry and the years their rights were reinstated!

                      1986 IN, RI, ND, SD, WA, AL, VT, NH
                      1987 FL, OR
                      1988 PA, WV
                      1989 GA
                      1990 ID, MS
                      1991 WY
                      1994 MT, AK
                      1995 AZ, AR, VA, NC, NV, UT, OK, TX
                      1996 LA, SC
                      1999 TN
                      2001 MI
                      2003 MN, NM, CO, MO
                      2004 OH
                      2006 NB, KS
                      2010 WI
                      2013 IL

                      Just horrible how lawful armed self-defense has resulted in GASP no increase in violence by law abiding gun owners!

                      Funny how there is no change in the rate of reduction from
                      before shall issue to 2012 either!

                      12,226 Murders in those states the year before they went shall issue, 9,663 murders in those states AFTER they went shall issue!

                      All per FBI UCR, google if you dare!

                      -26.52% reduction by state during those years alone to 2012

                      So much for the false science BS who have claimed increases in law abiding gun ownership = more violence BS!

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:33

                      Geez, didn’t the government just create a right to health care in 2009, yeah, they are forcing everyone into a high-risk situation with no choice.

                      Lets compare the safety of going to a doctor vs being around a CPL licensee since they are both rights.

                      BATF Max 10 million CPL’s US, approximately 196 million age 21 or older or 5.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

                      Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report 2009, 137 or 45 per year equals .0000045 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida’s data on CCW at….

                      http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.

                      .. it says the same thing.

                      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.ph

                      Aug 2004, 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 195,000 by medical malpractice every year or .065 to.278 per physician.

                      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/254341.php

                      JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415

                      Physician is .065 or .278 /.0000045 = 14,444 to 61,778 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 07:38

                      http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/living/guns- parenting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

                      Lets use government data and compare someone supposedly safe, a doctor, to the chance of your children being killed by an accidental firearm discharge and again, we
                      won’t use one single NRA generated data source.


                      CDC Death Data 1930’s, over 3,000 accidental deaths by firearm discharge



                      CDC Death & Data 2010 835 deaths by accidental firearm discharge, right at 107 age 0-18 yrs old.


                      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf



                      US Census 1930’s 112.8 mil

                      US Census 2010 312 mil



                      BATF 1930 TO 2009 150 Million more firearms in civilian hands



                      JAMA

                      http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 

700,000 doctors in US kill 98,000 to 195,000 by medical malpractice every year or .135 to.278 per physician. 



                      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/254341.php



                      http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/09/health/medical-mistakes/
                      index.html

                      Dr. Barbara Starfield of the 
Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 250,000 deaths 
per year are caused by medical errors, making this the third-largest 
cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer.” So that alone tells many of us that the anti-firearm ownership movement is not about saving lives, it’s just big on someones agenda. It’s just something they want to do.

                      Since kids = 1/3 of population, will adjust deaths to reflect = 13,200 to 65,000 deaths. (0188 to .0926)

107 / 100,000,000 = .0000011 deaths per 100 mil gun owners.

                      Physician is .045 or .0927 /.00000011 = 44,909 to 84,272 times more likely to harm your child than they being accidently harmed by a lawfully owned firearm and that is
                      only in homes with a firearm, ah wow, thats soooooooo scarey, well, to an idiot maybe its scarey!

                      So where is the risk from law abiding gun owners and why aren’t you antis crying to ban doctors?

                      Actually anyone taking their child to a doctor for a non illness reason should have Child Protective Services called on them for risking their child’s lives so frivolously.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:35

                      Oh by the way, here is that settled and codified law of over 46 years proving that 85% of gun control laws, those requiring one to IDENTIFY THEMSELF, can not be used as a punishment against the 10 categories of bad guys identified in USC18 Sec 922

                      Haynes v. United States



                      No. 236



                      Argued October 11, 1967



                      Decided January 29, 1968

 390 U.S. 85




                      Syllabus



                      Petitioner was charged by information with violating 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms used principally by persons engaged in unlawful activities) by knowingly possessing a defined firearm which had not been
                      registered as required by 26 U.S.C. § 5841.

                      Section 5841 obligates the possessor of a defined firearm to register the weapon, unless he made it or acquired it by transfer or importation, and the Act’s requirements as to transfers, makings and importations “were complied
                      with.” Section 5851 declares unlawful the possession of such firearm which has “at any time” been transferred or made in violation of the Act, or which “has not been registered as required by section 5841.”

                      Additionally, § 5851 provides that “possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such possession to the satisfaction of the jury.” Petitioner moved before trial to dismiss the charge, sufficiently asserting that § 5851 violated his privilege against
                      self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

                      The motion was denied, petitioner pleaded guilty, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Held:

1. Congress, subject to constitutional limitations, has authority to regulate the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms, and may tax unlawful activities. Pp. 390 U. S. 90, 390 U. S. 98.

2. Petitioner’s conviction under § 5851 for possession of an unregistered firearm is not properly distinguishable from a conviction under § 5841 for failure to register possession of a firearm, and both offenses must be deemed subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the Fifth Amendment
                      from the obligation to register. Pp. 390 U. S. 90-95.

3.

                      A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851. Pp. 390 U. S. 95-100.

4. Restrictions upon the use by federal and state authorities of information
                      obtained as a consequence of the registration requirement,



                      Page 390 U. S. 86

suggested by the Government, is not appropriate. Marchetti v. United States, ante, p. 390 U. S. 39, and Grosso v. United States, ante, p. 390 U. S. 62. Pp. 390 U. S. 99-100.

5.

                      Since any proceeding in the District Court upon a remand must inevitably result in the reversal of petitioner’s conviction, it would be neither just nor appropriate to require such needless action, and accordingly the judgment is reversed.

                      Pp. 390 U. S. 100-101.

372 F.2d 651, reversed.

                      Here is the 5th amendment also as you seem to have no freaking clue, pay particular attention to “NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF” as Identifying oneself for gun control laws for licenses, registrations, background checks….do just that!

                      5th Amendment, and we QUOTE:



                      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence
                      to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 06:46

                      You keep bringing up laws that everybody knows that do not apply to the health crises we experience now.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:57

                      Funny, those laws perfectly identify that everything you propose only punishes the innocents.

                      You are obviously of the belief that beating your dog for your cat schiiting in your shoe will magically make your cat quit schitting in your shoe!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:15

                      No they don’t.
                      They show that the ideal world is covered nicely.

                      You are obviously of the belief that wishing that only sane responsible people owned deadly weapons can make it so.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:23

                      Yeah, they do!

                      You are obviously of the insane belief that all law abiding gun owners are criminals to begin with, which is a proven lie, and you have no proof, your kind never does!

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:37

                      Wow here is the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act, maybe you can demonstrate where LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is any one of these 10 categories of bad guys today, LOL!

                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44
                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924

                      AS QUOTED FROM Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9

                      (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person –

                      (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

                      (2) is a fugitive from justice;

                      (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

                      (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

                      (5) who, being an alien – (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant
                      visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

                      (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

                      (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

                      (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging
                      in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that – (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to
                      participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

                      (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

                      Exceptions as quoted from DEFINITIONS GCA Sec.921 (a)(33)(B):

                      (ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive
                      firearms.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 06:44

                      They are all law abiding citizens until they are not.

                      That is the problem.
                      Quoting law is useless when it does not apply to the crimes committed by those who obtained the weapons legally.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:54

                      So sad, you really are so DERP!

                      Lets identify who exactly is responsible for the majority of that violence first.

                      http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

                      We see where the FBI has repeatedly show how gangs ommit the massive majority of violent crimes each year!

                      For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice.

                      These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals.

                      Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.

                      Wolfgang et al ., 1972;
                      Petersilia et al ., 1978;
                      Williams, 1979;
                      Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982;
                      Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982,
                      Martin and Sherman,1986.

                      http://www.temple.edu/prodes/adobe/dhs_chronic_offenders.pdf
                      http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-articles/career-criminals-who-are-they-and-what-should-society-do-about-them-1012040.html
                      http://www.academicroom.com/users/joan-petersilia
                      http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2814z1.html
                      http://www.soc.iastate.edu/staff/delisi/DeLisi%20Scaling%20Archetypal%20Criminals%20AJCJ.pdf
                      http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2815.html
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb00381.x/abstract
                      http://www.threestrikes.org/walsh_pg_one.html
                      http://www.cgu.edu/include/Evaluating%20criminal%20justice%20programs.pdf

                      California has what is probably the most publicized campaign
                      against habitual criminals known as the three strikes law. There is plenty of evidence that the laws in California have provided significant benefits both in protecting citizens from further harm but also in fiscal impact to the California prison system.

                      Calculations based on the California Crime Index indicate that between March of 1994 when three strikes was first signed into law and the summer of 2004, there was a dramatic drop in California’s crime rate. Whether or not such a decline over those 10 years could be attributable to the three strikes
                      sentencing scheme, other sentencing legislation enacted during the decade, changes in demographics, economic trends, or a combination of these factors, the crime rate in California fell by approximately 45% during this 10-year
                      period. (Prosecutors’ Perspective on California’s Three Strikes Law – A 10-Year Retrospective, published 2004)

                      The prison system in California has seen its prison population
                      numbers stabilize and has actually seen a massive reduction in the rate of increased spending in the budget for corrections. During the 10 years preceding three strikes (1984 to 1994), state expenditures for corrections increased nearly 220%. This is more than four times greater than after the enactment of
                      three strikes.

                      “Many police officers, corrections officers and others, both inside and outside the criminal justice system, have noted that criminals fear three strikes. These people have also found that some criminals have modified their behavior. For once felons are worried about the criminal justice system and that has proven to be a deterrent factor. Despite predictions that
                      the law would incarcerate many youthful offenders, for the 83 three-strikers sentenced to date (1997), the average age is 37 years old. These are career criminals, not likely to “outgrow” their antisocial behavior with added maturity”. (Washington Policy Center, “Three Strikes You’re Out; A Reform that Worked”, published 1997)

                      http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions?s_cid=rss:gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions

                      “Gun Violence Significantly increased by social interactions”

                      Andrew Papachristos, an associate professor of sociology at Yale, analyzed police and gun homicide records from 2006 to 2011 for people living in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He found that 41 percent of all gun homicides occurred within a network of less than 4 percent of the neighborhood’s population, and that the closer one is connected to a homicide victim, the greater that person’s chances were for becoming a victim. Each social tie removed from a homicide victim decreased a person’s odds of
                      becoming a victim by 57 percent.

                      “What the findings essentially tell you is that the people who are most at risk of becoming a victim are sort of surrounded by victims within a few handshakes,” Papachristos says. “These are young men who are actively engaged in the behaviors that got them in this network.”

                      The network in question consists of more than 3,700
                      high-risk individuals – young, African-American males from a poor neighborhood – who were clustered into a network by instances of co-offending, meaning each person in the group had been arrested with another person.

                      Overall, the community’s five-year homicide rate was 39.7 per 100,000 people, which was still much higher than the averages of other areas of Chicago (14.7 per 100,000). But being a part of that network of co-offenders, essentially just being arrested, raised the rate to by nearly 50 percent, to 55.2 per 100,000. What’s more, being in a network with a homicide victim increased the homicide rate by 900 percent, to 554.1 per 100,000.

                      “You’re at a risk for living in this [certain] community, but if you’re in the network, your risk is astronomical,” Papachristos says. “That rate is beyond epidemic proportion, that’s actually scary.”

                      http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2011/Pew_State_of_Recidivism.pdf

                      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf

                      Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005—

„. About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.

                      
„. Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders.

                      
„. More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year.

„

                      . Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release.

„

                      . A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.

„

                      . An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested
                      in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period.

„

                      . Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age
                      24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.

                      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/aus8009.txt

                      Recidivism rates being over 40% as well!

                      2.7 mil prisoners

                      1.4 mil active gang members

                      2.5-3.5 mil active criminals

                      1.043 mil plus open felony warrants

                      Hence add in the career criminals.

                      CDC -Suicidal people speak for them-selves.

                      Shall we review police firearm discharge reports in Chicago and NYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.

                      http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shooting/PDFs/Block_and_Block_1993.pdf,
                      http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/2007_firearms_discharge_report.pdf,
                      http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf

                      Yeah, review of all the govt. data above shows over 96% of all killings by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders & crazies w approximately 50% of the remainder due to domestic violence incidents.

                      A sane person would normally address the largest problem first don’t you agree?

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:20

                      We know who is responsible for the majority of violence.

                      We also know that if insurance was required, there would be less accidental shooting by children, that the most irresponsible gun owners may not be able to afford the coverage and that people like Adam Lanza’s mother may well not have had the guns.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:56

                      Oh you want numbers, ok!

                      Since suicides are illegal, murder is illegal that means accidental deaths, justifiable homicides and the % of murders not committed by FELONS or any of the other 9 categories of people banned can be removed from the 31,084 total, which as noted in the multiple USDOJ studies and reports 80% of the most violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members.

                      Do the numbers now that you have the premise, here are the numbers for 2011.

                      31,084 killings by use of gun
                      9,892 murders
                      19,766 suicides
                      591 justifiable homicides (209 by civilians using a gun, 270 total)
                      835 accidental deaths

                      ((9,892 x .8)+19,766)/31,084 -(591+835) = 27,860/29,658 = 93.9%.

                      Oh darn, forgot the FBI not reporting the correct number of justifiable homicides, so since 209 justifiable homicides were by firearm alone by civilians, 5 times 209 = 1,045.

                      So 29,658-1,045 = 28,613

                      Redone = 27,860/28,613 = 97.3% darn, that’s more than 96%, my bad!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:17

                      Anybody can copy and paste stats that everybody already knows.
                      The problems are those that don’t fall within the stats and yet cause death and maiming of innocents.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:25

                      Yet all you can do is squeal, stomp your feet and go WAAAH DATS NOT FWAIR USING FWACTS I CANT PWOVE WONG, WAAAAAAAHHHHH!

                      Thats mocking you in case that flew over your head sweety!

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:26

                      Oh you mean you want to punish the BATF for letting 3.14 mil straw/fake identification buyers pass the background checks since 1997 to buy over 7.3 mil guns from licensed sources…about time you went after the horrible government failures rather than persecute only the law abiding!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:39

                      That’s a strawman argument.
                      I want the market to decide who presents the greatest risk, while protecting the innocent victims of “responsible” gun owners.

                • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 15:24

                  Link please. But it’s irrelevant anyway; it does not address private ownership of weapons.

                  Also, “Spare us the gun manufacturer’s lobbyist websites…”? Actually, I’ve cited to law, legal sources and grammar. So you’ve apparently either not read my citations, or simply can’t address them.

                  Good luck with your diversionary tactics.

                • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 19:36

                  Exactly correct.

                  That is an example of a well regulated organized militia which is what the 2A authorizes congress to do. I have never comprehended how some people can twist the meaning of “A well regulated Militia”, and think that it somehow, as if by magic, means, “to keep and bear well regulated arms” in reference to the unorganized militia, but thank you. :)

              • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:33

                gun sites are not unbiased and they do change the numbers to suit the narrative

                • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 21:39

                  My posts to haven’t listed “gun sites”, so it’s obvious you haven’t even examined what I’ve provided.

                  And, if what you’ve just claimed is true, you should be able to refute them easily with evidence in less than 5 minutes.

                  Good luck with that.

                  • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:43

                    yes you did use a gun site. the exact numbers you used are at the site i mentioned and the reason why they changed them because all those “thugs and gansters” are added and 15-19 yo are not considered children at the gun site that claims to show “gun myths” made by the gun haters .

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 21:55

                      18 and older is considered legally an adult, period. Therefor 18-19yr olds have no business being classified as children by either side of the debate.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:00

                      yet they are , period.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:39

                      If one can join the military, vote and make legal contracts at 18, one is no longer a child, but an adult.
                      If one is incompetent, and declared so by a judge, that would be different.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 22:57

                      I think you’ve confused me with someone else (and obviously didn’t look at MY links). I was addressing the grammatically incorrect paraphrasing of the Second Amendment, above, not any numerical stats. Please review the conversation.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:07

                      I might have, I thought I was responding to a post with statistics, sorry about that.

                  • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:48

                    The numbers given are from a site that pushes guns

            • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 13:52

              Well regulated is applied to the Militia, not to the people. All the people, were eligible for militia service, though not all served at the same time. Since you are a teacher, you should have access to a dictionary from the Colonial era also, which if you look, it will state clearly that:

              “Of troops: Properly disciplined.

              1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.”
              Oxford English Dictionary, 1690.

              • sgthwjack December 28th, 2014 at 14:45

                Modern teaching is obviously not education.

            • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:04

              Then demonstrate where the dependent clause changes the meaning of a complex sentence just by its location in the front, middle, or rear of a complex sentence sweety……CHANGE ENGLISH HISTORY FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD!

            • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:08

              Unfortunately for the anti gunutters, the only version of the second amendment ratified by the states, is the 1 comma version.

              “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.”

              Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning, and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the
              meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

              Yet some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

              http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/complexsentence.htm

              Can you also post the english composition rules for a complex sentence where the position of the dependent clause in the front, middle or end of a sentence magically changes the meaning of the complex sentence…..we cant find it anywhere!

              http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/sntstrct.html

              Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same
              thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

              So reality is, the only regulation that really is allowed by the
              govt., is to the unorganized militia. But as govt. is responsible for the call up and muster of the unorganized militia, we see they are consistent in their failure to do their jobs in not doing so.

              http://www.rain.org/%7Ekarpeles/

            • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:09

              Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to
              what exists today.

              original proposed draft 
of 
the right to keep and bear arms 
of the 
BILL of RIGHTS 
(17 TH of 20 amendments) on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library 
Santa Ana, California

              “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

              Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted?

              Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.

              http://www.wemett.net/2nd_amendment_(original_draft).html

              Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.

              The anti’s always fail to prove that a collective right can exist without the individual right first existing as how does a collective begin, oh that’s right, pre-existing individuals come together to form said collective, DOOOHH!

            • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:12

              Everyone already knows what the majority summary states in Heller, a 5-0 count for an individual right, but anti gunnutters always neglect the dissent, a 3 to 1 ruling, in favor of the individual right seperate of militia service…

              Uh for you math illiterates, thats 8 to 1 in favor of the individual right seperate of militia service…..

              No. 07–290
              _________________

              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD ANTHONY HELLER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

              [June 26, 2008]

              JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.

              Page 3

              Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court
              subscribes:

              (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and May be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See,
e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS,
J., dissenting).

              Since a person who is a citizen is conferred the BOR you are going to have a really hard time convincing people this isn’t what it appears, or what was referenced earlier, that IT WAS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INDEPENDENT OF MILITIA SERVICE!

              • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 06:18

                The gun nutters always ignore;

                The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

                And… Miller

                • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:23

                  Funny, the BOR has and always will be, a control on the powers of the government, not the rights of the individual, prove otherwise sweety!

        • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 19:16

          There has been a lot of confusion about the words well regulated, let me help clear that up for you. The following is taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

          1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
          1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
          1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
          1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
          1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

          No one would suggest the gov’t has a right to “regulate” appetites, clocks, persons, or minds.

          Implying that the phrase “well regulated” means that the Gov’t has a right to regulate, as defined in the modern sense, firearms is an argument from historical ignorance. The gov’t has the right to regulate the organized militia, and keep it “well regulated”. Your argument would be more convincing if the 2A appeared as follows:

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

          However the 2A’s actual text is as follows:

          “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.”

          This is a common error, so I don’t hold it against you, now you know.

  15. diggity dog August 17th, 2014 at 15:59

    The 2nd amendment states (even if the logic behind it is outdated) that you have the right to own arms. NOT to carry it around with you everywhere. Not to have it slung – loaded – and with extra ammo – across your chest when you enter into a Chipotle. That was definitely NOT in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. And any fool who says that “bear arms” means you can carry it – I will point out that the word arms has two meanings as well and we choose to have it mean weapons and not your actual arms.

    This just defies logic and common decency. No one wants to infringe your right to bear arms. If you want to hold fast to an outdated amendment that is no longer necessary, then you are all free to carry muskets around with you – but don’t start selectively interpreting the spirit of the law.

    • PavePusher December 4th, 2014 at 12:14

      “…keep AND BEAR arms…”

      Please invest in a good dictionary.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

      Also: http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

      P.S. Where is this “common decency” defined?

      • Lori Lanham December 27th, 2014 at 11:48

        “Well-regulated militia” comes before “keep and bear arms.”

        • PavePusher December 27th, 2014 at 12:44

          Your application of grammar is incorrect.

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

          • Lori Lanham December 28th, 2014 at 13:40

            If you’d like to discuss grammar, you’re welcome to entertain the students in my English class with examples of my writing “mistakes.” These two phrases still exist in the 2nd Amendment, and I’ve cited them in the correct order.

            • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 14:33

              You haven’t been able to refute my citations. Mere order of appearance does not dictate meaning.

              http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

              I fear for your students.

              • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 15:53

                Spare us the gun manufacturer’s lobbyist websites, and fear for your OWN lack of knowledge.

                A small excerpt from An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
                Approved, May 8, 1792.

                “Militia how to be arranged, and That
                within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division,
                brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record
                made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in
                the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment
                shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or
                lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade
                shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each
                battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates.

                by whom officered.

                That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each
                division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also
                as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one
                lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company
                one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one
                drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to
                consist of

                1803, ch. 15, sec. 3.

                one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one
                fife-major…..

                • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 16:10

                  Not sure what you are trying to get at here. The Militia Act of 1903 is now the controlling law.

                  “U.S. Code Title 10,
                  Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311:

                  (a) The militia of the
                  United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and
                  … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
                  to become, citizens of the United States…

                  (b) The classes of the
                  militia are—

                  (1) the organized
                  militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

                  (2) the unorganized
                  militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of
                  the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
                  Also known as the Dick Act. Notice, how the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 also specified the arms to be acquired by the militia members, which were ALL freemen, except for a few public officials. The 1903 Dick Act didn’t specify arms for the “un-organized militia”.

                  • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 16:19

                    That does not necessarily have anything to do with the intent of the Founders.

                    Even the The Militia Act of 1903 doesn’t include anyone who can shoot himself in the foot or various other body parts.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 16:25

                      Correct, it addresses only the militia. Which has nothing to do with private ownership.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 16:28

                      Got it. Intent of the founders. OK.

                      “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
                      —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

                      “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
                      —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

                      “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
                      —Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

                      “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

                      –Patrick Henry, VA Ratifying Convention, June 2 to 26, 1788.
                      I appreciate you clearing up my confusion.

                    • sgthwjack ✯ December 28th, 2014 at 16:33

                      Speaking of founders,

                      “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, Federalist Papers #46

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 16:51

                      That has nothing about the intent either.

                      There was no standing army nor was there a ‘well regulated militia”.

                      All these quotes were from before those entities came into being, at the hands of the same Founders.

                      When Washington used the VERY well regulated militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, was HE and the militiamen from the 4 states, the NEW tyrants??

                      Do you really think that those founders were thinking that the citizenry would require fighter jets and Bradley tanks?

                      That they be armed like our small town police are today?

                      I fear YOU are STILL confused.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 17:04

                      Actually, you may be confused. The founders very much intended that the People, all of them, to be members of the militia. And the Congress did, for over 100 years, issue to the states the training regimen as outlined in the Constitution. That was what the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 was all about. That same law specified the minimal weapons each of the members were to acquire, and maintain.

                      As for what the founders were thinking, I can’t be certain. But there is no law stating that fighter jets or Bradley FIGHTING vehicles can only be owned by military. Their intent was, as evidenced by the words of Tenche Coxe, “…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” To assume anything else in the face of other such evidence is simply delusional. Nothing you have cited supports what you seem to be asserting.

                      BTW, the Militias of the states existed even under the Articles of Confederation. An Army also existed, though it was never more than a few hundred professional officers and senior enlisted, meant to be the core of any Army needed when calling forth the militia.

                    • sgthwjack ✯ December 28th, 2014 at 17:13

                      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Samuel Adams

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 17:16

                      The key is; “training regimen as outlined in the Constitution.”

                      So get back to me when all the wackos who are leaving their guns for one child to shoot a sibling, and shooting themselves in the WalMart parking lot, killing the person upstairs because they use their gun as a crutch, Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza are part of a training regime.

                      This is the tyranny under which we suffer today.

                      Meanwhile, there are other interpretations like;

                      James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his
                      constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use
                      its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming
                      the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. His argument is based
                      on a multiplicity of the historical evidence, including debates between James
                      Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying
                      Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the First
                      Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision in
                      the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 17:20

                      The actions of some do not impact the Rights of the people. The Army already existed, via the Constitution. The COnstitution laid out the responsibility of the Army and the Militia, which have no Rights. They have only Duties. The 2d ensures that the people have the Right to keep and bear the arms necessary in case the militia is called forth, but it does not limit us to active duty, or duty in the National Guard.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 17:43

                      1) That’s only an opinion.
                      2) That does not mean that the right to bear any arm by anybody is absolute.

                      That is why, Chief Justice Warren Burger said,
                      “The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest
                      pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special
                      interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in
                      1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the
                      right to have firearms at all.” In his view, the purpose of the Second
                      Amendment was “to ensure that the ‘state armies’—’the militia’—would be
                      maintained for the defense of the state.”

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 17:48

                      The Courts have stepped all over the Constitution, as you know. But there are NO limitations, concerning our Rights, within the Constitution. So yes, it was absolute!
                      Burger was an idiot and a Socialist. He used no, absolutely no, quotes from our Founders or from previous court cases. He was expressing a Leftist philosophy only!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 18:02

                      The Courts have stepped all over the Constitution, as you know. But there are NO limitations, concerning our Rights, within the Constitution. So yes, it was absolute!

                      ______

                      That’s hooey.
                      Again, there is the old, screaming fire in a crowded theater, you don’t have to right to kiddie porn, or to spew obscenities in the public square or to slander another person.

                      Burger was a conservative, but then YOU guys called Eisenhower a communist, so I have little confidence that you know what these words even mean.

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 18:09

                      As for yelling fire, if you do not give warning, you could be held criminally liable. Our Rights are limited ONLY to not harming others Rights. Carrying a firearm does not harm others’ RIghts.
                      Burger was no conservative, as evidenced by the majority of his opinions. Again, on this opinion he gave zero Constitutional backing for it!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 18:28

                      Carrying a firearm does not harm others’ RIghts.

                      ______

                      Until it does.

                      That is why Scalia said, in Heller;

                      Scalia in Heller;

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

                      Burger was very conservative. You guys just lost touch.

                      That’s why : Bruce Bartlett said, “I still consider myself to be a conservative in the tradition of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley. I don’t think most of today’s conservatives have any idea who those people were.”

                    • Guest December 28th, 2014 at 20:56

                      “Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
                      I agree, we have enough gun control laws now, but it interesting that the decision mentioned “commercial” sales and left out private sales.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 21:08

                      I think we need better screening and we don’t need high capacity magazines.

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:20

                      What do you mean by “better screening” and “high capacity magazines”?

                    • neighbor kid December 29th, 2014 at 00:27

                      If the gov’t can decide that say 20 round magazines is too much, then why not 1 round magazines, why not zero. Besides, a magazine is nothing more then a box and a spring, they can be made quite easily, I have even made them on my 3D printer, and there are well over a billion of them or more (not kidding) in the US already.

                      The age of a gov’t “banning” magazines, is over. I would wish you good luck, but I really wouldn’t mean it! :)

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:28

                      That’s silly.
                      That is like saying that there can be no guidelines as to how much pollution you can spew out, or where and to whom you can sell cigarettes and alcohol.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:47

                      All anti gunterds leave out some of the details and context of scalias opinion, especially that he is pointing out the laws pertaining to the ABUSE of the 2A, not the lawful exercise of the 2A.

                      Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. Scalia’s statement is what is called a DICTA!

                      http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d047.htm

                      The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge’s editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.

                      Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case.

                      “Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.

                      As one judge said, ‘If general dicta in cases turning on special circumstances are to be considered as establishing the law, nothing is yet settled, or can be long settled.

                      What I have said or written, out of the case trying, or shall say or write, under such circumstances, maybe taken as my opinion at the time, without argument or full consideration; but

                      I will never consider myself bound by it when the point is fairly trying and fully argued and considered.

                      And I protest against any person considering such obiter dicta as my deliberate opinion.’

                      And another said it is ‘great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions.'”

                      From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right
                      was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
                      courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see
                      generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
                      imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

                      Reading this exact excerpt from the Heller ruling, dont see any mention or claim that additional laws were constitutional, or that additional laws were consitutional upon the law abiding, or any confiscations much less a limitation on the common use firearms in existance which this ruling did not in fact repeal Miller VS US 1939 which established the two pronged test for what is an acceptable fireamr, and geez, semi-auto weapons in common use for over 100 years are indeed qualified.

                      Oh darn, that footnote #26 states what?

                      And I quote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory
                      measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive”

                      Examples, hmmm, not specific, not ruled upon, not qualified or ruled as constitutional, SUCKS TO BE YOU!

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:04

                      Scalia’s remarks have no force of law. The Decision, throwing out the D.C. restrictions, have the force of law. All the others are open to voter influence, and we’ve generally been winning the argument.
                      Semper fi

                    • sgthwjack ✯ December 28th, 2014 at 19:29

                      The entire Bill of Rights presupposes that those rights enumerated, were pre-existing, not “granted” by the document.

                      As such, they, as well as those referenced by the 9th amendment, are not subject to approval or denial by any government. If any one of us,including our would-be rulers, violate the rights of anyone else, then punishment is in order, not before. Mucking about in the weeds with what ifs, and other such emotional, hypothetical claptrap, is simply so much Bravo Sierra!

                      Life itself is risky business, always has been and always shall be. The true nature of Liberty requires responsibility, for good or ill. Excuses do not matter, that is the truth. Simply apply logical, rational thought, and remember that whatever government can do to one, it can, and will, do to all of us. History teaches, if one expends the effort to study, THINK, and learn!

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:03

                      Sarge, I’m not sure whether you were responding to me, but it certainly seems as if we agree.
                      Semper fi

                    • sgthwjack ✯ December 29th, 2014 at 11:42

                      In support of your post, fire support of a sort. ;-))

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:05

                      I know of no such labeling of Ike. Burger was appointed by a Republican, but was not conservative in his decisions.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:13

                      Robert Welch (founder of the John Birch Society), claimed Ike was a “conscious agent of the
                      international communist conspiracy”
                      Now, they sponsored last year’s CPAC.

                      Basically, the Tea people of today.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:27

                      No, it isn’t the “Tea Party” of today. The Tea Party is about taxation, the reason why it attracts a broad spectrum of political agreement. The JBS was about Communists, and it was proved right about Eisenhower’s protection of several of his advisors.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:31

                      Oh please.
                      The Tea people know nothing about taxes.

                      The are the “Get Your Government Hands Off My Government Handouts” crowd, corporate welfare and calling everyone their leader hate, “communists”.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:38

                      The Tea Party know as much about taxes as any American! And inconsistency is immaterial, and very human!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:46

                      Pardon me if I am not impressed.

                      The Misinformed Tea Party Movement
                      http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 12:49

                      I don’t really care if you’re impressed. Most Tea Party adherents know what they want, and why. If they are inconsistent, tough.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 14:13

                      That’s what EVERYBODY says.

                      Meanwhile, They never uttered a peep when Bush was running up huge deficits or the GOP was running the K street Project.
                      They questioned the patriotism of everyone who disagreed with them and called them ,“anti-American” and “With the terrorists”.

                      Once Bush’s numbers plummeted, they just tiptoed backwards out of the room put on a tri-cornered hat and said, “George W Who?? Oh, we never liked him! He’s not a REAL conservative!! We’re Tea partiers now!!!”

                      Then they were chanting, “WE HAD ENOUGH!!” 2 1/2 months AFTER a new government took office, at the behest of the elites who caused the problems to begin with, when they feared TRUE reform.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 14:17

                      Actually, they began to organize in response to Bush’s spending. But you apparently weren’t paying any attention then.
                      Semper fi

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 17:56

                      BTW, what is only an opinion? That the Army and militia were accounted for in the Constitution? Or that the Army and Militia have no Rights? If the latter, precisely what Rights do the Army and/or the Militia have?
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 17:59

                      That the Founders intended everybody and anybody to be armed.
                      I ask again;
                      In the Whiskey Rebellion, who represented the “tyranny”?

                    • John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 18:11

                      That was the government who represented tyranny! The whiskey producers of Pennsylvania were being oppressed by those who wished to profit from whiskey, and there was no justification for the taxes being levied on them. For this reason, the tax was later rescinded!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 18:21

                      The duly elected thought otherwise.
                      But if the government has been tyrannical (meaning they disagree with you), since it’s inception, then perhaps Somalia is a better fit.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:04

                      It’s illegal to own firearms in Somalia. I believe I’ll stay here and continue to help those who try to restrain government back to it’s original limitations.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:15

                      No it’s not, just as everyone was armed in Saddam’s Iraq.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:25

                      Somalia’s regulations concerning firearms are easily available on line, where I found them. Ownership of firearms in Saddam’s Iraq was limited to his tribe.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:33

                      I found them as well.

                      And “Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.”, (including the Shia).

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:37

                      That was allowed, but the laws were different from what was allowed!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:48

                      The guns didn’t help them any more than they helped the Jews in the The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising .

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 12:49

                      The Jews of Warsaw knew they would lose the fight. They decided to resist anyway, knowing it’s better to die on your feet than on your knees. They tied down most of 3 German Divisions and a host of police units. The Divisions were slated for the Russian front. While not a deciding factor, the temporary lack of those Divisions helped ensure that Von Paulus’ Army Group was defeated by the Russians, ultimately surrendering. Your lack of historical knowledge does you no benefit. But your preference of slavery over death is noted.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 14:05

                      We know that.
                      Those without guns would do as well against similar lopsided opposition.
                      Too bad YOUR ignorance of history does not serve you and too bad you expect me to bow to the tyranny of the gun lobby.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 14:19

                      The gun lobby’s “tyranny” extends only to demanding that you leave us alone! Leave the Constitution alone. Do that and there is no “tyranny”! The only tyranny I see is from you anti-Constitution people demanding that government be allowed to operate in unconstitutional manners.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 14:35

                      The gun lobby’s “tyranny” extends only to demanding that you leave us alone!

                      _______

                      Nobody’s buying it.

                      The gun lobby’s “tyranny” extends only to demanding that you leave the next man who used his rifle as a crutch and accidentally killed 5 year old upstairs neighbor alone, and those who leave their guns out so that children can shoot each other and that we respect the rights of Adam Lanza’s mom over the rights of the victims.

                      And you don’t have a lock on the Constitution, which is why at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.”
                      Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

                      “.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

                      The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 14:46

                      No, we don’t demand what you claim. Nor has the NRA claimed to have a “lock” on the Constitution. We claim that the 2d Amendment protects our Rights from government infringement. As for what the NRA puts on it’s wall, that’s none of your business. We haven’t “edited” anything out, keeping marksmanship on the front burner at all times.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 15:04

                      And we claim that the 2nd amendment protects our right to have a “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State” instead of a standing army.

                      “There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.” –Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

                      WE claim that Scalia was correct in Heller (even though I disagree with the decision);
                      “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is
                      not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
                      in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
                      prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The
                      Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions
                      on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws
                      forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
                      and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications
                      on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the
                      sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds
                      support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous
                      and unusual weapons.”

                      The NRA is now just a lobbyist for gun manufacturers.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 15:53

                      The NSSF is the lobbying organization for gun manufacturers.
                      You Lefties love to quote Scalia, but forget that ALL 9 Justices held that the Right is an individual one. As for Miller, the Court held that firearms protected by the 2d are those designed for “militia use”! That would include ALL rifles, pistols, submachine guns, and automatic rifles. It does not, and never did, include crew-served weapons or explosives, although ownership of such was completely unregulated until 1934.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 16:16

                      No they didn’t.

                      The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

                      And no one disputes the right of some or many individuals to have arms to protect themselves.

                      The 2nd only guarantees that right to those willing to subject themselves to the rigors of the well regulated militia.

                      And who are “You lefties”?

                      I question the usage here, as “Righties” USED to think as I do.

                      Remember ;

                      ” There is no reason why on the street today a citizen
                      should be carrying loaded weapons.”

                      Governor Ronald Reagan upon signing the Mulford Act in 1967, “prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.”

                      ???

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 16:55

                      Read his dissent. He begins with an agreement that the Right is individual!
                      Reagan was the best President of the 20th century, but that doesn’t mean he was always correct in the end.
                      Cruikshank would be stare decisis, and came before the post-Miller cases, by your reasoning making them moot!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 17:01

                      Frankly, I think Reagan was one of the worst presidents.

                      What exactly did Stevens say??

                    • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 10:00

                      Here are the first two sentences of Stevens’ dissent. ” The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 30th, 2014 at 20:37

                      Then he goes on to explain,” But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.”..” Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question. The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

                      In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.”

                      Which is EXACTLY what gun control advocates say.

                    • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 20:44

                      Why yes, he does go on, in his failed dissent. But, as you saw, he and the other three dissenters ALL believe it an individual Right!
                      Miller did not, in any manner, hold that the people of the states have a Right to arm themselves to maintain a well regulated militia. The Miller decision does NOT address that subject, in any way. If you did an iota of research, you know that full well, and yet you post Stevens’ dissent as if it holds truth??
                      Read the 2d paragraph you posted. The court addressed the efficacy of a sawed off shotgun, and NOT the militia. What they actually said is that military arms are precisely what the 2d Amendment protects, to the people. Stevens says it applies to an individual Right!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 30th, 2014 at 20:59

                      Yes. An individual right that is not absolute and can be regulated by the state.

                      And yes; “We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

                      In other words, it is not used as part of the well regulated militia, therefor it is not an absolute right.
                      “The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the
                      Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that
                      “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
                      [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation
                      or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
                      Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307
                      U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding
                      the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.

                      Since United States v. Miller, most federal
                      court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as
                      preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.”

                      And Stevens dissent as well as Miller holds as much truth as the opinion of any other justice…. IF you did any research.

                    • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 21:10

                      You forget that this was a decision driven by an anti-Constitution former Governor, and that the claimant had died some time before, and therefore wasn’t in Court to present his case! Further, the case was NOT about the militia, but about the efficiency of a sawed off shotgun as a military weapon. It was not, and is not, though shotguns are legitimate battle weapons, in use by the Marine Corps and the Army. Read the plain English. Military firearms are those which are protected to the individual citizen, specifically! No court decision held as you claim!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 30th, 2014 at 21:19

                      Perhaps YOU forget that it was a very PRO-Constitution former Governor. (see you don’t get to decide WHO is PRO or ANTI Constitution)

                      The decision was based upon the premise that if you don’t use it in the well regulated militia, it can be regulated by the state.

                      NO ONE says, “Military firearms are those which are protected to the individual citizen,”, else the individual could have an RPG.

                    • John Crawford December 31st, 2014 at 09:51

                      No, the governor (also a judge) had an ax to grind, and he ground it in the Supreme Court, which ruled very differently than he wished. Miller clearly stated that military weapons are those which are most applicable under the 2d Amendment. It never mentioned service in a militia. And while the 2d Amendment WAS open to the states, it has been incorporated and is no longer applicable in that manner.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 31st, 2014 at 14:56

                      No, the governor (also a judge) had an ax to grind, and he ground it in the Supreme Court

                      ________

                      That’s what EVERYONE says when they don’t get the ruling they want.

                      That’s what they say about David N. Bossie and Citizens United , and Hobby Lobby.

                      The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

                      Miller clearly stated that the 2nd Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia, implying membership in such a militia).

                    • John Crawford December 31st, 2014 at 15:08

                      Yep, but the judges in the CU case weren’t driving it, nor had any Governors a beef with the claimants, as was the case in Miller.
                      No such implications exist. Court decisions say what they mean. It is military weapons that are specifically protected to individual ownership and use.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 31st, 2014 at 15:17

                      ep, but the judges in the CU case weren’t driving it,

                      ______

                      ??????

                      Of course they were.

                      Bossie only broke the law to get it into the SCOTUS and pass new campaign finance law, with judges with whom his crowd fund raise.

                      It is military weapons that are specifically protected to individual ownership and use.

                      _______

                      I agree. If the individual is part of a well regulated militia, not just any yahoo who shots at raindrops as we have now.

                      That why Burger was correct in saying that it has become a fraud.

                    • John Crawford December 31st, 2014 at 15:25

                      Nothing in the 2d Amendment requires membership in an organized militia. That isn’t how Rights work! Or, are you a member in good standing at a newspaper? If not, how is it you have a Right to type on your computer?
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 31st, 2014 at 15:39

                      Nothing in the 2d Amendment requires membership in an organized militia.

                      ______

                      At least half of the legal scholars believe that that is EXACTLY what 2nd amendment requires.

                      And it has nothing to do with being a member of a newspaper and the first amendment, as my right to free speech can be regulated the same as my right to own any gun.
                      No right is absolute, especially when it diminishes the right of another.

                    • John Crawford December 31st, 2014 at 16:30

                      And yet, none of those scholars can point to anything in the words of our Founders to support their assertions, nor in the deliberations that lead to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. English scholars have parsed the 2d Amendment to death, and cannot come up with a meaning to support them.
                      Your last is incomplete! Until my exercise of my Rights DOES diminish the Rights of another, they are absolute!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty December 31st, 2014 at 16:52

                      And yet, none of those scholars can point to anything in the words of our Founders to support their assertions, nor in the deliberations that lead to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

                      _______

                      That’s EXACTLY what THEY say to YOU.

                      It is clear from the language of the amendment, especially the debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the
                      First Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision
                      in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

                      ….”Rights DOES diminish the Rights of another, they are absolute!”

                      _______

                      No, they are not.
                      Before you speak, you don’t have the right to libel me.
                      I don’t have the right to speak in public to give your name and address to incite violence against you.
                      One doesn’t have to right to distribute pornography to children or to yell “BOMB!” on an airplane.

                    • John Crawford January 1st, 2015 at 13:39

                      Libel diminishes your Right to your good name. That is the first piece of evidence that you don’t know what you’re speaking of. And so do the others.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 1st, 2015 at 15:29

                      Thou dost project too much, Methinks. (especially about knowing what you are talking about.)

                      Libel, (including defamation and slander), obscenity, fighting words, sedition, incitement to crime, and causing panic are all examples of speech that can be restricted.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 13:38

                      All of those violate the Rights of others. They are NOT restricted. They are punished, which is far different.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 13:45

                      All of those violate the Rights of others. They are NOT restricted.

                      _______

                      Punished MEANS they are restricted.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 14:21

                      No, it doesn’t mean restricted. If you use fighting words to me, or libel me, but I don’t complain, you are NOT penalized. That means there is no restriction!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 14:33

                      Don’t be silly.

                      If you obtain an illegal fire arm and don’t use it against anyone, it’s STILL restricted, as is certain speech.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 14:41

                      Libel is NOT illegal. Neither is slander. They are grounds for civil suit only.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 14:50

                      Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libels liability is constitutional.

                      Threatening terrorism against the United States is a class C felony punishable by 10 years imprisonment

                      Threatening the government officials of the United States is a serious crime under federal law. Threatening the President of the United States is a Class D felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 14:56

                      Threatening terrorism is a matter of definition, means, opportunity, and intent. Lots of people “threaten”, and are rarely prosecuted because it is words only!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 15:03

                      That is true.
                      It is still an example of how the first amendment is not absolute.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 15:17

                      No, it is absolute until you harm the Rights of others, as I said. That is the ONLY way in which it is not absolute, and NO ONE has claimed otherwise. Only the Left attempts to take this to the extreme you (again) try. Not the Right.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 15:32

                      No, it is NOT absolute. That is why you can not purchase a stinger missile.
                      All the right has, is taking EVERYTHING to the extreme, to pander to a niche audience.

                    • John Crawford January 2nd, 2015 at 15:45

                      Who has told you that you cannot buy a stinger? They lied. If you have the money, and can fulfill the bureaucratic requirements, you may certainly buy a stinger!
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 2nd, 2015 at 15:54

                      January 27, 2013 at 4:20 PM

                      After buyback program, Seattle police try to track history of missile launcher

                      Posted by Beth Kaiman

                      The Associated Press

                      Seattle police are tracking down the history of a nonfunctional missile launcher that showed up at a Saturday weapons buyback event in Seattle.

                      Detective Mark Jamieson said a man standing outside the buyback event bought the military weapon for $100 from another person at the event. The item, a single-use device that had already been used, is a launch-tube assembly for a Stinger portable surface-to-air missile. He said detectives will notify Army Criminal Investigation on Monday.

                      Jamieson said the launcher is a controlled military item and is not available to civilians through any surplus or disposal program offered by the government. He said the launch tube was most likely obtained unlawfully from the military, and would likely be returned to Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

                      http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/01/after-buyback-program-seattle-police-try-to-track-history-of-missile-launcher/

                    • John Crawford January 3rd, 2015 at 15:50

                      The launcher is available for sale. Being a multi-use launcher, it is covered by regulation. So it’s either stolen, or the government lost it. Both happen.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 4th, 2015 at 09:37

                      From where is it available?

                    • John Crawford January 4th, 2015 at 11:57

                      I haven’t looked in a while, and don’t bookmark those sites, not having any use for such.
                      Semper fi

                    • OldLefty January 4th, 2015 at 12:08

                      I think you are mistaken.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 19:28

                      You want to know what is really funny? Burger pronouncing the 2A was a fraud on the people of the US, yet, when his liberal brethren had the opportunity to say the exact same thing, in 2008, DC v. Heller, they missed that boat completely.

                      “In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.”

                      Justice Breyer,with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsberg join, dissenting.

                      Then there was the OTHER dissent,

                      “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “Individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.”

                      Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
                      So, it seems as if the decision, in Heller, was 9-0 when it pondered if the 2A was an individual right, or ONLY for the militia units of the state. Seems as if even fellow liberals couldn’t even accept his nonsense.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 19:46

                      You want to know what is really funny? Burger pronouncing the 2A was a fraud on the people of the US

                      _______

                      1) That’s not what he said. He said that ““The
                      Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I
                      repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that
                      I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

                      The key word here being “subject”.

                      2) Burger’s conservative brethren are dupes of the gun manufacturers.

                      And in the dissent of the 5-4 decision;

                      The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 20:10

                      Conservative brethren? The 4 who voted in the dissent aren’t his brethren, and Burger is no conservative. He never has been. Like I said, his LIBERAL brethren could have said the exact same thing.
                      Now, as for Stevens dissent, he lost. As did Breyer. So, while their dissents are interesting, they are irrelevant to the fact the 2A protects an individual right. It is also irrelevant what he thought the framers actually desired, because he is projecting HIS ideals and beliefs upon the framers.
                      I would be happy to read over any quote from the framers which would support your thesis. The problem is, they don’t exist.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:35

                      Of course Burger is a conservative.

                      And I refer to the conservatives on the Court.

                      “It is also irrelevant what he thought the framers actually desired, because he is projecting HIS ideals and beliefs upon the framers.”
                      _______

                      That is what the NRA and their supplicants in government do.

                      As for any quote from the Framers; I would suggest the entire 2nd amendment.

                      Also see;

                      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

                      Then you have to tell me if Washington was guilty of tyranny when he used the “well regulated militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, (so that as soon as the Founders BECAME the government, they BECAME the tyrants that the people had to be armed against?) …..

                      Then, you need to explain allowing the military and the police from acquiring overwhelming force.
                      Better get an RPG and a Bradley.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 21:19

                      CARL T. BOGUS? Please, tell me you are kidding. He is a hack, that has been refuted more times than Raquel Welch has been held by men. No original research on his own, but lifting the idea wholesale from a 1949 book.

                      http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/30/the-second-amendment-was-not-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

                      As for your ridiculous question concerning the Whiskey Rebellion, why don’t you answer your own question? Only you are even suggesting Washington engaged in tyranny, you answer your loaded question, because any answer I gave, you would consider WRONG, regardless of accuracy.
                      As for the military getting overwhelming weapons? All for it. I would never want to go into a war zone with a potato gun, but you are welcome to do so.
                      As for police, we agree! The police have been militarized, mostly because of the “War on (some) Drugs”. Time to admit defeat in that “war”, force the police to get rid of the military weapons, and drastically scale back the SWAT teams. While I personally abhor illegal drugs, the feds have NO power ceded by the states for the manner in which this ill conceived pogrom has been implemented.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 21:34

                      I think Bogus is pretty much accurate, he supplies a lot of excellent sources. You give the right wing Independent Institute?

                      Clearly, Washington intended the VERY well regulated militia to put down the rebellion.
                      I think the idea of an armed citizenry fighting the government with their little phallic symbols today is ludicrous and childish, and meant only to line the pockets of the gun industry.

                      I agree about the war on drugs, but now we need to fear the tyranny of the gun makers and wacko gun owners and their sycophants.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 21:46

                      If you think Bogus is accurate and legitimate, then there is no hope to have a fairly polite discussion about this subject.
                      Interesting that it seems you didn’t even look at the citation, just dismissed it because you are afraid to look at this honestly, I guess.

                      As for “armed citizenry fighting the government with their little phallic symbols today is ludicrous and childish”, have you seen what happened to the military in the Middle and Far East? The citizenry of those countries were able to defeat the French, the Russians, and gave us a run for the money. And they used “their little phallic symbols”

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 22:12

                      That’s what I say about you and your sources.

                      So what?

                      What citation? Anthony Gregory??

                      Read it. Not impressed.

                      as for; what happened to the military in the Middle and Far East?

                      Oh, please.
                      Most were armed by others.
                      The Viet Cong had Chinese and Soviet weapons, but most homemade booby traps.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:24

                      reagan did help by arming them

                    • Guest December 29th, 2014 at 00:22

                      Does that mean what happened to the French in Vietnam, qualifies as being cocksmacked? :)

                    • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 23:49

                      If it were only a question of what level of force a nation can bring to bear, then we wouldn’t still be waging a war in Afghanistan after 13 years. Whether or not, another revolution is viable in the modern era is of course debatable, but there certainly could not be any victory against a tyrannical gov’t if there were no weapons with which to fight with.

                      I don’t believe such a scenario will ever come to pass, but for the sake of discussion, lets say it did, do you really think Americans would to go toe to toe with the worlds most powerful military? The US Military is a small, and technologically sophisticated machine, designed to utterly destroy other armies, and trust me when I say, we do this well. However it is contingent upon knowing where the enemy is, what they’re doing, and being able to attack them effectively.

                      However, as seen in our conflicts in recent years and in the past, our military has a much tougher time against combatants who engage in unconventional warfare. When fighting insurgencies, their military command and control structure is highly decentralized, and thus, very difficult to diminish or destroy. Practitioners of guerilla warfare, utilize hit and run tactics, harass supply lines and infrastructure and use an overall strategy of slowly bleeding out and weakening a militarily superior enemy, thus denying it, a fight on it’s own terms, this same strategy was used against us in Vietnam.

                      Our military is a broadsword, its not a scalpel, it’s simply not designed that way, urban and asymmetric warfare, are the toughest types of warfare to wage, and history is replete with example after example of small or less powerful forces defeating larger or more powerful ones.

                      This is just an academic exercise, but there is more to warfare then just rolling in with over whelming force. The United States is huge you have no idea the logistics involved in securing a nation this size. No offense, but you might consider sticking to topics you’re better versed in, war is not a game.

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:23

                      “I think the idea of an armed citizenry fighting the government with their little phallic symbols today is ludicrous and childish…”

                      Apparently, you need to read up on “asymmetrical warfare” and “guerilla warfare”. Then explain why we’ve been in Afghanistan for 13 years. (Been there myself, so do your homework.) Then you need to look at whether the U.S. military would side with the People or the Government in any particular scenario.
                      By the way, firearms are not “phallic symbols”. Get some counseling. Soon.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:41

                      Apparently, you need to read up on “asymmetrical warfare” and “guerilla warfare”.

                      ________

                      Oh, please, grow up.

                      We’ve been in Afghanistan for 13 years because no one wants to be the one to give up and because they have minerals.

                      US military side with the people???

                      The “People” are torn and divided, and can’t decide with whom to side.

                      In YOUR naive scenario, we would see ALL the people and military and police against a few bureaucrats and elected officials. Guns would hardly be necessary.

                      What’s wrong with you?

                      As for; “By the way, firearms are not “phallic symbols”

                      They are EXACTLY that.

                      As another poster called it; “the Teeny Weeny Peeny Club”.

                      I would not tell others to seek counseling if I were you.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:42

                      Only pedophiles and rapists obsess so much with others junk, do tell!

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 21:53

                      BTW, Burger is anything BUT a conservative!

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 22:04

                      He is absolutely a conservative.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 22:10

                      Look at his decisions and his court.
                      There is rarely a conservative case he voted with the dissent. He ALSO voted in the majority in Roe v. Wade. No, Burger was no conservative.

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:15

                      You can buy almost anything available to the police or military, if you have the funds. And then you can band together with other like-minded Citizens. All perfectly legal.

                      Have at it.

                    • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 20:46

                      Chief Justice Warren Burger laid out no evidence to support his claims, remember, any assertion made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, thus burger’s personal opinion is meaningless.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:51

                      Chief Justice Warren Burger laid out no evidence to support his claims,

                      ________

                      That’s what they say about the other side.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:53

                      That’s what we say about the other side.

                      And about EVERY 2nd amendment case in our history.

                    • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 20:59

                      It was not a ruling though, it was his own personal opinion. In Heller, even the more liberal justices in the dissent gave reasons, and pointed to historical precedents to support their claims, Burger, nothing.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 21:07

                      That is true, but that doesn’t make Burger’s point less true.

                    • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 21:20

                      Nothing is true unless it is verifiable though the use facts and rational discourse, otherwise, crazy stuff like “last thursdayism”, “creationism”, “geo centrism” and “flat earthism” would be valid assertions.

                      in science theories are not proven, only disproven, with the exception of mathematics, thus Burgers” opinion is meaningless. If he had had any information to back him up, I’m certain he would have laid it out in the article, but he didn’t, and we are left to assume, that he couldn’t.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 21:42

                      Nothing is true unless it is verifiable though the use facts and rational discourse,

                      _______

                      That is basically true of every decision made by the Courts and every bit of legislation passed.

                    • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 22:18

                      All of that may be true, but you’re drifting off topic, which is Burgers assertions in regards to the 2A. If Chief Justice Burger is right, we should expect that legal materials of the nineteenth century would clearly support his claim. In the period before the founding of the NRA , we should not expect to find assertions that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

                      Unless you care to do some research as Burger’s proxy and produce valid evidence showing that the 2A confirms and protects a “collective” right, then, once again, Berger’s assertion is invalid, and may be dismissed without further ado.

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:12

                      Except that there’s nothing to support him in history or legal precedent.

                      Otherwise, yeah, whateveh….

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:10

                      Burger was wrong, and couldn’t get 4 other justices to agree with his legal opinion. So he’s irrelevant on this issue.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:37

                      The actions of some do not impact the Rights of the people…why do you and the gop push voting restrictions, it is a right?

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:42

                      No-one is “pushing” anything more than our current Second Amendment screening. Prove your eligibility.

                      If it’s O.K. for one Amendment, it’s O.K. for the other, right? After all, all the arguments against ID for voting would also apply to ID (and hence the NICS) for buying a gun. Right?

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:42

                      What do you demokrats have to hide…..nothing, so why then are you so for an ID to exercise the 2A but so against an ID to vote, when a country like India, where 40% of the population makes less than $1.25 USD a day, but EVERYONE has an ID……

                      Maybe the poor should buy an ID rather than a Colt 45 Malt Liquor eh sweety!

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 14:02

                      troll babble, yuck

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:01

                      No such restrictions have been proposed.
                      Semper fi

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 14:00

                      you are kidding, right?

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 14:19

                      Not a bit. There are no restrictions proposed, and you cannot show one!
                      Semper fi

                    • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:10

                      if “minorities” were to enter a restaurant where you were dining with your family, you’d be the first on the phone with the police, calling the manager and threatening to walk out w/o paying if they weren’t removed because they were carrying guns. wrong skin color or wrong ethnic group. go figure.

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:09

                      YOU are a liar and a bigot. Play your filthy Race Card(tm) elsewhere.

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 02:28

                      liar and bigot? you would hope that to be true about me. sorry, but here’s what’s true; that a black man in walmart was shot to death while holding a fake gun in the walmart toy section, was because a white man called and lied to the police that he was pointing it at people, when the video clearly showed that not to be the case. there is open carry there, but, by him being black, he was automatically a threat. so who was playing the paranoid race card there? he wasn’t doing anything that might suggest he was going to harm anyone. i, and quite frankly, you, shouldn’t be afraid of him. i would be afraid of a white male first doing that. and there is a reason for the race “card” if you will, its been obvious for centries that “minorities” have been a target for everything under the sun, even when its not warranted. and they are all genetically bad. but, let a white man do worse, and they are all mentally ill. by that standard, all white people should be on meds.

                    • Guest December 29th, 2014 at 03:05

                      Yeah, a paranoid “white man” who called the cops like yourself? My heart grieves for that poor guy, all because idiots like you run rampant with your absurd paranoid ways. You want to what kind a person could make that call, go look in the mirror.

                    • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:00

                      If you think so, you don’t know me. All such decisions are completely dependent on apparent attitude of the carrier. A man or woman who merely enter with a slung rifle or shotgun would pose no threat to me.
                      Semper fi

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 19:16

                      Then let’s let Congress send to the states the requirements for training. But Congress managed to get around that in 1903, when they passed the Dick Act, which divided the militia into 2 distinct classes of militia. The formal militia, which is the National Guard, and the unorganized Militia, which is everyone not a member of the National Guard.
                      Firearms can be used for more than crimes. They are used for both good and ill. 2 of the most anti-gun economists I am aware of even claimed, in 1997, the latest time the government has done such a study, there were 1.46 million lawful DGU incidents annually. Whether you will accept that is not important, because there is NO WAY of knowing how many homicides have been averted because of lawful self defense with a firearm. I know I may have stopped at least 1, over 25 years ago now when I stopped 3 30ish thugs from beating a 79 y/o, 100% combat disabled veteran. Long story short, not a single person was injured, except my dad, who was severely bruised and battered by these punks. I used a shotgun, and they all ran like the cowards they were.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 19:38

                      So far the point is that it is doubtful that the founders intended that any doofus who wants a gun should have any gun they can afford to buy.

                      I think that gun owners should be required to carry insurance to compensate those whom they hurt.

                      As for stopping homicides…
                      Funny how everyone has facts that back up their preferred outcome.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 20:05

                      There are some 13 prohibited classes of persons who are not allowed to own, or even touch, firearms. How many more do you want, and what are they?

                      I can say about anyone else, but my homeowners policy protects me for any accidental injuries due to firearms. What is does not protect against, nor will any insurance carrier insure for, is the deliberate misuse of firearms in crimes. Won’t ever happen, so why even propose such, unless you, like many GCZ, think it a backdoor way to limit gun ownership.

                      Stopping homicides, yes, there are quite a few different studies. None, as yet, have ever been refuted. I invite you to show us the refutation of this particular study, which is the one I referenced above.

                      wwwDOTncjrsDOTgov/pdffiles/165476DOTpdf

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 20:13

                      There are some 13 prohibited classes of persons who are not allowed to own, or even touch, firearms. How many more do you want, and what are they?

                      __________

                      Clearly, it is not enough when we have so many deaths and injuries.

                      What is does not protect against, nor will any insurance carrier insure for, is the deliberate misuse of firearms in crimes.

                      ________

                      That is why people who harm others either accidentally thru negligence or deliberately, present a a greater risk and should carry more insurance, or be uninsurable.

                      Nothing comes up with that site, plus, why are they so afraid??

                      CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage

                      The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

                      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UWqhghyBiDs

                      How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun
                      Violence Research

                      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1#ixzz2JbYmnpvQ

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 21:31

                      As for the site not coming up, probably the government doing maintenance. Keep trying, it will be back tomorrow or the next day. You do realize that site is a US Government site, right?

                      “Clearly, it is not enough when we have so many deaths and injuries.” What a non answer. Get specific. Do you even know the classes that are prohibited, and do you know it is mostly the prohibited persons who commit the vast majority of gun crimes?
                      Do you have any idea of what “deliberate MISUSE of a firearm” means? Be careful, deliberate MISUSE of your 1A rights can ALSO land you in hot water.
                      What NONE of those links tell readers, is that the CDC had been engaging in POLITICAL ADVOCACY. A crime when done by federal employees, on federal time, using federal money. I very well remember this, and applauded my federal representatives for their vote when they voted to withhold funds for POLITICAL ADVOCACY.

                    • OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 21:41

                      “deliberate MISUSE of a firearm” means? Be careful, deliberate MISUSE of your 1A rights can ALSO land you in hot water.

                      ____________

                      It doesn’t matter.
                      We see hundreds of “accidents” or misuse, deliberate or otherwise every month.
                      If gun owners were responsible, we would not be calling for more control.

                    • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 22:05

                      Gun owners are responsible, for the most part. Over 300,000,000 firearms in the USA, about 100,000,000 gun owners, and then 411 true accidental deaths of 0-14 y/o children in 2012, according to the CDC.
                      Misuse is the DELIBERATE actions of a person usually in the commission of a crime. NO INSURANCE COMPANY IS GOING TO INSURE AGAINST THAT.
                      At most, you see a few accidents with firearms in a month. And the CRIMINALS who are not supposed to even touch a gun are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes. Instead of infringing on MY rights, how about instead we keep violent criminals locked up till they are incapable of harming another innocent? But the leftist politicians don’t want that. It takes away from their voter base.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:30

                      you are using numbers culled and changed by a group gunfacts.info. Their byline is “gun myths” they changed the parameters, ages and locations to make the deaths seem lower, very disingenuous.

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:07

                      Who are you talking to, and on what subject?

                    • Old Jarhead December 29th, 2014 at 09:43

                      The only number is the 411, which I got from the CDC WISQARS report for 2012. That was strictly for the accidental shootings, as that is what the poster specified. I do appreciate the link, and will study it later. Have a wonderful New Year.

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 14:01

                      which came from the same source, brietbarting is lying

                    • Old Jarhead December 29th, 2014 at 15:38

                      The CDC is getting their numbers from a website called gunfacts? Please, explain this a little better, because I have never seen gunfacts before today, which you linked.

                    • Old Jarhead December 29th, 2014 at 09:48

                      After a cursory glance, all I can say is thank you. This seems it may be an invaluable source when debating the hoplaphopes.

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 14:00

                      you used that site to cull your numbers and they were changed from the original to fit your narrative

                    • Old Jarhead December 29th, 2014 at 15:36

                      Nope. I went directly to the CDC WISQARS site. It is quite simple, and I don’t need to “cull” my numbers, when I get them directly from the CDC site. Even you could go there, specify age group 0-14, firearm accidents, and let the site do the work for you. At least, that is how I found only 411 ACCDENTAL deaths for all of 2012. So, are you saying the CDC is using the site you linked?

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:07

                      So, some 90-130 MILLION gun owners are “irresponsible” because a few hundred have accidents?

                      Obvious broad-brush is obvious. Tell us, do you use such stereotyping on groups other than gun-owners? Perhaps certain minority groups?

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:03

                      Try this link: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
                      You have to replace “DOT” with “.”……

                      See page 8.

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:01

                      And your “point” has been refuted.

                      Repeatedly.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:15

                      Since it is a proven government data fact that 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers and not law abiding gun owners, explain again how you will not violate those bad guys 5th amendment right of no self incrimination to force them to 1) carry liability insurance 2) get an insurance underwriter to write an insurance policy for an intentional criminal act….aint happening sunshine!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:22

                      1) The Republikans stopped the data.

                      CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage

                      The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s,
                      but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle
                      Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s
                      budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

                      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UWqhghyBiDs

                      How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun
                      Violence Research

                      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1#ixzz2JbYmnpvQ

                      2) We are just as concerned about the negligent, irresponsible legal gun use.

                      3) Everything else you said about insurance is silly.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:29

                      Since my friend is an insurance underwriter for State Farm with 28 years in the industry and is a Lawyer by trade, good luck proving him wrong sweety!

                      Now back to reality of your inferred lies!

                      http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm

                      Amazing how in 1986 ER Dr Kellerman presented a study to the New England Journal of Medicine

                      This was the 43 times more likely false science study.

                      Well, see in the academic world, one submits the data for peer
                      review so that your hypothesis can be verified, or debunked. Funny, Dr. Kellerman didnt provide that data for 4 years, hmmmm, why would he have done such a thing? Afterall his results clealry claimed guns were a disease (epidimology study methodology)?

                      Then when he did provide the data, it had missing data, e.g. he
                      removed every incident of valid self defense as that would change his predetermined desired results!

                      Not to mention he had glaring holes in his methodology, refusing to acknowledge the criminal life style many of the surveyed indivudals led, the drug dealing, theft rings, etc, etc, etc they participated in as a lifestyle.

                      So since Kellerman decided that exercising ones 2A is a
                      disease and didnt seperate between criminal & law abiding and his blatant refusal to allow independent review of his data for 4 years, then the obvious intentional manipulation of said data to reach a desired result, and the results being disproven, the studies were blatant academic fraud, blatant lies.

                      The CDC refused to discontinue producing such politcially motivated junk science so in turn they got spanked by congress for lying.

                      You know it is a pretty blatant lie when even congress critters, the most prolific pathological lairs known to mankind,
                      paddles your backside for lying!

                      Sadly it appears polticial ideology still carries more weight
                      today with the CDC still, rather than trying to show real root causes of violence, you know, greed, lust, avarice, poverty, gangs, drug & alcohol abuse, broken family unit, 1 momma w 8 kids & 8 different daddies…..

                      The newest study put out in 2013, also by Dr Kellerman,
                      intentionally did not include District of Columbia data (among other things), we are on to his false tricks and would tear his methodology to pieces cause he is too stupid to change to method that would provide some credibility to his position, but then again, anti gunterds aren’t endeared with much in the way of common sense, and amazingly if one does include the D.C. data, his results don’t show correlation.

                      One who actually wants to find the truth wouldn’t do such a
                      thing, but Kellerman is not interested in the actual truth, only to sell his agenda!

                      Then this 3rd fake science study only included guns in suicides
                      when one must look at the actual number of suicides attempted to ascertain an effect on the population.

                      See, we can go to ANY country where strict gun controls are
                      implemented, and show EVERYONE how the number of suicide ATTEMPTS didnt decrease after they implemented strict gun control. so sad.

                      Yeah, so sad that the 1st amendment allows such pathological lies to be passed off as science, when it is junk science.

                      For a specific disproving of Kellermans bias and lies, review:

                      Disarming the Data Doctors: How To Debunk The “Public
                      Health” Basis For “Gun Control”

                      Friday, 16 January 2009 03:07 By Richard W. Stevens** Adjunct professor, Legal Research & Writing, George Washington University School of Law.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:51

                      Aren’t we ALL lawyers and insurance underwriters, (and ex-milirtary)

                      Why do you guys keep providing these bogus, unsourced “studies”, from ” from a local fellow who works in the health care field”???

                      Don’t be silly.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:59

                      All you keep posting is disproven pathological lies, so you really arent qualified in any sane world to judge what is or isnt real or silly sweety!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:13

                      Thou dost project too much, methinks.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 08:15

                      ^So sad oh king of projection who only relies on emotions and therefore isnt thinking to begin with as thinking implies the use of logic, facts and data….you dont!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:25

                      nly relies on emotions and therefore isnt thinking to begin with as thinking implies the use of logic, facts and data….you dont!

                      _______

                      Isn’t that EXACTLY what YOU are doing??

                      But you can have your little toys and shoot yourself in the foot and various other body parts, but the fear is that you will shoot someone else by accident, or leave the gun for a child or crazy person to pick up.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 08:31

                      I am not the one too stupid to prove world leading criminologists and government data wrong about career criminals committing 80% of all the violent crimes, you are!

                      I am not the one too stupid to prove USDOJ studies and data wrong, you are!

                      I am not the one too stupid to prove FBI UCR data wrong, you are!

                      Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc………

                      All we hear from you is emotional blithering WAAAHH DATS NOT FWAIR USING FWACTS I CANT PWOVE WONG, WAAAAAAHHHH!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:37

                      I am not the one too stupid to prove world leading criminologists and government data wrong about career criminals committing 80% of all the violent crimes, you are!

                      _______

                      Oh, please.

                      You have proved nothing but that you can copy and paste facts that are irrelevant to the discussion, while ignoring ;

                      http://ajph.aphapublications.org/

                      http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

                      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

                      And…

                      CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage

                      The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s,
                      but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle
                      Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s
                      budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

                      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UWqhghyBiDs

                      How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun
                      Violence Research

                      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1#ixzz2JbYmnpvQ

                      So, sorry, if I’m unimpressed.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:41

                      Lets identify who exactly is responsible for the majority of that violence first.

                      http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

                      We see where the FBI has repeatedly show how gangs commit the massive majority of violent crimes each year!

                      For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice.

                      These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals.

                      Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.

                      Wolfgang et al ., 1972;
                      Petersilia et al ., 1978;
                      Williams, 1979;
                      Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982;
                      Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982,
                      Martin and Sherman,1986.

                      http://www.temple.edu/prodes/adobe/dhs_chronic_offenders.pdf
                      http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-articles/career-criminals-who-are-they-and-what-should-society-do-about-them-1012040.html
                      http://www.academicroom.com/users/joan-petersilia
                      http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2814z1.html
                      http://www.soc.iastate.edu/staff/delisi/DeLisi%20Scaling%2Archetypal%20Criminals%20AJCJ.pdf
                      http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2815.html
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb00381.x/abstract
                      http://www.threestrikes.org/walsh_pg_one.html
                      http://www.cgu.edu/include/Evaluating%20criminal%20justice%20programs.pdf

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:42

                      You have proven nothing but that you can cherry pick data to support your lies!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:55

                      That is EXACTLY what you are doing.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:07

                      So sad, I am not cherry picking, try again sweety!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:44

                      Disarming the Data Doctors: How To Debunk The “Public
                      Health” Basis For “Gun Control”
                      Friday, 16 January 2009 03:07

                      By Richard W. Stevens** Adjunct professor, Legal Research & Writing, George Washington University School of Law.

                      Epidemiology: Public Health’s Chief Weapon

                      Epidemiology is often used to address a public health problem. Epidemiology is the study of how and why
                      disease is distributed in a population. Epidemiology tells us how much disease there is, who gets it, and what specific factors put individuals at risk.8

                      Epidemiologists gather and use statistical data to explain disease conditions in a population. Epidemiological
                      studies try, among other things:

                      (1) to calculate the number of diseased persons there are;

                      (2) to predict the number of diseased persons there will be in the future;

                      (3) to predict the future costs of treating and caring for the diseased persons;

                      (4) to isolate the cause(s) of the disease;

                      (5) to determine how the disease is transmitted.9

                      The gun prohibitionists used a clever ploy to gain “scientific” support for their position and then multiply its public relations value. First, the doctors devised and published epidemiological studies in medical journals, which showed that the problem of gun injuries is large and serious. Then, follow-up studies and articles would quote the earlier studies’ conclusions as fact, without ever mentioning the limitations or qualifications on those conclusions.10

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:55

                      Why are you copying and pasting from political websites who cite only other partisan political writings??

                      I’ll stick with science.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:08

                      George Washington UNiversity isnt a political web site sweety, try again!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:23

                      That is not where his research comes from, sweety.
                      He is an adjunct.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:27

                      So sad, you havent proven his analysis wrong yet, unless you further wish to demonstrate your lack of proficiency in statistics and promote a narcissistic personality disorder formerly called megalomania, where you by word alone, inferring you are GOD and magically with no substantiated data to prove your position, infer you are right, LOL!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:35

                      The CDC, The American Journal of Public Health, the AMA, Harvard and Stanford has.

                      This guy is a kook.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:43

                      No, they havent proven didley squat, other than being lap dogs to the anti gun leftists who put money into their pockets!

                    • Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 10:00

                      You do know Obamacare covers mental health, right?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:01

                      Yeah, hope lefty gets to use it before he flips!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:45

                      So sad, you nor they havent proven anything!

                      The 1991 American Medical Association (AMA) campaign against domestic violence (and towards gun control) launched for public relations and media consumption went hand in hand with a previously articulated (1979) U.S. Public Health Service objective of complete eradication of handguns in America, beginning with a 25% reduction in the national inventory by the year 2000!(1)

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:45

                      Hard to believe that scientific and medical research has been perverted for political ideology! Let me cite the following
                      statement by CDC official, Dr. Patrick O’Carroll as quoted in the Journal of the American Medical Association: ” ‘Bringing about gun control, which itself covers a variety of activities from registration to confiscation was not the specific reason for the section’s creation,’ O’Carroll says. ‘However, the
                      facts themselves tend to make some form of regulation seem desirable,’ he says. ‘The way we’re going to do this is to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes death.’ “(5) Although, in a letter to the editor, O’Carroll later claimed he was misquoted, Dr. William C. Waters IV, Eastern
                      Director of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), points out that Dr. O’Carroll does not claim to be misquoted when in the same article, he blurted, “We are doing the most we can do, given the political realities.”(6)

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:58

                      Hard to believe that scientific and medical research has been perverted for political ideology!

                      ________

                      Isn’t that exactly what your sources do?

                      These sources have no links, the doc you quote is from The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a group of conservative activist doctors, many linked to the Birchers.

                      I may as well give you Michael Moore’s site.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:01

                      So sad, statistics rely on signals, for a DOE, for any kind of analysis, and that proper disproving of the data, method, and statistical manipulations by the anti gun advocates doing the studies proving just how weak the statsitical signals and indicators for your argument is and always will be, is rejected by you because it just doesnt agree with your fragile ego and fantasies, so sad!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:46

                      Speaking of Harvard, lets identify how they really feel there, LOL.

                      Prejudice against gun ownership by ordinary citizens is pervasive in the public health community, even when they profess objectivity and integrity in their scientific research. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health in a moment of lucidity encapsulated in words (in a recent book) the typical attitude of her professional colleagues: “My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns — and can not imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”(7)

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:48

                      And we could say that your sources are all coming from the gun industry.
                      Most people who work in ERs and see gun shot wounds hate guns.
                      Refute their facts if you can.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:56

                      Already have, that and since 1960 per US govt. data, law abiding gun owners have prevented over 1.131 mil murders, prevented over 6.5 mil injuries, and prevented over $2.17 trillion in medical expenses….

                      But we understand, you would have preferred those people to be shot and wounded instead because you havent the intellect to accept whom the actual bad guys are, pathetic!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:03

                      Oh please, we understand that YOU would prefer that more innocent people, including children get killed and maimed rather than ask the industry to be a little more responsible.

                      Grow up.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:04

                      Your right, when is the medical industry going to be more responsible and quit killing 195,000 a year to medical malpratice eh sweety!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:10

                      Speaking of responsibility, lets review the BATF failures to enforce the existing background checks more than .5% of the time!

                      For those who don’t click the link:
A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,326 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:


Firearm Use by Offenders,Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

                      
• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
                      

• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
                      

• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
 

                      • 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market


                      • 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop


                      • 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets




                      78.8% criminals purchased their guns from unlicensed sources, and BS law that only punish the law abiding will d o what to change this, ROTFLMFAO!




                      We see how the USDOJ survey (18,326 people surveyed) in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from SUMMARIZED ROUNDED TOTALS

                      80% street buys/theft/family
straw buys,
                      12% retail stores,

                      2% gun shows.

                      

Then that -68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street
                      buys/theft at 95.52%,

                      1-(12% x .68%) = 3.84% retail stores,

                      1-(2% x .68%) = .64% gun shows in today’s numbers

                      (100% – 4.48%) = 95.52%.

                      

USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2008/bcft08st.pdf

                      2012 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5157

                      Isnt it amazing how 95.52% of bad guys (21 million plus, since 1997) dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with and more laws will do what to change that, oh
                      nothing as normal!

                      We see a total of 2.056 million valid rejections, a -68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons.

                      2010, 44 successfully prosecuted out of 139,651 total rejections


                      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf



                      2009, 32 successfully prosecuted out of 129,357 total rejections


                      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf

                      

2008, 31 successfully prosecuted out of 135,933 total
                      rejections

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf



                      2007, 39 successfully prosecuted out of 128,277 total
                      rejections

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/227604.pdf



                      2006, 62 successfully prosecuted out of 134,442 total
                      rejections

http://www.jrsa.org/events/conference/presentations-08/Ronald_Frandsen.pdf

                      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf

                      Oh wait, those same reports show a 93.8% false positive
                      rate, that means that the govt. had bad data and 93.8% of the 139,651 weren’t actually bad guys, the govt. screwed up, how consistent, the govt. being wrong or incompetent!

                      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/03/21/national/main280557.shtml

                      Undercover congressional investigators using fake IDs were able to skirt mandatory background checks and purchase guns in all of the five states where they tried, according to a report
                      issued 3/21/2001.

                      The General Accounting Office study concluded that the national background check system for purchasing guns “cannot ensure that the prospective purchaser is not a felon.”

                      The system checks only whether the gun buyer had a criminal history but does not require any check to see whether the name or identification being used by the buyer is real.

                      Has any of the above changed, ever….NOPE!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:12

                      Clearly we need more.
                      That is why we need better background checks.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:14

                      http://usanewsbreaker.com/news/2615

                      “The reason the ATF doesn’t make it a high priority to target people who attempt to buy a gun from the gun dealer is they spend the majority of their time targeting violent offenders who use guns illegally,” said Mike Brouchard, the former assistant
                      director for field operations of the ATF. “By taking that person and arresting them it has little to no impact on violent crime.”

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:15

                      BATF prosecutes less than .5% of the 2.056 mil rejected since
                      1997.

                      BATF doesn’t do anything about the 95.52% of bad guys (21 mil + since 1997) who don’t even try to buy from a licensed source to begin with.

                      BY THE WAY, WHAT DOES UBC DO TO CHANGE THE 95.52% OF BAD GUYS WHO REFUSE TO BUY FROM A LICENSED SOURCE TO BEGIN WITH………ECHOES OF SILENCE!

                      BATF doesn’t allow civilians access to NICS for background checks on private sales.

                      BATF out of 139,651 rejected in 2010 only prosecuted 44, 26 straw buyers, 11 felons, 7 domestic violence abusers, no
                      crazies.

                      BATF let over 472,241 straw buyers (over 3.14 mil+ since 1997) pass the background check and buy over 708,632 guns in 2010 (OVER 7.3 MIL GUNS SINCE 1997) from a licensed source!

                      Govt. refused to resource to input the mentally ill & felons into NICS database with only 5.1 mil severely mentally ill and
                      felons in NICS database as of July 2014 while there are over 31.793 mil of both in the US.

                      Govt. refuses to resource people and moneys to pursue the 1.221 mil + people wanted on open felony warrant of whom 50% are probably severely mentally ill as are 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners.

                      Man them are some nasty loopholes the government & BATF have created.

                      When are you lefties going to fix these BATF & Govt. loopholes instead of making more useless laws that per Haynes vs.
                      US 390, 85, 1968 & Freed vs. US 401, 601, 1971 which affirm the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, makes 85% of all gun control laws not applicable as a prosecutable charge eh?

                      You know, licenses, registrations, background checks etc, etc, etc…all require someone to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

                      So explain again how a law, you cant punish a bad guy with, will reduce violence by said bad guy eh?

                      Oh that’s right, you lefties will wave your magic fairy wand and sprinkle your magic fairy dust and wish it to happen, LOL!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:17

                      Then of course one must also look at how many people the
                      background check supposedly saves.



                      Since physically stopping a person from acquiring a gun, is only accomplished by putting them in jail, one only has to work from the avg. number of incidents a gun is used by a bad guy in a crime and calculate against the number of bad guys actually put away!

                      Of course you UBC supporters can prove that people
                      stop trying to lie, do evil by comparing the 4.48% of bad guys who are supposedly stopped from buying a gun results in the well publicized and proven human trait of giving up, as you UBC supporters have clearly demonstrated how you give up your lies, hate and ridicule after being stopped in oh so many of your gun control anti rights efforts!

                      

In 2010 using NICS, FBI, USDOJ, Police Firearm discharge
                      reports, CDC data, we see…..

1.248 mil violent crimes reported, 74.65% not reported, 322,000 involved a gun, 85% of incidents no shots fired, 15% of shots fired hit target 1 in 7 injuries fatal.



                      Which if one calculates out the multiple USDOJ studies
                      showing that over 80% of all violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members, crazies & domestic 
violence abuser’s..we see the following.

                      

(total successfully prosecuted by BATF in 2010) 44 x 15%
                      = 6.6 total people involved with shots fired

 6.6 x 15% = 1
                      person hit by shots fired

 1 x 20% = .2 people hit by shots fired by non criminals, .8 people hit by shots fired by bad guys



                      Wow, you do realize that the cost of the near 3,000 plus
                      people employed by BATF, FBI and state agencies for background check process cost the US over $330 million each year, dang.



                      So explain again how that $330 mil in background checks is
                      justifiable to save maybe just 1 or two people?



                      http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014justification/pdf/fbi-justification.pdf

                      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:28

                      Show me exactly where in these cited reports I can find whatever it is you are talking about, or from you are drawing your conclusions, because so far it is nothing but a Gish Gallup mess.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:20

                      COLORADO UBC

                      Lets look at Colorado’s UBC as it was implemented just last year and how it ties in with Gun Control, the largest money scam in the world.

                      NICS & BATF Operations and budgetary reports show it cost over $330 mil a year for 21 mil background checks in 2013
                      or roughly $15 per background check.

                      Which at 192.5 mil total background checks since 1997 x $15 = $3.025 billion in cost to taxpayers for an avg. 45 successful prosecutions per year, and between 1 to 2 maximum injuries prevented = 16 to 32 total injuries prevented in 16 years by the existing background checks!

                      Wow that’s REALLY SOMETHING, LOL, NOT!

                      It has been noted that in Colorado, over the first 6 months they have had UBC, of which from somewhat dubious numbers of
                      13,000 UBC checks that wouldn’t have occurred they have claimed 104 rejections in that 6 months……hmmmm!

                      You do understand that in 1 year Colorado had over 455,000 background checks to start with, of which the UBC supporters claim 13,000 were from the UBC, although that’s an unproven claim!

                      Even if that claim is true 26,000 / 455,000 = 5.7% uh that’s not the 40% marxist 594 supporters claim to be justification eh, typical leftists!

                      Reality is that 93.8% of those rejections are FALSE POSITIVES as per NICS Operations reports as the Background checks have proven to be over the near 17 years!

                      1-(104x .938) = 6.448 actual bad guys in 6 months!

                      So for one year of private sales Colorado claims to control there would be 12.896 actual bad guys rejected in one year /
                      26,000 = .0496% of all private sales for another 2 million dollars……..that’s justifiable how again?

                      Now it is a proven fact per FBI UCR that only 26.8% of all violent crimes committed is the use of a gun occur

                      12.896 X .268 = 3.456 incidents where a gun would probably be used

                      3.456 x .15 = .518 incidents shots were fired, uh that’s less than 1 time (number of times shots fired as per USDOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001, only 18,326 criminals polled so rather LARGE sample size eh)

                      .518 x .15 = ..07776 number of shots hit their target as police firearm discharge reports only show at best 15% of shot fired
                      hit their target!

                      Wow so 1 year in Colorado = .07776 shots hit their target maybe prevented by the UBC provided the bad guy was actually locked up.

                      Oh wait, since the bad guys are prosecuted less than 1% of the time we have to reduce that by 99% to be realistic so .0776 x .01 = .007776.

                      Dang so how many years would the UBC take in Colorado to save 1 injury?

                      1/ .007776 = 128.8 years

                      Oh wait, so what the UBC supporters are claiming, is that 128.8 years, at an extra $2 mil per year just in Colorado is
                      justifiable expense for the UBC how again? (that’s over $257 million in today’s money)

                      Reality gun control is only a scam to get more taxes out of the citizens!

                      So were the UBC to be implemented in 2014 nationwide at $2 mil extra per state on average, the cost would be $430 mil
                      that year, on top of the $3.025 billion already spent.

                      2014 32 max injuries prevented +.0776 = 32.00776 into $3.455 billion = $107.942 mil cost per injury prevented!

                      2015 34.01552 max injuries prevented into $3.885 billion = $114.213 mil cost per injury prevented!

                      2016 36.0233 max injuries prevented into $4.315 billion = $119.783 mil cost per injury prevented

                      Get the picture……it all about control and the money, not one
                      dang thing about reducing violence!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:49

                      When one reviews the first (1) Table 1 Data in Kellermans original study we see….

                      Table 1 in the Kellermann article provided information about the homicide victims in the study:32

                      (2) Comments on Table 1 Data

                      Look at the “Circumstances” data. Notice how the categories are artificially broken down. A very large fraction of the homicides (86%) fell into one of two more general categories: a conflict between friends or relatives (56%), or
                      illegal activities in the victim’s presence (30%). The remaining number (15%) are not adequately described. By subdividing these major categories, for no
                      apparent reason, the researchers lessened the impact of the percentages in any one category in the table.33

                      They used the same technique in the “Relationship to offender” categories in the table. Using multiple
                      categories tends to obscure the underlying common features. In the text of the article, however, the authors grouped the categories back together and admitted
                      that “the great majority of victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them.”34

                      By contrast, under “Method of homicide,” the table emphasizes firearms’ role by separately listing different types of firearms. When the firearms and non-firearms homicides
                      figures are totaled, however, the results seem different: 50% firearms-related, and about 50% non-firearms related.

                      The vast majority of homicides (84%) reported in the table did not involve forced entry. In these cases, the killer likely had permission to enter the area or had a key to the house.

                      The study offered no data about whether the victim tried to get his or her gun, or other weapon, before being killed. The study also omits any mention of whether the killer used the
                      victim’s own gun or other weapon. These are critical points.

                      The Kellermann researchers could not properly conclude that guns in the home provide no protection against homicide, if they did not know whether the victims tried to
                      get them, or even if the victims knew where their guns were? The Kellermann researchers could not properly conclude that having a gun in the home is a “risk factor” when there are no data about whether the gun was even involved in the killing?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:53

                      (3) Table 3 Data

                      Table 3 in the Kellermann article shows the degree of association between various “risk factors” and the “disease” (death by homicide in the victim’s residence).37 Portions of Table 3 are set forth

                      (4) Understanding the data in Table 3

                      Table 3 is a typical “univariate analysis of risk factors.” Here is how it works. Consider entry (a), “Victim or control drank alcohol.” The “Odds Ratio” tells you how much more likely it is that the victim drank alcohol than did the “control” person.39 In this case the victims were 2.6 times
                      more likely to be “exposed” to the risk factor of drinking alcohol, than were the controls.

                      Epidemiological statistics often are reported in this way: “Exposure to second-hand smoke is associated with
                      increased future health problems.” The term “is associated with” simply reports a statistical result. An odds ratio greater than 1.0 shows a “positive association.” The more the value exceeds 1.0, the stronger the association. An odds ratio equal to 1.0 means there is indicates “no association.”
                      An odds ratio less than 1.0 shows a “negative association.” A
                      negative association suggests that the exposure to the factor actually decreases the likelihood of contracting the disease.40

                      The size of the odds ratio shows the strength of the association. The larger the odds ratio, the more likely that
                      exposure to the risk factor might have caused the disease. Epidemiologists classify the strength of an association according to the size of the odds ratio. An odds ratio from 1.1 to 3.0 shows a “weak or nonexistent” association.
                      An odds ratio between 3.0 and 8.0 shows a “moderate” association; between 8.0 and 16.0 shows a “strong” association; and above 16.0 shows an “extremely strong” association.41

                      On other public health issues, a survey of scientists showed that most “would not take seriously a single study reporting a new potential cause of cancer unless it reported [an
                      increased risk factor or odds ratio of at least] 3.”42 Even
                      then, these scientists would remain skeptical unless the study were “very large and extremely well done, and biological data support the hypothesized link.”43

                      A positive association, even an “extremely strong” association, does not by itself prove that the
                      factor caused the disease.44 Here is an obvious example: there is a perfect positive association between having lived in New York and eventually dying. Everyone who has lived in New York will eventually die. That association by itself does not prove that living in New York causes death.

                      In Table 3 (a), the drinking of alcohol is positively associated to being a victim of homicide in one’s own home. The odds ratio of 2.6 shows a weak association.

                      Consider entry (l), “Victim or control lived alone.” The odds ratio for that entry shows that the victims were 3.4 times as likely to live alone, as compared to the controls. The victims were thus 3.4 times as likely to be “exposed” to living alone than were the controls. Living alone was associated with being a victim of homicide in the home. With an odds ratio of 3.4, this association is “moderate.”

                      Table 3 also reports the “95% confidence interval” for each odds ratio. The confidence interval describes the uncertainty surrounding the odds ratio.

                      Consider again Table 3 (a). The odds ratio is 2.6. The 95% confidence interval is 1.9 – 3.5. In other words, there is a statistical 95% chance that the actual effect of having drunk
                      alcohol could be anywhere between 1.9 and 3.5.45

                      Here are some important things to know about the confidence interval. First, if the 95% confidence interval for a
                      given odds ratio ranges from below 1.0 to above 1.0, then there is a likelihood that exposure both causes and prevents the disease. This contradiction makes the odds ratio statistically insignificant; epidemiologists can draw no
                      conclusions from it.46

                      Second, when the confidence interval is a narrow range around the odds ratio, then it tends to reinforce the
                      accuracy of the odds ratio.47 For example, the association (measured by odds ratio) between drinking alcohol and being a victim of homicide was 2.6. The 95% confidence interval for this figure was fairly narrow (1.9 – 3.5). It is fair to conclude that the odds ratio of 2.6 is an accurate estimate of the risk in the study population.

                      Third, when the confidence interval is a wide range, it suggests that there is an increased likelihood of risk from
                      exposure, but also that the risk cannot be accurately measured.48 Table 3 (d), “victim or control had trouble at work because of drinking,” indicates an odds ratio of 20.0, with a 95% confidence interval of 4.9 to 82.4. This result suggests a strong association between the victim’s
                      trouble with drinking at work and his eventual death by homicide, but that the actual risk cannot be accurately measured.

                      (5) Comments on Table 3 Data

                      Having a grasp of odds ratios and confidence intervals, consider Table 3 again. Which factors have the largest
                      odds ratios? The top 7 are (d), (c), (h), (e), (g), and (b).
                      These factors all implicate using alcohol, using drugs, and a history of physical fighting in the home. The confidence intervals for all of these factors show at least a moderate to strong association between them and death by homicide. The factor most strongly associated with homicide in the home was (d) (trouble at work because of drinking).

                      The five factors in Table 3 with the lowest odds ratios, from lowest to highest, are (n), (q), (o), (p), and (m). The four factors with the lowest odds ratios involve having
                      a gun in the residence. All five odds ratios are below 3.0, suggesting a weak or nonexistent association between them and the incidence of homicide in the home. The confidence intervals for all 5 of these factors are relatively narrow, suggesting that these odds ratios more accurately reflect reality.

                      Because of their relative weakness, the data in Kellermann’s Table 3 do more to undermine than to support the claim
                      that guns in the home are a risk factor for homicide. This conclusion comes from a careful look at the data. The data simply do not support the researchers’ conclusions in their article.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:59

                      (6) Table 4 Data

                      Kellermann’s Table 4 shows the results of additional mathematical massage of the data.49 Table 4
                      provides this information:

                      (7) Comments on Table 4 Data

                      Table 4 shows how critical it is to read the actual study, rather than relying on headlines about its conclusion.
                      Of the five factors analyzed, the factor with the lowest association with homicide was “guns kept in the home.” The odds ratio of 2.7 for this factor suggests that the association is “weak” at best. The 95% confidence interval reinforces the weak association.

                      D. The Kellermann Researchers’ Admitted Limitations on the Study Results

                      News stories reporting epidemiological study results often omit the authors’ own statements about the limitations in the study.50 The Kellermann researchers admitted the
                      potential for several sources of bias in their study,51 including:

                      (1) the emotional impact of a homicide in the home can “powerfully” affect the survey respondents’ accuracy and completeness of their recollection;

                      (2) respondents might misreport sensitive information;

                      (3) respondents might have under-reported instances of domestic violene;

                      (4) respondent controls might have to under- reported gun ownership.

                      The Kellermann researchers also commented on “four limitations”52:

                      (1) the study was restricted to homicides occurring in the victim’s home. “The dynamics of homicides occurring in other locations … may be quite different.”53

                      (2) the studied urban counties did not have any substantial Hispanic population. Accordingly, their “results may not be generalizable to more rural communities or to Hispanic households.”54

                      (3) possible “reverse causation”: some of the association between gun ownership and homicide may have come from the victims having previously “acquired a gun in response to a specific threat.”55

                      (4) possible confounding:56 “we cannot exclude the possibility that the association we observed is due to a third, unidentified factor.”57

                      The many admitted potential biases and limitations in the study do not appear in headlines. They are rarely
                      reported in news magazines, newspapers, or on broadcast news.58 Also, follow-up journal articles often recite the conclusions without checking whether the underlying data support the conclusions claimed by the authors. Moreover, other kinds of limitations and biases possible in the Kellermann study might not be obvious to the lay reporter or reader. Few, if any, of these sobering considerations seem to matter much to the doctors and others who seize on these study results to support their “gun control” agenda.

                      Potential Flaws, Limitations, and Biases in Epidemiological Studies and Their Conclusions

                      Epidemiological studies and the validity of their conclusions are subject to a number of limitations. Understanding these limitations is the key to being able to rapidly separate epidemiological hogwash from solid research. The following discussion of these limitations draws some examples from the Kellermann study.

                      A. When can a Risk Factor be considered a Cause of the Disease?

                      The public health approach to “gun control” has relied heavily on epidemiological studies to support its conclusions that “gun control” is an effective and desirable cure for “gun violence.” This approach to “gun control” argues that possession of firearms is a cause of deaths and injuries by firearms. Therefore, by eliminating possession of firearms, the number of deaths and injuries will decrease. The key word in this argument is “cause.”

                      The Kellermann researchers, for example, tried to show a link between the presence of a firearm in a person’s
                      home and the death of that person by homicide, particularly homicide involving a firearm. In other words, the Kellermann researchers wanted to add evidence that the possession of firearms is a cause of death (by homicide). By showing
                      a statistical association between firearm possession and homicide, the researchers sought to establish a causal link.

                      The Kellermann researchers did not use the methods that epidemiology normally use to prove a causal link.
                      Statistical association does not alone prove that a factor caused the disease. Epidemiologists use several criteria to prove a causal link.59 These criteria are set forth below, together with a brief analysis of the Kellermann study.

                      (1) Probability: A statistically significant association between the risk factor and the disease tends to support the case that the risk factor caused the disease.

                      In this Kellermann study, there is a statistical association between the presence of a firearm in the victim’s home
                      and the victims death by homicide in that home.

                      (2) Strength of Association: A strong association supports the case.

                      In the Kellermann study, the associations for the gun factor were weak, not strong.

                      (3) Dose-Response Relationship: If there is a steady increase in disease with an increase in exposure, then the case for causation is supported.

                      In the Kellermann study, there was no analysis of a “dose” of exposure. The study considered a homicide victim to have been “exposed” if the victim’s home had contained a firearm in it before the homicide. The study does not analyze hether the length of time the firearm was in the home was a relevant factor. The study does not even report whether the victim actually knew there was a gun in the home or where it might be located there.

                      (4) Time-response relationship: If the incidence of the disease rises at some time after the exposure to the factor, and then later decreases, then that fact supports the
                      causation case.

                      The Kellermann study did not consider any time-response effects.

                      (5) Predictive Performance: If facts about the risk factor help predict the occurrence of the disease, then this supports the causation case. If not, then it weakens the case.

                      The Kellermann study did not analyze the predictive performance of their model or data.

                      (6) Specificity: If the disease is related to only one risk factor or a related set of risk factors, then this may support the causal link between the risk factor and the disease. (The fact that a risk factor is linked to only one disease contributes little to the conclusion.)

                      In the Kellermann study, homicide in the victim’s home was linked to a number of risk factors — but there was no
                      physical link between the victim’s gun ownership and his or her death. The Kellermann study did not even determine whether the victim’s gun was used in the victim’s homicide. The homicides were not related only to gun ownership or
                      possession — they were much more directly and physically related to a number of other factors, such as the killer’s possession of a weapon, and other behavioral factors such as drinking, drug use, and previous violence. The Kellermann
                      study did not establish that homicide in the home was related only to a related set of causes.

                      (7) Consistency: If the same association between the risk factor and the disease appears repeatedly in different studies, that would support the argument for causation. Other (different) study results that are inconsistent, and cannot be reconciled, will weaken the argument.

                      The Kellermann article said that the subject of the study — the supposed link between firearms ownership and
                      homicides in the home — was “poorly understood. This admission suggests that the Kellermann study was not similar to previous studies. Thus there is little evidence of “consistency” in study results on this subject. The lack of consistency limits the conclusions which can properly flow from the Kellermann study.

                      (8) Coherence: If the proposed causal link fits in with current theory and knowledge, then that supports the case. If the causal link is incompatible with known facts, then that weakens the case.

                      The Kellermann study fits into the current public health approach to “gun control.” The authors
                      however, admitted several facts that make their conclusions “valid” only for their study. Moreover, the public health approach to “gun control” is suspect on other grounds.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:08

                      As above;

                      What does this have to do with the time and resources spent in hospitals on gunshot wounds?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:12

                      As stated repeatedly, what does your persecution of the innocents have to do with the crimes of the 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and doemstic violence abusers who were already adjudicated as felons ending up in hospitals and such sweety, not one thing!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:18

                      As stated repeatedly, what does your persecution of the innocents have to do with the crimes of the 97.3% of killings by

                      _______

                      That’s a strawman argument.

                      It can be countered with ; “what does YOUR persecution of the innocent victims have to do with the crimes of the hundreds of thousands of irresponsible gun owners.

                      How is asking them to carry insurance to cover the liability of maiming and death “persecution”?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:21

                      Sorry, you have no government data disproving that 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers already adjudicated to have lost their 2A right, and not law abiding gun owners to begin with, therefore the strawman arguement is yours sweety!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:29

                      Sorry, you have no government data disproving that 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career

                      _______

                      What does that have to do with ANYTHING???
                      What does that have to do with the fact that this only happens because of the ease in obtaining guns, and what does it have to do with the tons of accidental deaths from people who are allowed to get as many guns as they want, but are too irresponsible?

                      Make them carry insurance and let the market decide.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:40

                      You want to blame someone for the bodies and shootings in your emergency rooms, wouldnt it be better if you actually went after the actual CRIMINALS…………you know the people committing the vast majority of those SHOOTINGS………..

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:42

                      Oh sorry, it is ILLEGAL to force the career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers who commit 97.3% of those killings by illegal use of a gun, who already adjudicated as having lost their 2A by due process, to pay for liability insurance as that is a violation of their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:03

                      B. Problems with the Definition of Disease

                      As noted above, an epidemiology study must start with a clear definition of the disease to be analyzed.60 In the Kellermann study, the researchers defined the “disease” as
                      death by homicide in the victim’s home. The causal link they sought to establish was:

                      Risk Factor

                      Disease

                      Presence of gun in victim’s home —–>

                      Homicide of Victim

                      Kellermann’s study results, however, suggested:

                      Risk Factors

                      Disease

                      History of violence

                      History of drinking ——————–>

                      Homicide of Victim

                      History of drug use

                      Presence of guns in home

                      Has the “disease” been defined wrongly? The Kellermann study ignored the possibility that a history of violence, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse, are not “risk factors,” but are symptoms of the disease itself.61 The disease is perhaps
                      anti-social behavior, socio-pathology, or a tendency to adopt self-destructive practices.62 As part of this disease, the person involves himself or herself in situations that lead to violence.63 A certain percentage of such situations result in the victim’s death.

                      The homicide victims in the Kellermann study were mainly killed in connection with disputes with people whom they
                      knew. This fact supports the idea that the disease manifests itself as the victim’s behavior. The victim’s behavior affects people with whom he or she interacts. The victim’s behavior starts, invites, or continues violent disputes or heated passions. These passions and disputes can lead to a violent event that ends in the victim’s death. A new model emerges:

                      In this model, firearms play a role as a tool for violence, or defense against violence. But sharp and blunt instruments also play that role, according to the Kellermann study. The
                      presence of firearms does not cause the disease of anti-social, or self-destructive behavior. Thus, the mere presence of firearms did not cause the deaths of these victims.

                      C. Problems with the Definition of Exposure

                      When dealing with a biological disease — the usual case — an epidemiological study tries to determine whether certain risk factors contribute to causing disease in exposed persons. For example, researchers might study the effects of exposure to radiation or polluted water. The researchers would try to estimate how much each person in the study had been exposed to the factor.

                      In many real-world cases, the answer to the exposure question is not just “yes” or “no.”64 The Kellermann study assumes that the presence of a firearm in the victim’s
                      home constitutes “exposure.” In other words, being in the physical vicinity of a firearm is the equivalent of being near a person with small pox or influenza.

                      Does the mere presence of firearms infect a person, resulting in the person being killed by somebody else? Does
                      the mere presence of firearms make a person violent or disruptive? The Kellermann study does not attempt to answer these questions. It would be relevant to know how long the victim had possessed the firearm, whether the victim had ever used the firearm for any purpose, whether the victim had ever hurt or threatened anyone with the firearm. Apparently the Kellermann researchers did not collect
                      these data.

                      It is vitally important, when designing an epidemiological study, to define what constitutes “exposure” to the risk factor. The Kellermann study overlooks all of the possible types and durations of the victim’s “exposure” to firearms. According to the Kellermann exposure definition and conclusions, if a firearm were ever in a house, the resident’s chances of being murdered increase.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:07

                      This has nothing to do with anything.
                      It certainly has nothing to do with the time and resources spent in hospitals on gunshot wounds.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:10

                      Funny, then why do you refuse to admit that 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers who had already lost their 2A rights and hence were not law abiding gun owners to begin with eh sweety?

                      Already posted dozens of government data sources and links proving this……………you should probably take your blinders off!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:20

                      Funny, then why do you refuse to admit that 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career

                      ________

                      ?????

                      What does that have to do with all the homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings by non criminals???

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:24

                      The career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies & domestic violence abusers are the ones committing 97.35 of the killings by illegal use of a gun, yet all you insist on doing in a perfect simile is beating the dog for the cat schiiting in your shoe and expecting the cat to quit schiiting in your shoe.

                      Only the clinically insane believe beating the dog will magically stop the cat from schitting in your shoe!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:26

                      You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
                      That is why you have to resort to these stupid straw man arguments.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:28

                      You really have no sane clue about that which you claim, that is why you repeatedly regurgitate the same old lies and libel against law abiding gun owners!!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:33

                      Isn’t that EXACTLY what you are doing?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:39

                      So sad, you have failed to prove your claims that law abiding gun owners are the majority cause of violence, I have presented governemnt data proving your position a lie, try again sweety!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:07

                      D. Sources and Types of Bias in Retrospective Studies

                      Epidemiological studies are subject to several types of bias. A “bias” is a fact that affects the accuracy of the data or their interpretation. Here are some of the biases that can affect the Kellermann study or other retrospective studies.

                      (1) Selection bias: Occurs when the population being studied is especially more, or less, likely to have the disease than the general population.65

                      The Kellermann researchers looked at the most populous urban counties in three states. They gathered their cases
                      from records of homicides, and gathered their controls from the neighborhood near where the homicide victims had lived. The sampling was not random. The persons most likely to be studied were already victims or still lived in neighborhoods where such murders occurred. In a true random sampling, anybody in the population would be equally likely to studied.

                      (2) Information bias: Occurs when there are shortcomings in the way information is obtained from the respondents. Examples of this bias arise when the respondents: do not actually know the answers but guess anyway; have a
                      motivation to give socially acceptable answers; or, give answers they think the investigator wants.66

                      The Kellermann researchers “poisoned the well” in the first place by telling the respondents the nature and purpose of the study before asking the questions. Then, they obtained information from persons who likely had a motivation to misreport the truth: the grieving friends and relatives (proxies) of the victim.

                      Although the researchers found a “control” person for each victim, they apparently accepted answers about the “control” person from any adult in the same household as the actual “control” person.67 The researchers also offered the respondents money for the interview — they paid for the
                      information, rather than obtain it by objective means.

                      Many of the proxy respondents (40%) requested a telephone interview rather than a face-to-face interview. A smaller
                      number of controls (13%) requested the telephone interview.68 Using a validation technique, the Kellermann researchers themselves found that the control respondents underreported domestic violence in their own homes.69
                      These facts suggest a certain level of discomfort with the interview questions. By avoiding a face-to-face interview, these respondents seemingly demonstrated a concern for the effect or credibility of their responses in the eyes of the
                      interviewer. The respondents apparently also underreported their own domestic violence, doubtless for fear of public scorn or legal action.

                      The Kellermann article did not report any attempts to assess the credibility of individual responses. Even had the researchers wanted to evaluate the credibility of responses, using telephonic interviews made that goal much harder to achieve.

                      (3) Recall bias: Occurs when the respondent’s memory is incomplete or uncertain. This bias can occur because of the human tendency not to remember events that they considered to be less important when those events occurred. This bias can also arise when researchers repeatedly ask the same or similar questions to get an answer from the exposed respondents, while accepting the first answer they
                      get from members of the control group.70

                      Although the Kellermann article reported that the interview proceeded on a strictly structured format, the questioners’ actual conduct is unknown. Also unknown is whether the questioners tried to explain questions to the respondents.

                      (4) Volunteer bias: Occurs because persons who are willing to volunteer for a study might differ in important ways from the general population.71

                      The Kellermann study depended upon the willingness of persons to answer interview questions. There is no way to
                      know how the respondents’ personal experiences or opinions might have influenced their decision to participate in the study.

                      (5) Rumination bias: Occurs because persons who are exposed, ill, or injured may ruminate about (reflect upon) the causes of their condition and thus report different facts about their exposure. By contrast, members of the control group
                      may not ruminate about the matter.72

                      This bias likely affects the data from the proxies for the victim. The Kellermann researchers intentionally delayed questioning the proxies “to allow for an initial period of
                      grief.”73 Of course, this delay time allowed the proxies to
                      ruminate about the circumstances, causes and reasons for the victim’s death, and to discuss these factors with other interested persons. A grieving person’s desire to fix blame on some person or thing could influence their responses in
                      ways not even discussed in the Kellermann article.

                      (6) Wish bias: Occurs when there is a tendency of the investigator or the respondent to reach a desired result. This bias can arise because persons often prefer to give a more emotionally acceptable explanation for a contracting a
                      disease than exposure by personal choice. Accordingly, respondents may want to blame inanimate objects like toxic chemicals, or external factors like workplace or living environment, rather than attribute their problems to their own choice of lifestyles.74

                      The wish bias especially taints case-control studies that use subjective questionnaires. This problem is even more severe
                      when proxies or other family members answer the survey questions instead of the actual patients or controls.75 Also, when an interviewer knows what the study is trying to show, the interviewer may consciously or subconsciously influence respondents to give information consistent with the desired outcome.76

                      The Kellermann study methods provided many opportunities for wish bias to arise. The interviewers and the respondents were not “blind,” that is, they both knew the purpose of
                      the study. There is no evidence that interviewers were screened for personal biases concerning the study’s objectives. The Kellermann researchers’ study was
                      a “case-control” study using proxies for the victims and sometimes for the controls. Their procedure thus carried an increased likelihood of wish bias.

                      Finally, the respondents might well have wanted to blame the drugs, alcohol, guns, or some other person or factor
                      for the victim’s death, rather than the victim or his lifestyle. Consciously or subconsciously, this desire could have influenced their recall of the facts.77

                      (7) Non-random sampling bias: Occurs because the sample of the population may not be perfectly random; questions on a questionnaire are only a sample of the potential questions; and respondents provide only a sample of their possible
                      “correct” answers to the questions. For a sample of anything to be “random,” every member of the potential set must have an equal chance of being chosen.78

                      The Kellermann researchers never claimed that the study population was “random.” The article provided little information about the “randomness” of the interview questions or their answers. The researchers admitted that they “had no way to verify each respondent’s statements independently.”79

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:34

                      You mean the same Harvard school of medicine whom anti gun Bloomberg gave $350 million to, would perform an UNBIASED study, ROTFLMFAO!

                      So lets see, the Harvard study by Hemmenway, states the entire premise of his cherry picked data is:

                      Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

                      Across states, more guns = more homicide

                      Funny, lets review the US FBI data to see what has really been going on!

                      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_04.pdf
                      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1997/97sec2.pdf
                      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/mv41_12.pdf
                      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html

                      In the US Per FBI UCR & CDC in 1991 24,700 murders, consistent % where firearms used is 67.8% =16,747 murders by illegal use of firearm, 15,383 suicides by firearms, 657 justifiable homicides, 1,463 accidental firearms
                      deaths =34,250 deaths where firearms were used

                      2011 14,612 murders 67.7% used a firearm = 9,892, 591 justifiable homicides, 835 accidental deaths, 19,766 suicides = 31,084 deaths where a firearm was used.

                      Since 1991 to 2011, that is a reduction in…..


                      Totals / Rate


                      Violent Crime -37.04% / -49.04%
                      
Murder w gun -41.31% / -52.51%
                      
Rape -21.73% / -36.59% 

                      Robbery -48.47% / -58.31%

                      Assault -31.26% /-44.36%
                      Accidental deaths -41.9% / -52.14%

                      Amazing how those are the highest total reductions of ANY country in the world during that time!

                      So explain again how since 1991 there has been a 42% increase in firearms in civilian hands there hasn’t been a 42% increase in violence or suicide?

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 09:39

                      As opposed to Jews For Firearms?

                      What does any of this have to do with more control or insurance??

                      You just keep repeating the same crime stats that actually prove the gun control advocates point more than anything.

                      If you REALLY care, go after the corrupt federally licensed gun dealers who send more guns to the criminal market nearly 60% of the guns used in crime , which are traced back to just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:50

                      What does punishing the law abiding with liability insurance do to reduce violence by the bad guys when per proven US governemnt data that 97.3% of all killings are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies and domestic violence abusers who had already lost their 2A by due process, other than to punish the law abiding for the acts of the few criminals?

                      Oh thats right, you magically wave a mystical fairy wand, sprinkle some mystical fairy dust, and claim punishing the 2.7% will magically stop the 97.3% of killings by bad guys eh….LOL….really….LOL!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:54

                      Oh you mean the same dealers that the BATF let 3.14 mil straw.fake identification buyers to pass the background checks to buy over 7.3 mil guns from licensed sources since 1997, do tell sweety, LOL!

                      So 69,000 gun stores 67 licenses revoked = 67/69,000 = .000097 = .097% (that’s less than 1/10th of a % for you math illiterates)

                      http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html

                      Being that the normal audit cycle is 4 years, that means that on average 268/69,000 = .388% at best….you stated 1.2%, LOL……….amazing how governemnt facts destroy anti gun advocates lies all the time!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 10:05

                      Then we need MORE gun control.
                      Look at your own facts. Do you even read them?

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 10:12

                      More gun control of the law abiding when violence has dropped so dramatically, why?

                      Oh thats right, you like beating dogs for no reason, we understand!

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:38

                      Now even more hilarious, is the so called Stanford study, where it claims that concealed carry has resulted in an 8% increase in violence, ROTFLMFAO!

                      Lets review the states concealed and open carry and do the totals before and after of murders and such!

                      No Open Carry – Texas, IL, NY, FL, CA, D.C., SC

                      Open Carry w permit – UT, MN, IA,OK, TN, GA, MD, NJ, CT, RI, IN, MA, HI

                      Open Carry wo permit – ME, NH, VT, PA, OH. KY, WV, VA, NC, AL,MS, LA, AR, MO, KS, NB, SD, ND, WI, MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, NV, ID, OR, WA, AK

                      Just horrible that even bad guys, can lawfully defend themselves eh!

                      Now for concealed carry and the years their rights were reinstated!

                      1986 IN, RI, ND, SD, WA, AL, VT, NH
                      1987 FL, OR
                      1988 PA, WV
                      1989 GA
                      1990 ID, MS
                      1991 WY
                      1994 MT, AK
                      1995 AZ, AR, VA, NC, NV, UT, OK, TX
                      1996 LA, SC
                      1999 TN
                      2001 MI
                      2003 MN, NM, CO, MO
                      2004 OH
                      2006 NB, KS
                      2010 WI
                      2013 IL

                      Just horrible how lawful armed self-defense has resulted in GASP no increase in violence by law abiding gun owners!

                      Funny how there is no change in the rate of reduction from
                      before shall issue to 2012 either!

                      12,226 Murders in those states the year before they went shall issue, 9,663 murders in those states AFTER they went shall issue!

                      All per FBI UCR, google if you dare!

                      -26.52% reduction by state during those years alone to 2012

                      So much for the false science BS who have claimed increases in law abiding gun ownership = more violence BS!

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 08:33

                      Geez, didn’t the government just create a right to health care in 2009, yeah, they are forcing everyone into a high-risk situation with no choice.

                      Lets compare the safety of going to a doctor vs being around a CPL licensee since they are both rights.

                      BATF Max 10 million CPL’s US, approximately 196 million age 21 or older or 5.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

                      Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report 2009, 137 or 45 per year equals .0000045 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida’s data on CCW at….

                      http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.

                      .. it says the same thing.

                      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.ph

                      Aug 2004, 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 195,000 by medical malpractice every year or .065 to.278 per physician.

                      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/254341.php

                      JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415

                      Physician is .065 or .278 /.0000045 = 14,444 to 61,778 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

                    • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:38

                      http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/living/guns- parenting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

                      Lets use government data and compare someone supposedly safe, a doctor, to the chance of your children being killed by an accidental firearm discharge and again, we
                      won’t use one single NRA generated data source.


                      CDC Death Data 1930’s, over 3,000 accidental deaths by firearm discharge



                      CDC Death & Data 2010 835 deaths by accidental firearm discharge, right at 107 age 0-18 yrs old.


                      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf



                      US Census 1930’s 112.8 mil

                      US Census 2010 312 mil



                      BATF 1930 TO 2009 150 Million more firearms in civilian hands



                      JAMA

                      http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 

700,000 doctors in US kill 98,000 to 195,000 by medical malpractice every year or .135 to.278 per physician. 



                      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/254341.php



                      http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/09/health/medical-mistakes/
                      index.html

                      Dr. Barbara Starfield of the 
Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 250,000 deaths 
per year are caused by medical errors, making this the third-largest 
cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer.” So that alone tells many of us that the anti-firearm ownership movement is not about saving lives, it’s just big on someones agenda. It’s just something they want to do.

                      Since kids = 1/3 of population, will adjust deaths to reflect = 13,200 to 65,000 deaths. (0188 to .0926)

107 / 100,000,000 = .0000011 deaths per 100 mil gun owners.

                      Physician is .045 or .0927 /.00000011 = 44,909 to 84,272 times more likely to harm your child than they being accidently harmed by a lawfully owned firearm and that is
                      only in homes with a firearm, ah wow, thats soooooooo scarey, well, to an idiot maybe its scarey!

                      So where is the risk from law abiding gun owners and why aren’t you antis crying to ban doctors?

                      Actually anyone taking their child to a doctor for a non illness reason should have Child Protective Services called on them for risking their child’s lives so frivolously.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:35

                      Oh by the way, here is that settled and codified law of over 46 years proving that 85% of gun control laws, those requiring one to IDENTIFY THEMSELF, can not be used as a punishment against the 10 categories of bad guys identified in USC18 Sec 922

                      Haynes v. United States



                      No. 236



                      Argued October 11, 1967



                      Decided January 29, 1968

 390 U.S. 85




                      Syllabus



                      Petitioner was charged by information with violating 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms used principally by persons engaged in unlawful activities) by knowingly possessing a defined firearm which had not been
                      registered as required by 26 U.S.C. § 5841.

                      Section 5841 obligates the possessor of a defined firearm to register the weapon, unless he made it or acquired it by transfer or importation, and the Act’s requirements as to transfers, makings and importations “were complied
                      with.” Section 5851 declares unlawful the possession of such firearm which has “at any time” been transferred or made in violation of the Act, or which “has not been registered as required by section 5841.”

                      Additionally, § 5851 provides that “possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such possession to the satisfaction of the jury.” Petitioner moved before trial to dismiss the charge, sufficiently asserting that § 5851 violated his privilege against
                      self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

                      The motion was denied, petitioner pleaded guilty, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Held:

1. Congress, subject to constitutional limitations, has authority to regulate the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms, and may tax unlawful activities. Pp. 390 U. S. 90, 390 U. S. 98.

2. Petitioner’s conviction under § 5851 for possession of an unregistered firearm is not properly distinguishable from a conviction under § 5841 for failure to register possession of a firearm, and both offenses must be deemed subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the Fifth Amendment
                      from the obligation to register. Pp. 390 U. S. 90-95.

3.

                      A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851. Pp. 390 U. S. 95-100.

4. Restrictions upon the use by federal and state authorities of information
                      obtained as a consequence of the registration requirement,



                      Page 390 U. S. 86

suggested by the Government, is not appropriate. Marchetti v. United States, ante, p. 390 U. S. 39, and Grosso v. United States, ante, p. 390 U. S. 62. Pp. 390 U. S. 99-100.

5.

                      Since any proceeding in the District Court upon a remand must inevitably result in the reversal of petitioner’s conviction, it would be neither just nor appropriate to require such needless action, and accordingly the judgment is reversed.

                      Pp. 390 U. S. 100-101.

372 F.2d 651, reversed.

                      Here is the 5th amendment also as you seem to have no freaking clue, pay particular attention to “NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF” as Identifying oneself for gun control laws for licenses, registrations, background checks….do just that!

                      5th Amendment, and we QUOTE:



                      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence
                      to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:46

                      You keep bringing up laws that everybody knows that do not apply to the health crises we experience now.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:57

                      Funny, those laws perfectly identify that everything you propose only punishes the innocents.

                      You are obviously of the belief that beating your dog for your cat schiiting in your shoe will magically make your cat quit schitting in your shoe!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:15

                      No they don’t.
                      They show that the ideal world is covered nicely.

                      You are obviously of the belief that wishing that only sane responsible people owned deadly weapons can make it so.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 08:23

                      Yeah, they do!

                      You are obviously of the insane belief that all law abiding gun owners are criminals to begin with, which is a proven lie, and you have no proof, your kind never does!

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:37

                      Wow here is the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act, maybe you can demonstrate where LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is any one of these 10 categories of bad guys today, LOL!

                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44
                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924

                      AS QUOTED FROM Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9

                      (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person –

                      (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

                      (2) is a fugitive from justice;

                      (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

                      (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

                      (5) who, being an alien – (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant
                      visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

                      (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

                      (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

                      (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging
                      in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that – (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to
                      participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

                      (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

                      Exceptions as quoted from DEFINITIONS GCA Sec.921 (a)(33)(B):

                      (ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive
                      firearms.

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:44

                      They are all law abiding citizens until they are not.

                      That is the problem.
                      Quoting law is useless when it does not apply to the crimes committed by those who obtained the weapons legally.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:54

                      So sad, you really are so DERP!

                      Lets identify who exactly is responsible for the majority of that violence first.

                      http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

                      We see where the FBI has repeatedly show how gangs ommit the massive majority of violent crimes each year!

                      For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice.

                      These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals.

                      Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.

                      Wolfgang et al ., 1972;
                      Petersilia et al ., 1978;
                      Williams, 1979;
                      Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982;
                      Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982,
                      Martin and Sherman,1986.

                      http://www.temple.edu/prodes/adobe/dhs_chronic_offenders.pdf
                      http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-articles/career-criminals-who-are-they-and-what-should-society-do-about-them-1012040.html
                      http://www.academicroom.com/users/joan-petersilia
                      http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2814z1.html
                      http://www.soc.iastate.edu/staff/delisi/DeLisi%20Scaling%20Archetypal%20Criminals%20AJCJ.pdf
                      http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2815.html
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb00381.x/abstract
                      http://www.threestrikes.org/walsh_pg_one.html
                      http://www.cgu.edu/include/Evaluating%20criminal%20justice%20programs.pdf

                      California has what is probably the most publicized campaign
                      against habitual criminals known as the three strikes law. There is plenty of evidence that the laws in California have provided significant benefits both in protecting citizens from further harm but also in fiscal impact to the California prison system.

                      Calculations based on the California Crime Index indicate that between March of 1994 when three strikes was first signed into law and the summer of 2004, there was a dramatic drop in California’s crime rate. Whether or not such a decline over those 10 years could be attributable to the three strikes
                      sentencing scheme, other sentencing legislation enacted during the decade, changes in demographics, economic trends, or a combination of these factors, the crime rate in California fell by approximately 45% during this 10-year
                      period. (Prosecutors’ Perspective on California’s Three Strikes Law – A 10-Year Retrospective, published 2004)

                      The prison system in California has seen its prison population
                      numbers stabilize and has actually seen a massive reduction in the rate of increased spending in the budget for corrections. During the 10 years preceding three strikes (1984 to 1994), state expenditures for corrections increased nearly 220%. This is more than four times greater than after the enactment of
                      three strikes.

                      “Many police officers, corrections officers and others, both inside and outside the criminal justice system, have noted that criminals fear three strikes. These people have also found that some criminals have modified their behavior. For once felons are worried about the criminal justice system and that has proven to be a deterrent factor. Despite predictions that
                      the law would incarcerate many youthful offenders, for the 83 three-strikers sentenced to date (1997), the average age is 37 years old. These are career criminals, not likely to “outgrow” their antisocial behavior with added maturity”. (Washington Policy Center, “Three Strikes You’re Out; A Reform that Worked”, published 1997)

                      http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions?s_cid=rss:gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions

                      “Gun Violence Significantly increased by social interactions”

                      Andrew Papachristos, an associate professor of sociology at Yale, analyzed police and gun homicide records from 2006 to 2011 for people living in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He found that 41 percent of all gun homicides occurred within a network of less than 4 percent of the neighborhood’s population, and that the closer one is connected to a homicide victim, the greater that person’s chances were for becoming a victim. Each social tie removed from a homicide victim decreased a person’s odds of
                      becoming a victim by 57 percent.

                      “What the findings essentially tell you is that the people who are most at risk of becoming a victim are sort of surrounded by victims within a few handshakes,” Papachristos says. “These are young men who are actively engaged in the behaviors that got them in this network.”

                      The network in question consists of more than 3,700
                      high-risk individuals – young, African-American males from a poor neighborhood – who were clustered into a network by instances of co-offending, meaning each person in the group had been arrested with another person.

                      Overall, the community’s five-year homicide rate was 39.7 per 100,000 people, which was still much higher than the averages of other areas of Chicago (14.7 per 100,000). But being a part of that network of co-offenders, essentially just being arrested, raised the rate to by nearly 50 percent, to 55.2 per 100,000. What’s more, being in a network with a homicide victim increased the homicide rate by 900 percent, to 554.1 per 100,000.

                      “You’re at a risk for living in this [certain] community, but if you’re in the network, your risk is astronomical,” Papachristos says. “That rate is beyond epidemic proportion, that’s actually scary.”

                      http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2011/Pew_State_of_Recidivism.pdf

                      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf

                      Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005—

„. About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.

                      
„. Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders.

                      
„. More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year.

„

                      . Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release.

„

                      . A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.

„

                      . An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested
                      in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period.

„

                      . Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age
                      24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.

                      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/aus8009.txt

                      Recidivism rates being over 40% as well!

                      2.7 mil prisoners

                      1.4 mil active gang members

                      2.5-3.5 mil active criminals

                      1.043 mil plus open felony warrants

                      Hence add in the career criminals.

                      CDC -Suicidal people speak for them-selves.

                      Shall we review police firearm discharge reports in Chicago and NYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.

                      http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shooting/PDFs/Block_and_Block_1993.pdf,
                      http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/2007_firearms_discharge_report.pdf,
                      http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf

                      Yeah, review of all the govt. data above shows over 96% of all killings by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders & crazies w approximately 50% of the remainder due to domestic violence incidents.

                      A sane person would normally address the largest problem first don’t you agree?

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:20

                      We know who is responsible for the majority of violence.

                      We also know that if insurance was required, there would be less accidental shooting by children, that the most irresponsible gun owners may not be able to afford the coverage and that people like Adam Lanza’s mother may well not have had the guns.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:56

                      Oh you want numbers, ok!

                      Since suicides are illegal, murder is illegal that means accidental deaths, justifiable homicides and the % of murders not committed by FELONS or any of the other 9 categories of people banned can be removed from the 31,084 total, which as noted in the multiple USDOJ studies and reports 80% of the most violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members.

                      Do the numbers now that you have the premise, here are the numbers for 2011.

                      31,084 killings by use of gun
                      9,892 murders
                      19,766 suicides
                      591 justifiable homicides (209 by civilians using a gun, 270 total)
                      835 accidental deaths

                      ((9,892 x .8)+19,766)/31,084 -(591+835) = 27,860/29,658 = 93.9%.

                      Oh darn, forgot the FBI not reporting the correct number of justifiable homicides, so since 209 justifiable homicides were by firearm alone by civilians, 5 times 209 = 1,045.

                      So 29,658-1,045 = 28,613

                      Redone = 27,860/28,613 = 97.3% darn, that’s more than 96%, my bad!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:17

                      Anybody can copy and paste stats that everybody already knows.
                      The problems are those that don’t fall within the stats and yet cause death and maiming of innocents.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 08:25

                      Yet all you can do is squeal, stomp your feet and go WAAAH DATS NOT FWAIR USING FWACTS I CANT PWOVE WONG, WAAAAAAAHHHHH!

                      Thats mocking you in case that flew over your head sweety!

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 08:26

                      Oh you mean you want to punish the BATF for letting 3.14 mil straw/fake identification buyers pass the background checks since 1997 to buy over 7.3 mil guns from licensed sources…about time you went after the horrible government failures rather than persecute only the law abiding!

                    • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 08:39

                      That’s a strawman argument.
                      I want the market to decide who presents the greatest risk, while protecting the innocent victims of “responsible” gun owners.

                • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 16:24

                  Link please. But it’s irrelevant anyway; it does not address private ownership of weapons.

                  Also, “Spare us the gun manufacturer’s lobbyist websites…”? Actually, I’ve cited to law, legal sources and grammar. So you’ve apparently either not read my citations, or simply can’t address them.

                  Good luck with your diversionary tactics.

                • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 20:36

                  Exactly correct.

                  That is an example of a well regulated organized militia which is what the 2A authorizes congress to do. I have never comprehended how some people can twist the meaning of “A well regulated Militia”, and think that it somehow, as if by magic, means, “to keep and bear well regulated arms” in reference to the unorganized militia, but thank you. :)

              • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:33

                gun sites are not unbiased and they do change the numbers to suit the narrative

                • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 22:39

                  My posts to haven’t listed “gun sites”, so it’s obvious you haven’t even examined what I’ve provided.

                  And, if what you’ve just claimed is true, you should be able to refute them easily with evidence in less than 5 minutes.

                  Good luck with that.

                  • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:43

                    yes you did use a gun site. the exact numbers you used are at the site i mentioned and the reason why they changed them because all those “thugs and gansters” are added and 15-19 yo are not considered children at the gun site that claims to show “gun myths” made by the gun haters .

                    • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 22:55

                      18 and older is considered legally an adult, period. Therefor 18-19yr olds have no business being classified as children by either side of the debate.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:00

                      yet they are , period.

                    • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:39

                      If one can join the military, vote and make legal contracts at 18, one is no longer a child, but an adult.
                      If one is incompetent, and declared so by a judge, that would be different.

                    • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:57

                      I think you’ve confused me with someone else (and obviously didn’t look at MY links). I was addressing the grammatically incorrect paraphrasing of the Second Amendment, above, not any numerical stats. Please review the conversation.

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 00:07

                      I might have, I thought I was responding to a post with statistics, sorry about that.

                  • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:48

                    The numbers given are from a site that pushes guns

            • Old Jarhead December 28th, 2014 at 14:52

              Well regulated is applied to the Militia, not to the people. All the people, were eligible for militia service, though not all served at the same time. Since you are a teacher, you should have access to a dictionary from the Colonial era also, which if you look, it will state clearly that:

              “Of troops: Properly disciplined.

              1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.”
              Oxford English Dictionary, 1690.

              • sgthwjack ✯ December 28th, 2014 at 15:45

                Modern teaching is obviously not education.

            • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:04

              Then demonstrate where the dependent clause changes the meaning of a complex sentence just by its location in the front, middle, or rear of a complex sentence sweety……CHANGE ENGLISH HISTORY FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD!

            • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:08

              Unfortunately for the anti gunutters, the only version of the second amendment ratified by the states, is the 1 comma version.

              “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.”

              Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning, and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the
              meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

              Yet some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

              http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/complexsentence.htm

              Can you also post the english composition rules for a complex sentence where the position of the dependent clause in the front, middle or end of a sentence magically changes the meaning of the complex sentence…..we cant find it anywhere!

              http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/sntstrct.html

              Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same
              thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

              So reality is, the only regulation that really is allowed by the
              govt., is to the unorganized militia. But as govt. is responsible for the call up and muster of the unorganized militia, we see they are consistent in their failure to do their jobs in not doing so.

              http://www.rain.org/%7Ekarpeles/

            • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:09

              Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to
              what exists today.

              original proposed draft 
of 
the right to keep and bear arms 
of the 
BILL of RIGHTS 
(17 TH of 20 amendments) on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library 
Santa Ana, California

              “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

              Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted?

              Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.

              http://www.wemett.net/2nd_amendment_(original_draft).html

              Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.

              The anti’s always fail to prove that a collective right can exist without the individual right first existing as how does a collective begin, oh that’s right, pre-existing individuals come together to form said collective, DOOOHH!

            • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:12

              Everyone already knows what the majority summary states in Heller, a 5-0 count for an individual right, but anti gunnutters always neglect the dissent, a 3 to 1 ruling, in favor of the individual right seperate of militia service…

              Uh for you math illiterates, thats 8 to 1 in favor of the individual right seperate of militia service…..

              No. 07–290
              _________________

              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD ANTHONY HELLER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

              [June 26, 2008]

              JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.

              Page 3

              Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court
              subscribes:

              (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and May be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See,
e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS,
J., dissenting).

              Since a person who is a citizen is conferred the BOR you are going to have a really hard time convincing people this isn’t what it appears, or what was referenced earlier, that IT WAS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INDEPENDENT OF MILITIA SERVICE!

              • OldLefty December 29th, 2014 at 07:18

                The gun nutters always ignore;

                The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

                And… Miller

                • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:23

                  Funny, the BOR has and always will be, a control on the powers of the government, not the rights of the individual, prove otherwise sweety!

        • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 20:16

          There has been a lot of confusion about the words well regulated, let me help clear that up for you. The following is taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

          1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
          1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
          1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
          1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
          1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

          No one would suggest the gov’t has a right to “regulate” appetites, clocks, persons, or minds.

          Implying that the phrase “well regulated” means that the Gov’t has a right to regulate, as defined in the modern sense, firearms is an argument from historical ignorance. The gov’t has the right to regulate the organized militia, and keep it “well regulated”. Your argument would be more convincing if the 2A appeared as follows:

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

          However the 2A’s actual text is as follows:

          “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.”

          This is a common error, so I don’t hold it against you, now you know.

  16. John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 16:08

    What a marvelous idea! Create an entirely new generation of people with criminal records. Walking out on a bill is theft, or don’t you geniuses know that! Theft, depending on the severity, is a felony, for which you lose some of your Rights! This moronic professor is a typical Leftist, completely ignorant of the world. I trust that many of you agreeing with him are equally stupid, and will take his advice.
    Semper fi

    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:35

      why do you have to resort to name calling?

      • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 09:02

        I checked. I called no names. And so long as people are civil, I remain civil.
        Semper fi

        • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 12:59

          you did, read your comments again

          • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 13:20

            Nope, as long as others discuss rationally and civilly, I remain the same. I NEVER start any such thing!
            Semper fi

    • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 21:56

      you are so full of it. let a group of “minorities” walk into a restaurant where you’re dining with your family and you will: 1. call the manager; 2. call the police (and lie about how they are threatening); 3. walk out w/o paying because “those people” are exercising the same rights you have. so shove it. you and your kind share the same ignorant and stupid DNA. it’s called __________(s)!!!!!

      • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:12

        just like reagan when he was gov was fine with open carry…untill he saw black men using that right

        • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:18

          like i said, full of it.

        • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:22

          they act like they are the only m’fer’s on the damn planet that reserve that right.

          • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 22:27

            Blacks and “minorities” have just as much right to open carry or carry concealed as anybody else. Your projecting, what you really mean, is the sight of armed black or “minority” people, would terrify YOU.

            • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:07

              they terrify you and it makes no sense. how many “minorities” have walked into schools and murdered babies or high schoolers, etc.? how many “minorities” have you seen, walking down the street, arms at the ready? how many “minorities” have walked into your precious neighborood and murdered? i’m not afraid of “gangs.” i’m not afraid because i don’t enter their world. be they black or hispanic (mexican). i don’t enter into the world of the white racist, because i don’t venture into trailer parks where you’ll find a lot of white supremacist or the aryan nation type. these (except for the white racist i mentioned, who will defer to murder non-whites or jews) are after each other not me, not you. if Lanza walked into your diner with his gun(s) and sat at a table, you’d look at him as a fellow gun lover. without hesitation you’d think nothing of it. then all hell breaks loose and you’re surprised?

              • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 23:18

                These guys don’t walk in and sit down at the diner 46, they walk in and start shooting, and they don’t stop until someone forces them to. Lanza didn’t walk into the school and sit down for awhile, he brazenly walked in and started murdering children and adults, and he didn’t stop until police officers with firearms arrived, and then he committed suicide, since he knew his allotted time was over.

                Force on force is the only thing thugs like Lanza understand. The gov’t is incapable of defending every individual, in fact it is logistically impossible for them to do so, nor are they legally required to do so, thus it is incumbent upon yourself to provide for your own safety and security.

                • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 01:16

                  how do you know? how would you even begin to assume that they wouldn’t do that? and since lanza walked in and started shooting, what chance do you think you’d have in protecting yourself? you walk in and sit down to eat, no one thinks anything of it, then all of a sudden, your true intentions are made and that’s to make everyone comfortable until you act on those intentions, and that’s to cause distruction and death. why should i trust you? who in hell do you think you are, that you are so special and we should know what’s in your head? i would walk out in a heartbeat. and if you, in your paranoia state started shooting, and i get injured, not only am i going to sue your happy gun toting a&& i will sue the restaurant too. just for letting the gun freak and paranoids in.

                  • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 29th, 2014 at 02:01

                    “…what chance do you think you’d have in protecting yourself?”

                    Carrying a firearm in and of itself, is of course no guarantee of safety or security, anyone can be taken with the element of surprise, but carrying a firearm gives me a better chance, then standing there like an idiot, waiting for my turn to die, especially in a large group of people.

                    Carrying must be combined with good situational awareness and threat detection, combined with clear decision making, and critical thinking skills.

                    I live in an open carry state, I see open carriers often. And in all cases, threat detection comes into play. One can tell much about an individuals intentions through their body language, behavior, and demeanor. It only takes but a fleeting moment to identify someone merely going about their business.

                    “…why should i trust you? who in hell do you think you are…”

                    If you don’t want to trust me, hey, that’s your choice, run for the hills, I really don’t care, and as far as who I am, I’m just a man, a man who takes personal responsibility for my own safety and well being, and that of my family, and anyone else to whom I choose to provide that aegis.

                    You are the irrational one, and you’re exhibiting paranoid thinking, and this is evidenced by your comments. Assuming that I did open carry, which as stated I do not, and you jumped up upon seeing me and ran out like a lunatic, why would I shoot you, I would probably hold the door open for you. I would never shoot anyone unless they constituted a direct threat to my life or that of my loved ones.

                    I’ll be blunt with you, I don’t carry to “save the day” or any BS like that, If you and I were in a store and a lunatic came in to go on a rampage, you and everyone else would be on your own, you’re not my responsibility, and if my kids were present, I would grind whatever grist the mill required, including ruthlessly taking advantage of your death and everyone else’s as an opportunity to slip away, and make my way to the exit at speed, I would only use lethal force if there is no way to get to the exit, or the threat is between me and it, period.

                    If you wish to sue someone, perhaps it should be whatever school you attended as a child, assuming of course that you are actually an adult, to which I have my doubts, just a suggestion. :)

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 02:59

                      “Carrying must be combined with good situational awareness and threat detection, combined with good decision making, and critical thinking skills.” and if one wants to appear to be of no threat, then what? target? starbucks? “And in all cases, threat detection comes into play.” there goes that paranoia at play is what’s going on. itchy trigger fingers, paranoia, blah blah blah. yep, i’m walking out. do you think that the women who were murdered by bundy, saw a serial killer in his body language? HELL NO! he made them see what he wanted them to see. well, can you guess how that went?

                    • Guest December 29th, 2014 at 03:05

                      “……bundy…….”

                      “Carrying a firearm in and of itself, is of course no guarantee of safety or security, anyone can be taken with the element of surprise”

                      I believe that was covered! :)

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 03:17

                      “Carrying a firearm in and of itself, is of course no guarantee of safety or security, anyone can be taken with the element of surprise” so, why not be for no open carry or carry period in establishments, i.e., grocery stores, restaurants?

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 03:19

                      as for bundy, they took a book that looked safe, on face value. and they were wrong. i will take on face value, that anyone walking into a grocery store or anywhere, with a weapon, that they just may be unstable.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:03

                      Not nearly as unstable as you apparently, most kids grow out of their boogeyman phase by 5-6 years old, you havent!

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 16:32

                      i’m not the one wanting to carry a gun every damn where i go. you are the idiots that are paranoid and afraid of the imaginary boogeyman. any idiot that has to carry a gun into the grocery store, movies or out to dinner, should just stay home.

                    • Guest December 29th, 2014 at 04:55

                      Hehe, well, then lets disarm cops too b cause there r no guarantees in life, you really, really, really r a special case.

      • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:31

        Your maliciously false accusation of racism is noted. Get bent.

        • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 02:14

          prove it.

          • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 09:18

            Prove a negative? How, exactly?

  17. John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 17:08

    What a marvelous idea! Create an entirely new generation of people with criminal records. Walking out on a bill is theft, or don’t you geniuses know that! Theft, depending on the severity, is a felony, for which you lose some of your Rights! This moronic professor is a typical Leftist, completely ignorant of the world. I trust that many of you agreeing with him are equally stupid, and will take his advice.
    Semper fi

    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:35

      why do you have to resort to name calling?

      • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 10:02

        I checked. I called no names. And so long as people are civil, I remain civil.
        Semper fi

        • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 13:59

          you did, read your comments again

          • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 14:20

            Nope, as long as others discuss rationally and civilly, I remain the same. I NEVER start any such thing!
            Semper fi

    • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:56

      you are so full of it. let a group of “minorities” walk into a restaurant where you’re dining with your family and you will: 1. call the manager; 2. call the police (and lie about how they are threatening); 3. walk out w/o paying because “those people” are exercising the same rights you have. so shove it. you and your kind share the same ignorant and stupid DNA. it’s called __________(s)!!!!!

      • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:12

        just like reagan when he was gov was fine with open carry…untill he saw black men using that right

        • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:18

          like i said, full of it.

        • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:22

          they act like they are the only m’fer’s on the damn planet that reserve that right.

          • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 23:27

            Blacks and “minorities” have just as much right to open carry or carry concealed as anybody else. Your projecting, what you really mean, is the sight of armed black or “minority” people, would terrify YOU.

            • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 00:07

              they terrify you and it makes no sense. how many “minorities” have walked into schools and murdered babies or high schoolers, etc.? how many “minorities” have you seen, walking down the street, arms at the ready? how many “minorities” have walked into your precious neighborood and murdered? i’m not afraid of “gangs.” i’m not afraid because i don’t enter their world. be they black or hispanic (mexican). i don’t enter into the world of the white racist, because i don’t venture into trailer parks where you’ll find a lot of white supremacist or the aryan nation type. these (except for the white racist i mentioned, who will defer to murder non-whites or jews) are after each other not me, not you. if Lanza walked into your diner with his gun(s) and sat at a table, you’d look at him as a fellow gun lover. without hesitation you’d think nothing of it. then all hell breaks loose and you’re surprised?

              • neighbor kid December 29th, 2014 at 00:18

                These guys don’t walk in and sit down at the diner 46, they walk in and start shooting, and they don’t stop until someone forces them to. Lanza didn’t walk into the school and sit down for awhile, he brazenly walked in and started murdering children and adults, and he didn’t stop until police officers with firearms arrived, and then he committed suicide, since he knew his allotted time was over.

                Force on force is the only thing thugs like Lanza understand. The gov’t is incapable of defending every individual, in fact it is logistically impossible for them to do so, nor are they legally required to do so, thus it is incumbent upon yourself to provide for your own safety and security.

                • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 02:16

                  how do you know? how would you even begin to assume that they wouldn’t do that? and since lanza walked in and started shooting, what chance do you think you’d have in protecting yourself? you walk in and sit down to eat, no one thinks anything of it, then all of a sudden, your true intentions are made and that’s to make everyone comfortable until you act on those intentions, and that’s to cause distruction and death. why should i trust you? who in hell do you think you are, that you are so special and we should know what’s in your head? i would walk out in a heartbeat. and if you, in your paranoia state started shooting, and i get injured, not only am i going to sue your happy gun toting a&& i will sue the restaurant too. just for letting the gun freak and paranoids in.

                  • neighbor kid December 29th, 2014 at 03:01

                    “…what chance do you think you’d have in protecting yourself?”

                    Carrying a firearm in and of itself, is of course no guarantee of safety or security, anyone can be taken with the element of surprise, but carrying a firearm gives me a better chance, then standing there like an idiot, waiting for my turn to die, especially in a large group of people.

                    Carrying must be combined with good situational awareness and threat detection, combined with clear decision making, and critical thinking skills.

                    I live in an open carry state, I see open carriers often. And in all cases, threat detection comes into play. One can tell much about an individuals intentions through their body language, behavior, and demeanor. It only takes but a fleeting moment to identify someone merely going about their business.

                    “…why should i trust you? who in hell do you think you are…”

                    If you don’t want to trust me, hey, that’s your choice, run for the hills, I really don’t care, and as far as who I am, I’m just a man, a man who takes personal responsibility for my own safety and well being, and that of my family, and anyone else to whom I choose to provide that aegis.

                    You are the irrational one, and you’re exhibiting paranoid thinking, and this is evidenced by your comments. Assuming that I did open carry, which as stated I do not, and you jumped up upon seeing me and ran out like a lunatic, why would I shoot you, I would probably hold the door open for you. I would never shoot anyone unless they constituted a direct threat to my life or that of my loved ones.

                    I’ll be blunt with you, I don’t carry to “save the day” or any BS like that, If you and I were in a store and a lunatic came in to go on a rampage, you and everyone else would be on your own, you’re not my responsibility, and if my kids were present, I would grind whatever grist the mill required, including ruthlessly taking advantage of your death and everyone else’s as an opportunity to slip away, and make my way to the exit at speed, I would only use lethal force if there is no way to get to the exit, or the threat is between me and it, period.

                    If you wish to sue someone, perhaps it should be whatever school you attended as a child, assuming of course that you are actually an adult, to which I have my doubts, just a suggestion. :)

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 03:59

                      “Carrying must be combined with good situational awareness and threat detection, combined with good decision making, and critical thinking skills.” and if one wants to appear to be of no threat, then what? target? starbucks? “And in all cases, threat detection comes into play.” there goes that paranoia at play is what’s going on. itchy trigger fingers, paranoia, blah blah blah. yep, i’m walking out. do you think that the women who were murdered by bundy, saw a serial killer in his body language? HELL NO! he made them see what he wanted them to see. well, can you guess how that went?

                    • Guest December 29th, 2014 at 04:05

                      “……bundy…….”

                      “Carrying a firearm in and of itself, is of course no guarantee of safety or security, anyone can be taken with the element of surprise”

                      I believe that was covered! :)

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 04:17

                      “Carrying a firearm in and of itself, is of course no guarantee of safety or security, anyone can be taken with the element of surprise” so, why not be for no open carry or carry period in establishments, i.e., grocery stores, restaurants?

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 04:19

                      as for bundy, they took a book that looked safe, on face value. and they were wrong. i will take on face value, that anyone walking into a grocery store or anywhere, with a weapon, that they just may be unstable.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:03

                      Not nearly as unstable as you apparently, most kids grow out of their boogeyman phase by 5-6 years old, you havent!

                    • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 17:32

                      i’m not the one wanting to carry a gun every damn where i go. you are the idiots that are paranoid and afraid of the imaginary boogeyman. any idiot that has to carry a gun into the grocery store, movies or out to dinner, should just stay home.

                    • Guest December 29th, 2014 at 05:55

                      Hehe, well, then lets disarm cops too b cause there r no guarantees in life, you really, really, really r a special case.

      • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:31

        Your maliciously false accusation of racism is noted. Get bent.

        • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 03:14

          prove it.

          • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 10:18

            Prove a negative? How, exactly?

  18. John Crawford December 28th, 2014 at 16:25

    They certainly will. If you leave without paying, it is theft. If an employee of the establishment you’ve just stiffed gets your license number and calls a cop, you’ll have a very unpleasant experience. Oh, you’ll also have a lifetime record of theft.
    Semper fi

  19. Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 19:11

    “As many have pointed out, there is no way for bystanders to know whether the people with guns are “good guys” or “bad guys.”

    It’s pretty simple actually, if an individual comes into an establishment and starts shooting people, then that is a “bad guy”, if an individual comes in and orders food or starts shopping for groceries, then that is a “good guy”.

    Jack Weinstein’s paranoia is getting the better of him and he is advocating theft, no matter what he chooses to call it.

    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:36

      really, and that same good guy could go all crazy if someone looks at him/her wrong or bumps them with a cart…since their is no mental stability test for owning or carrying a weapon designed for one thing, to kill

      • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 21:45

        If you were carrying a firearm and someone looks at you wrong or bumps you with a cart, would you start shooting? Is that what you’re really saying?

        “…since their is no mental stability test for owning or carrying a weapon…”
        Of course not, congress as far as I know is not empowered by the Constitution to do anything like that. Owning a firearm is a right, you need not like it, nor can anyone force you to, but the states define how arms are carried.

        I myself prefer concealed carry, this way gun muggles such as yourself don’t get upset or any more paranoid.

        • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 21:46

          Are you saying it never happens or are you saying we need better background and mental health checks before anyone may own a gun?

          • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 21:51

            You didn’t answer my question, would you shoot someone for some trivial affront, real or imagined?.

            To the best of my knowledge, every single mass shooter in recent history submitted to and passed a BG check or obtained a firearm through illegal means before they committed their heinous deeds.

            Cho, who was responsible for the Virginia tech rampage was a perfect example. He was mentally ill, and yet was not on the prohibited persons list. If you have a grip about that as I do, then look to have that fixed.

            • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:02

              your question was not real but a deflection…so you agree we need better background checks and mental health evaluations for gun owners?We are not talking about “mass shooters” shooters in general, why are you moving the goal posts?

              • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:17

                its a difficult question tracey. try something that doesn’t require too much thought.

                • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:39

                  what?

                  • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:58

                    ok, let me make myself clearer, sorry. i meant, ask him something that doesn’t require much thought to your question.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:59

                      Reading it the second time I understood, little tired tonite my friend.

                • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:02

                  you need to go read chinese democracy’s comment to me on the allen west thread, it is hilarious

                  • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:08

                    will do. and will respond there. headed over.

              • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 22:17

                Not a deflection, nor a rhetorical question. You don’t wish to answer it because either A, you would shoot someone for a trivial offense, and in this case you’re projecting your own fears onto others, or B, you wouldn’t, and yet you seem to think that others would.

                The BG system we have now, is perfectly fine, except for getting those with mental issues onto the prohibited persons list. Not moving the goal post, you should have been more specific.

                Shootings in general are committed primarily by inner city and outlaw motor cycle gangs, driven primarily by the black market narcotics trade. In fact the FBI’s report shows that they commit up to 90% of firearms related homicides, especially around large cities.
                http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

                National Institute of Justice Statistics show that the majority of criminals obtain firearms through “straw sales”. What would you suggest as an improvement to BG checks when the majority of criminals are getting firearms through the legal market now?

                Borrowed or given: 3%
                Other: 6%
                Theft: 9%
                Drug Dealer: 15%
                Black Market: 9%
                Retail Store: 15%
                Pawnshop:4%
                Flea Market: 2%
                Gun Show/Private Sale: 2%
                Family or friend straw sale 38%
                https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

                • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:40

                  and there it is…what I stated earlier, the black thugs are responsible, in your world for all the killings. I knew this was about race to you andyou proved me correct. that is storm front babble

                  • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 22:52

                    I never said “black thugs”, I said “inner city and outlaw motor cycle gangs”, and if you have a problem with any of my data sets, take it up with the FBI.

                    What are you desperate to call me a “racist” in lieu of having a rational conversation?

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:00

                      sure you did

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 23:00

                      Nope, you did. ;)

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:50

                      Funny thing about math, you have to understand it, anti gun
                      advocates don’t.

 The number of violent crimes committed by whites, versus blacks in totals, is about the same sweety, example……

                      

http://www . fbi . gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43



                      243,928 whites arrested to 157,384 blacks arrested

 Violent crimes

                      64.8% to 35.2%



                      While you are correct blacks are being arrested at the higher
                      rate, it is simply because they are committing the violent rimes at that higher rate!



                      But where you lose the argument, is the totals, because if the
                      cops were truly racist, then they would be shooting blacks at a higher %/rate, than the number of violent crimes in total.



                      Its a numbers game sweety, one see’s a % of bad guys shot per # of violent crimes committed, kinda like the house odd’s in gambling is always near 52% in favor of the house!



                      Oh and since the blacks seem to have a slight descrepancy/increase of being involved in the illicit drug trade, especially in the urban/city areas, one can account for the difference in blacks being shot as per the following US Bureau of Justice data since 1976, which when averaged out is approx 43%!



                      Hmmm, just for the one year, given standard deviation of +/- 3%, a 5% difference in rate is indeed easily explainable by blacks being more actively involved in the illicit drug trade/gang participation….unless you have some government data to mathematically prove different eh….no, you don’t!

                      http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=%2Farrests%2Findex.cfm

                      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ph98.pdf

                      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf

                      Why is it since 1976, police have shot/killed 8,269 whites and only 6,030 blacks?

                      Police must be racist!

                      US Burea of Justice: Arrest Related deaths 2003-2009

                      

US Bureau of Justice: Policing and Homicide, 1976-98: Justifiable Homicide by Police, Police Officers Murdered by Felons

                      Police Justifiable Homicides Whites shot/killed Blacks
                      shot/killed

                      1976 415 232 178
                      1977 311 146 162
                      1978 313 153 157
                      1979 442 221 217
                      1980 459 234 220
                      1981 383 207 172
                      1982 380 198 179
                      1983 419 226 189
                      1984 333 193 137
                      1985 321 196 116
                      1986 303 176 121
                      1987 300 192 102
                      1988 342 202 133
                      1989 363 218 138
                      1990 385 239 139
                      1991 367 195 158
                      1992 418 251 159
                      1993 455 250 191
                      1994 462 263 185
                      1995 389 233 144
                      1996 356 221 132
                      1997 366 231 128
                      1998 369 225 127
                      1999 308 183 133
                      2000 309 184 133
                      2001 370 220 160
                      2002 341 203 147
                      2003 373 222 161
                      2004 367 218 158
                      2005 347 206 150
                      2006 376 223 162
                      2007 398 236 172
                      2008 378 225 163
                      2009 414 246 179
                      2010 397 236 171
                      2011 404 240 174
                      2012 426 253 184
                      2013 461 274 199

                      Lets just take a small sample of data on race of bad guys killing cops eh…1980-1998

                      Year/cops feloniously killed/white/black

                      1980









 104









 54 




43







                      1981 









91









 34 




53 







                      1982 









92









 52 




36 







                      1983 









80









 51 




24 







                      1984 









72 









35 




30







































                      1985 









78









 34 




40
                      1986









 66









 40 




22







                      1987









 74









 42




 22







                      1988









 7








8 




42 31







                      1989 66









 35 




28







































                      1990









 66









 35




 28







                      1991









 71









 40




 31 







                      1992









 64









 33 




29







                      1993 









70 29 




41







                      1994









 79 









40 




32







































                      1995 









74 









36




 28
                      






1996 









61









 26




 31







                      1997









 70 









36 




21







                      1998









 61









 36




 20

                      See, since blacks are only 12%-13% of the population during this time frame, they shouldnt be committing more than 12%-13% of the cop killings…but the inherently violent culture and nature of the demokrat life style leads to disproportionally more violence by these demokrats/blacks!

                      http://people . missouristate .
                      edu/MichaelCarlie/what_I_learned_about/gangs/racial_composition . htm



                      One study in 1998 showed just over 548,000 gang members…



                      White 12%


                      Black 34%


                      Hispanic 46%

                      So lets see…



                      1.4 mil x 12% = 168,000


                      1.4 mil x 34% = 476,000


                      1.4 mil x 46% = 644,000

                      

Wow 1,120,000 /168,00 = demokrats are 6.67 times more likely to be violent gang members…typikal!


                      Here is the USDOJ bi-annual report, GANG THREAT ASSESSMENT 2011, they show over 1.4 million gang members now sweety……

                      

http : // www . fbi . gov / stats-services/publications /
                      2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

                      

Oh and one thing you should remember about FBI UCR data
                      sweety, they hadn’t separated whites, from Latinos, until 2013!



                      http : // www . amren . com / news / 2013 / 07
                      /
fbi-to-track-latino-arrests-for-uniform-crime-report /

FBI to Track Latino Arrests for Uniform Crime Report



                      Huffington Post, June 25, 2013

                      

The FBI will begin collecting nationwide data on ethnicity
                      next year to be published in its annual Uniform Crime Report,
making it possible to test the assertion of some advocacy groups that police arrest Latinos–a multiracial ethnic group–at higher rates than non-Hispanic whites. 



                      So after the 2013 data summary on violent crimes, including
                      justifiable shootings, that number of WHITES being shot will change some what wouldn’t you agree……as 30% of all violent crimes are committed by latinos based on USDOJ data!

                      So reality is the totals arrested/shot white to black, will
                      roughly b the same when you get to the nitty gritty details and context of the data, welcome to reality!

                      Sigh….you really need to get a clue as to the BIG PICTURE
                      sweety!

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:51

                      See, the USDOJ also provides GOVERNEMNT DATA showing how 30% of the population, not white, commits 87% of all the violent crimes!

                      What is even funnier, is how more-ons like you, cant prove that
                      95% of greater of that 30% of the population, not white, doesnt vote predominantly demokrat!

                      Making you demokrats, the 7 times inherently more violent subset of our culture!

                      Truth is if we banned demokrats, it would reduce violence
                      dramatically!

                      Doubt the USDOJ, google the 10 most dangerous cities, funny how they have one common denominator, large % of DEMOKRATS!

                      http://www.answers.com/article/1191042/top-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-us?param4=ysa-us-de-lifestyle#slide=2

                      10. Newburgh, NY – 19.4% white, 32.96% democrat/black, 48.3 democrat/Latino

                      9. Oakland, CA – 25.9% white, 28% /democrat/black, 25.4% democrat/Latino

                      8. Chester, PA – 17.2% white, 74.7% democrat/black

                      7. Bessemer, AL – 28.93% white, 69.55% democrat/black

                      6. Detroit, MI – 10.6% white, 82.7% democrat/black

                      5. Saginaw, MI – 43.5 % white, 46.1 % democrat/black

                      4. West Memphis, AR – 42.16% white, 55.93% democrat/black

                      3. Camden, NJ – 17.59% white, 48.07% democrat/black

                      2. Flint, MI – 37.4% white, 56.6% democrat/black

                      1. East St. Louis, IL – 1.23 white, 97.74% democrat/black

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:51

                      Isnt it amazing how when one pulls up the US Bureau of Justice data like these articles did, we see how demokrats are the predominantly violent sub species of our society!

                      http://www.pjtv.com/
                      http://www.pjmedia.com/

                      Ethnicity # of Inmates % of Inmates

                      Black 80,228 / 40 mil pop = .002
                      
White 128,882 / 224 mil pop = .00057
                      
Hispanic 75,728 / 50 mil pop = .0015

                      
.002/.000575 = 3.47 times more likely democrats/blacks
                      felons than whites

                      .0015/.000575 = 2.63 times more likely democrats/hispanics
                      felons than whites

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:52

                      The US Census declared that in 2010, 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:[40]
9.9% of all
                      white persons, 26.6% Latino…………….
28.4% of all black persons.

                      224 mil x .099 = 22.176 mil

                      40 mil x .284 = 11.36 mil

                      50 mil x .266 = 13.3 mil

                      http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/

                      It looks like poor whites outnumber poor democrats/blacks by a factor of 2.

                      If your “blame everything on poverty” theory is correct, poor whites should commit twice as many murders as poor democrats/blacks do.

                      And yet democrats/blacks commit 50% of all murders.

                      How come?

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:53

                      Bureau of Justice Statistics


                      Filename: htus8008f18.csv
Report title: Homicide
                      Trends in United States
Data source: Supplementary Homicide
                      Report
Authors: Erica Smith and Alexia Cooper
Refer questions to: askbjs@usdoj.gov (202) 307-0765


                      Date of version: 11/16/11


                      Figure 18. Homicide offending rates, by race, 1980-2008



                      Rate per 100,000 population



                      Year / White / Democrat/Black



                      1980 / 6.4 / 49.8

                      1981 / 5.9 / 45.8
                      1982 / 5.6 / 41.2

                      1983 / 5.3 / 36.3

                      1984 / 5.3 / 33.1

                      1985 / 5.1 / 34

                      1986 / 5.3 / 37.9

                      1987 / 5.2 / 36.6

                      1988 / 4.9 / 41.3

                      1989 / 5.1 / 42.1

                      1990 / 5.6 / 46.5

                      1991 / 5.6 / 51.1

                      1992 / 5.2 / 46.5

                      1993 / 5.2 / 48.5

                      1994 / 5.1 / 44.5

                      1995 / 4.8 / 38.4

                      1996 / 4.4 / 34.9

                      1997 / 4.1 / 31.2

                      1998 / 4.1 / 26.9

                      1999 / 3.5 / 24.5

                      2000 / 3.5 / 25.2

                      2001 / 3.6 / 25.4

                      2002 / 3.6 / 24.8
                      
2003 / 3.5 / 25.2

                      2004 / 3.6 / 24
                      
2005 / 3.5 / 26.6
                      2006 / 3.4 / 28.4

                      2007 / 3.4 / 27.4

                      2008 / 3.4 / 24.7

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:54

                      Amazing how this information is straight from the FBI and the CDC

                      250 caught/convicted serial killers 2014

                      Rate per 100k/ Population / # serial killers / race

                      0.065756141 / 223,553,265 / 147 / white
                      0.210638 / 38,929,319 / 82 / democrat/black
                      0.031697232 / 50,477,594 / 16 / democrat/hispanic
                      0.009509798 / 14,674,252 / 3 / asian
                      0.028430683 / 4,263,000 / 2 /native American

                      So since sane and intelligent people understand the crime levels are based on rates per population, it is indeed true that blacks are twice as likely to be serial killers than whites, 6 times more likely than Hispanics.

                      But since you idiots insist Hispanic’s are white, then the real rate difference is 3.20 times more likely blacks are to be serial
                      killers.

                      Of course, we see where multiple forensic psychologists have already identified serial killers and pedophiles having the same exact set of habits, personalities, etc, etc…

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:55

                      KKK: Lynchings 1882-1968 3,446 (1,294 whites also)

                      Chicago: 1991-2009 9,500 blacks killing blacks

                      Philadelphia: 2006-2009 1,196 blacks killing blacks

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:58

                      Between 1976 and 2005, African-American/demokrats, 12.6% of the population in the last census, committed 52.2% of all homicides.

                      http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

                      That is, over the 30-year period, African-American/demokrats committed murder at about 7.33 times the white rate. (Whites here include Hispanics.)

                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

                      Of homicides committed by strangers, on average, 18.77% involved black/demokrats killing whites, while in 5.08% of the cases, whites killed blacks. African-American/demokrats were therefore nearly 3.7 times more likely to kill a white than a white to kill a black/demokrat.

                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

                      To provide some raw numbers, in 2005, DOJ statistics are, 10,285 African-American/demokrats committed murders. As 8.8% of these were “black/demokrat on white,” there were, assuming only one death per murderer, 905 whites killed, almost 2.5 per day. In the same year, again assuming one killing per perpetrator, 267 black/demokrats were murdered by whites (3.2% of 8,350 killings).

                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

                      Crime is a young man’s métier.

                      The vast majority of the 52.2% of U.S. murders committed by African-American/demokrats are the work of the roughly 2% of the population who are black/demokrat males between the ages of 15 and 25.

                      Would these figures, courtesy of Eric Holder, surprise most Americans?

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:59

                      http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/01/the-colo

                      In 2010, Chicago was 32.9% Demokrat/African-American,
                      28.9% Demokrat/Hispanic, 31.7% White, and 5.5% Asian:

                      In 2010, Demokrat/African-Americans accounted for 65.7% of arrests for criminal sexual assault and Hispanics accounted for 27.7% of arrests for criminal sexual assault in Chicago. In other words, 93.4% of arrests for criminal sexual assault in Chicago were Demokrat/African-American and Demokrat/Hispanic.

                      In 2010, Demokrat/African-Americans accounted for 85.5% of arrests for robbery and Demokrat/Hispanics accounted for
                      10.8% of arrests for robbery in Chicago. In other words, 96.3% of arrests for robbery in Chicago were Demokrat/African-American and Demokrat/Hispanic.

                      In 2010, Demokrat/African-Americans accounted for 74% of arrests for burglary and Demokrat/Hispanics accounted for
                      18.7% of arrests for burglary in Chicago. In other words, 92.7% of arrests for burglary in Chicago were Demokrat/African-American and Demokrat/Hispanic.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:00

                      Feel free to go scream and wail at the government agencies obvious racism at posting this racist data for all to see!

                      Let us know how your Don Quixote moment turns out sweety!

                  • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:31

                    Your malicious accusation of racism, wholly unsupported by any of the previous posts, is noted.

                    Debate honestly, or get bent.

            • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:16

              are we suppose to assume that everyone who has a weapon concealed or not, is sane? you don’t have to look at them or bump into them. you don’t know what’s going on in that “brain.” if i see someone with a weapon or not, they should not be allowed where i shop or dine with my family.

              • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 22:22

                Well, if someone is carrying a concealed weapon, how would you know?

                And how does that deal with those who actually mean you legitimate harm, who will not care one bit about an establishments rules prohibiting the carrying of a firearm?
                Am I just supposed to place myself in a potentially dangerous situation and divest myself of the most practical means for self defense against an armed lunatic to satisfy your paranoia, so that you “feel” safer, even though you not?

                • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:39

                  so now you are so paranoid that Crazies are out there waiting to kill unarmed people?

                  • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:56

                    darnit. i didn’t read your post before i used the word “paranoid.” LOL

                  • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 22:59

                    I have a fire extinguisher in my house and car too, but I’m not paranoid about fires, just practical, as said, If you don’t wish to own or carry a firearm, your choice, and I respect it, but I get a choice too, and I neither require nor desire your approval. :)

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:07

                      lol, carrying a gun is paranoid, especially when you believe as you do. I am done

                    • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 23:09

                      Have a good one.

                  • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:29

                    I thought YOU were the one “paranoid of Crazies”?

                    Oh yeah, you are: “really, and that same good guy could go all crazy if someone looks at him/her wrong or bumps them with a cart…since their is no mental stability test for owning or carrying a weapon designed for one thing, to kill”

                    Make up your mind, eh?

                • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 22:51

                  if you’re that paranoid, stay home. i don’t want you or any other gun nut, thinking he’s saving the imaginary day. so, everyone is suppose to just shoot up the place? someone suggested when the aurora (theatre) shooting happened, that if others had a concealed weapon, then they could have fired back. really? then that would certainly have caused more deaths as you would never know who’s the “good guy” with the gun shooting or the “bad guy.” considering its pitch dark. how dumba&& is that thinking?

                  • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 28th, 2014 at 22:55

                    So again, you’re idea is to just sit tight and wait to get shot by lunatic. That’s your choice, not mine. As I stated in other posts, I prefer carrying concealed, that way no one knows, especially paranoid individuals such as your self, see easy fix. :)

                  • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:26

                    No, you are the paranoid one; YOU stay home. I will peacefully, lawfully and safely exercise my Rights without fear.

                    Have a really great day.

                  • PavePusher December 28th, 2014 at 23:28

                    “… then that would certainly have caused more deaths as you would never know who’s the “good guy” with the gun shooting or the “bad guy.” ”

                    Right, because no-one saw the guy at the front of the theater doing the shooting? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on. And if you think MORE people would have been killed, you need to cite ANY similar such instance in which 12 or more people were killed by “good guys”.

                    Otherwise, you are talking from your lower colon.

              • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:38

                Funny how the 1 mil police are 11 times more likely to accidentally shoot someone than the law abiding civilains, that and the police violent crime rate is slightly higher than those law abiding civilians open/concealed carrying……

                But since one anti gunterd demokrat politician (leeland yee) was caught running guns to gangs, therefore all anti gunterd demokrat politicians cant be trusted and are automatically illegal gun runners to gangs and should be locked up for public safety…..sounds reasonable!

                We are afraid of AID’s, and since the disease is linked to homosexuals, it is indeed reasonable that all homosexuals be removed for public safety into camps for the public safety….how is that not reasonable!

                You want to keep playing your idiotic and stupid absolutist BS game sweeties……..

                We also recognize the US govt. data proving how law abiding civilians since 1960 have by lawful armed self defense, prevented over 1.131 mil murders, prevented over 6.5 mil injuries, and prevented over $2.17 trillion in medical expenses……

              • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:40

                Of course we see how in dozens of court rulings that the police are by law, not legally liable to protect the individual civilian.

                Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

                Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

                Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat.
                4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no
                liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

              • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 05:42

                Of course we see how police each year, fail to solve more than 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year.

                Police response times at best are 4 minutes, 15-20 minutes on average.

                FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.

                http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.htm

                The British and Canadian govt. does an identical study to the Victimization reports, says the same thing!

                http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/bcs1011tech1?view=Binary



                http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm

                http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224

                But oh wait, we have to remember the 70% of violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

                http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2008/tables/D04Mar08.pdf

                http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf

                So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

                So when are you anti gun freaks going to walk your talk and prove you have no life, car, home or medical insurance as being prepared for the worst case scenario is insane based on your statements and beliefs

        • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 08:12

          Personally I think open carry is a bad idea, it’s too easy to disarm you.
          CCW as you say makes them wonder who is armed.

          • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 08:14

            Why does brandishing a weapon then chase the bad guy off the vast majority of the time…………..

            • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 08:18

              Because they are cowards and prefer defenseless targets?

      • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 08:13

        Also designed to hunt with, I take hogs with a 1911.
        easier to use in the brush than a rifle or shotgun.

        • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 13:01

          hunting is killing, you proved me correct

          • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 13:24

            Yes it is, but a weapon is a tool like a hammer, a knife, or a shovel.
            This killing is for a good purpose. Those two hogs, and the deer from this year went in the freezer to feed my family.
            The killing by illegal carriers in DC and Chicago are for no good reason. That is the difference.

            • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 14:23

              a tool designed to kill, period.

              • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 14:45

                A knife was originally designed to kill, do you use yours for that?
                And what is wrong with using one to feed my family?

              • Old SF MJT December 29th, 2014 at 23:14

                I notice that you still haven’t answered ‘momgoose’s’ question: “So exactly what have I said that is racist and how was it racist?” You made the comment, so you owe him an answer!
                De Oppresso Liber

            • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 14:24

              when you make racist comments you look foolish and ignorant.

              • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 14:44

                So exactly what have I said that is racist and how was it racist?

              • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 15:08

                No word, clause, phrase, or sentence, in his post, is racist in any manner. You continue to accuse others of posting racist remarks, or name calling, but haven’t yet pointed to any specific remarks or names. When will you do so?
                Semper fi

              • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 09:16

                You still haven’t identified the “racist comments” you insist have been made. Your failure makes you look like a fool. It’s time to step up and take responsibility for your words. Put up, or shut up.
                Semper fi

                • Old Jarhead December 30th, 2014 at 09:40

                  I don’t think you will be hearing back from tracey. She hasn’t got facts on her side. She even excoriated me for using a website she doesn’t approve of when I quoted some statitics, even though it was clearly identified as the CDC website in my comment. She kept that up for about 3 comments. But I did get a nice new link!

                  • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 09:49

                    I think you’re right, undoubtedly. She’s a bomb-thrower only.
                    Semper fi

              • amongoose December 30th, 2014 at 09:23

                Thank you for your answer to my question.
                It is exactly what I expected.
                .
                Crickets.

    • Mike List December 29th, 2014 at 00:24

      “Starts shooting”. A little late to make plans. If I am in fear for my life, a theft charge means nothing to me.

      • Geralt_0f_Rivia December 29th, 2014 at 00:41

        If someone comes in and starts shooting, then yeah running is as good an idea as you can get, given the alternative, and in that case no one is going to be worried about a theft charge.

        However, again, If a guy comes in sits down to order a meal say, and you run out of the place, yes, you should be worried about a ‘dine and dash’ charge of theft, since the only one breaking the law would be you.

        Of course the police are always 5-10 minute away, so if your a fast runner, you could potentially eat for free.

  20. neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 20:11

    “As many have pointed out, there is no way for bystanders to know whether the people with guns are “good guys” or “bad guys.”

    It’s pretty simple actually, if an individual comes into an establishment and starts shooting people, then that is a “bad guy”, if an individual comes in and orders food or starts shopping for groceries, then that is a “good guy”.

    Jack Weinstein’s paranoia is getting the better of him and he is advocating theft, no matter what he chooses to call it.

    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:36

      really, and that same good guy could go all crazy if someone looks at him/her wrong or bumps them with a cart…since their is no mental stability test for owning or carrying a weapon designed for one thing, to kill

      • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 22:45

        If you were carrying a firearm and someone looks at you wrong or bumps you with a cart, would you start shooting? Is that what you’re really saying?

        “…since their is no mental stability test for owning or carrying a weapon…”
        Of course not, congress as far as I know is not empowered by the Constitution to do anything like that. Owning a firearm is a right, you need not like it, nor can anyone force you to, but the states define how arms are carried.

        I myself prefer concealed carry, this way gun muggles such as yourself don’t get upset or any more paranoid.

        • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 22:46

          Are you saying it never happens or are you saying we need better background and mental health checks before anyone may own a gun?

          • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 22:51

            You didn’t answer my question, would you shoot someone for some trivial affront, real or imagined?.

            To the best of my knowledge, every single mass shooter in recent history submitted to and passed a BG check or obtained a firearm through illegal means before they committed their heinous deeds.

            Cho, who was responsible for the Virginia tech rampage was a perfect example. He was mentally ill, and yet was not on the prohibited persons list. If you have a grip about that as I do, then look to have that fixed.

            • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:02

              your question was not real but a deflection…so you agree we need better background checks and mental health evaluations for gun owners?We are not talking about “mass shooters” shooters in general, why are you moving the goal posts?

              • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:17

                its a difficult question tracey. try something that doesn’t require too much thought.

                • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:39

                  what?

                  • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:58

                    ok, let me make myself clearer, sorry. i meant, ask him something that doesn’t require much thought to your question.

                    • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:59

                      Reading it the second time I understood, little tired tonite my friend.

                • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 00:02

                  you need to go read chinese democracy’s comment to me on the allen west thread, it is hilarious

                  • whatthe46 December 29th, 2014 at 00:08

                    will do. and will respond there. headed over.

              • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 23:17

                Not a deflection, nor a rhetorical question. You don’t wish to answer it because either A, you would shoot someone for a trivial offense, and in this case you’re projecting your own fears onto others, or B, you wouldn’t, and yet you seem to think that others would.

                The BG system we have now, is perfectly fine, except for getting those with mental issues onto the prohibited persons list. Not moving the goal post, you should have been more specific.

                Shootings in general are committed primarily by inner city and outlaw motor cycle gangs, driven primarily by the black market narcotics trade. In fact the FBI’s report shows that they commit up to 90% of firearms related homicides, especially around large cities.
                http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

                National Institute of Justice Statistics show that the majority of criminals obtain firearms through “straw sales”. What would you suggest as an improvement to BG checks when the majority of criminals are getting firearms through the legal market now?

                Borrowed or given: 3%
                Other: 6%
                Theft: 9%
                Drug Dealer: 15%
                Black Market: 9%
                Retail Store: 15%
                Pawnshop:4%
                Flea Market: 2%
                Gun Show/Private Sale: 2%
                Family or friend straw sale 38%
                https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

                • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:40

                  and there it is…what I stated earlier, the black thugs are responsible, in your world for all the killings. I knew this was about race to you andyou proved me correct. that is storm front babble

                  • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 23:52

                    I never said “black thugs”, I said “inner city and outlaw motor cycle gangs”, and if you have a problem with any of my data sets, take it up with the FBI.

                    What are you desperate to call me a “racist” in lieu of having a rational conversation?

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 00:00

                      sure you did

                    • neighbor kid December 29th, 2014 at 00:00

                      Nope, you did. ;)

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:50

                      Funny thing about math, you have to understand it, anti gun
                      advocates don’t.

 The number of violent crimes committed by whites, versus blacks in totals, is about the same sweety, example……

                      

http://www . fbi . gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43



                      243,928 whites arrested to 157,384 blacks arrested

 Violent crimes

                      64.8% to 35.2%



                      While you are correct blacks are being arrested at the higher
                      rate, it is simply because they are committing the violent rimes at that higher rate!



                      But where you lose the argument, is the totals, because if the
                      cops were truly racist, then they would be shooting blacks at a higher %/rate, than the number of violent crimes in total.



                      Its a numbers game sweety, one see’s a % of bad guys shot per # of violent crimes committed, kinda like the house odd’s in gambling is always near 52% in favor of the house!



                      Oh and since the blacks seem to have a slight descrepancy/increase of being involved in the illicit drug trade, especially in the urban/city areas, one can account for the difference in blacks being shot as per the following US Bureau of Justice data since 1976, which when averaged out is approx 43%!



                      Hmmm, just for the one year, given standard deviation of +/- 3%, a 5% difference in rate is indeed easily explainable by blacks being more actively involved in the illicit drug trade/gang participation….unless you have some government data to mathematically prove different eh….no, you don’t!

                      http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=%2Farrests%2Findex.cfm

                      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ph98.pdf

                      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf

                      Why is it since 1976, police have shot/killed 8,269 whites and only 6,030 blacks?

                      Police must be racist!

                      US Burea of Justice: Arrest Related deaths 2003-2009

                      

US Bureau of Justice: Policing and Homicide, 1976-98: Justifiable Homicide by Police, Police Officers Murdered by Felons

                      Police Justifiable Homicides Whites shot/killed Blacks
                      shot/killed

                      1976 415 232 178
                      1977 311 146 162
                      1978 313 153 157
                      1979 442 221 217
                      1980 459 234 220
                      1981 383 207 172
                      1982 380 198 179
                      1983 419 226 189
                      1984 333 193 137
                      1985 321 196 116
                      1986 303 176 121
                      1987 300 192 102
                      1988 342 202 133
                      1989 363 218 138
                      1990 385 239 139
                      1991 367 195 158
                      1992 418 251 159
                      1993 455 250 191
                      1994 462 263 185
                      1995 389 233 144
                      1996 356 221 132
                      1997 366 231 128
                      1998 369 225 127
                      1999 308 183 133
                      2000 309 184 133
                      2001 370 220 160
                      2002 341 203 147
                      2003 373 222 161
                      2004 367 218 158
                      2005 347 206 150
                      2006 376 223 162
                      2007 398 236 172
                      2008 378 225 163
                      2009 414 246 179
                      2010 397 236 171
                      2011 404 240 174
                      2012 426 253 184
                      2013 461 274 199

                      Lets just take a small sample of data on race of bad guys killing cops eh…1980-1998

                      Year/cops feloniously killed/white/black

                      1980









 104









 54 




43







                      1981 









91









 34 




53 







                      1982 









92









 52 




36 







                      1983 









80









 51 




24 







                      1984 









72 









35 




30







































                      1985 









78









 34 




40
                      1986









 66









 40 




22







                      1987









 74









 42




 22







                      1988









 7








8 




42 31







                      1989 66









 35 




28







































                      1990









 66









 35




 28







                      1991









 71









 40




 31 







                      1992









 64









 33 




29







                      1993 









70 29 




41







                      1994









 79 









40 




32







































                      1995 









74 









36




 28
                      






1996 









61









 26




 31







                      1997









 70 









36 




21







                      1998









 61









 36




 20

                      See, since blacks are only 12%-13% of the population during this time frame, they shouldnt be committing more than 12%-13% of the cop killings…but the inherently violent culture and nature of the demokrat life style leads to disproportionally more violence by these demokrats/blacks!

                      http://people . missouristate .
                      edu/MichaelCarlie/what_I_learned_about/gangs/racial_composition . htm



                      One study in 1998 showed just over 548,000 gang members…



                      White 12%


                      Black 34%


                      Hispanic 46%

                      So lets see…



                      1.4 mil x 12% = 168,000


                      1.4 mil x 34% = 476,000


                      1.4 mil x 46% = 644,000

                      

Wow 1,120,000 /168,00 = demokrats are 6.67 times more likely to be violent gang members…typikal!


                      Here is the USDOJ bi-annual report, GANG THREAT ASSESSMENT 2011, they show over 1.4 million gang members now sweety……

                      

http : // www . fbi . gov / stats-services/publications /
                      2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

                      

Oh and one thing you should remember about FBI UCR data
                      sweety, they hadn’t separated whites, from Latinos, until 2013!



                      http : // www . amren . com / news / 2013 / 07
                      /
fbi-to-track-latino-arrests-for-uniform-crime-report /

FBI to Track Latino Arrests for Uniform Crime Report



                      Huffington Post, June 25, 2013

                      

The FBI will begin collecting nationwide data on ethnicity
                      next year to be published in its annual Uniform Crime Report,
making it possible to test the assertion of some advocacy groups that police arrest Latinos–a multiracial ethnic group–at higher rates than non-Hispanic whites. 



                      So after the 2013 data summary on violent crimes, including
                      justifiable shootings, that number of WHITES being shot will change some what wouldn’t you agree……as 30% of all violent crimes are committed by latinos based on USDOJ data!

                      So reality is the totals arrested/shot white to black, will
                      roughly b the same when you get to the nitty gritty details and context of the data, welcome to reality!

                      Sigh….you really need to get a clue as to the BIG PICTURE
                      sweety!

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:51

                      See, the USDOJ also provides GOVERNEMNT DATA showing how 30% of the population, not white, commits 87% of all the violent crimes!

                      What is even funnier, is how more-ons like you, cant prove that
                      95% of greater of that 30% of the population, not white, doesnt vote predominantly demokrat!

                      Making you demokrats, the 7 times inherently more violent subset of our culture!

                      Truth is if we banned demokrats, it would reduce violence
                      dramatically!

                      Doubt the USDOJ, google the 10 most dangerous cities, funny how they have one common denominator, large % of DEMOKRATS!

                      http://www.answers.com/article/1191042/top-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-us?param4=ysa-us-de-lifestyle#slide=2

                      10. Newburgh, NY – 19.4% white, 32.96% democrat/black, 48.3 democrat/Latino

                      9. Oakland, CA – 25.9% white, 28% /democrat/black, 25.4% democrat/Latino

                      8. Chester, PA – 17.2% white, 74.7% democrat/black

                      7. Bessemer, AL – 28.93% white, 69.55% democrat/black

                      6. Detroit, MI – 10.6% white, 82.7% democrat/black

                      5. Saginaw, MI – 43.5 % white, 46.1 % democrat/black

                      4. West Memphis, AR – 42.16% white, 55.93% democrat/black

                      3. Camden, NJ – 17.59% white, 48.07% democrat/black

                      2. Flint, MI – 37.4% white, 56.6% democrat/black

                      1. East St. Louis, IL – 1.23 white, 97.74% democrat/black

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:51

                      Isnt it amazing how when one pulls up the US Bureau of Justice data like these articles did, we see how demokrats are the predominantly violent sub species of our society!

                      http://www.pjtv.com/
                      http://www.pjmedia.com/

                      Ethnicity # of Inmates % of Inmates

                      Black 80,228 / 40 mil pop = .002
                      
White 128,882 / 224 mil pop = .00057
                      
Hispanic 75,728 / 50 mil pop = .0015

                      
.002/.000575 = 3.47 times more likely democrats/blacks
                      felons than whites

                      .0015/.000575 = 2.63 times more likely democrats/hispanics
                      felons than whites

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:52

                      The US Census declared that in 2010, 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:[40]
9.9% of all
                      white persons, 26.6% Latino…………….
28.4% of all black persons.

                      224 mil x .099 = 22.176 mil

                      40 mil x .284 = 11.36 mil

                      50 mil x .266 = 13.3 mil

                      http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/

                      It looks like poor whites outnumber poor democrats/blacks by a factor of 2.

                      If your “blame everything on poverty” theory is correct, poor whites should commit twice as many murders as poor democrats/blacks do.

                      And yet democrats/blacks commit 50% of all murders.

                      How come?

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:53

                      Bureau of Justice Statistics


                      Filename: htus8008f18.csv
Report title: Homicide
                      Trends in United States
Data source: Supplementary Homicide
                      Report
Authors: Erica Smith and Alexia Cooper
Refer questions to: askbjs@usdoj.gov (202) 307-0765


                      Date of version: 11/16/11


                      Figure 18. Homicide offending rates, by race, 1980-2008



                      Rate per 100,000 population



                      Year / White / Democrat/Black



                      1980 / 6.4 / 49.8

                      1981 / 5.9 / 45.8
                      1982 / 5.6 / 41.2

                      1983 / 5.3 / 36.3

                      1984 / 5.3 / 33.1

                      1985 / 5.1 / 34

                      1986 / 5.3 / 37.9

                      1987 / 5.2 / 36.6

                      1988 / 4.9 / 41.3

                      1989 / 5.1 / 42.1

                      1990 / 5.6 / 46.5

                      1991 / 5.6 / 51.1

                      1992 / 5.2 / 46.5

                      1993 / 5.2 / 48.5

                      1994 / 5.1 / 44.5

                      1995 / 4.8 / 38.4

                      1996 / 4.4 / 34.9

                      1997 / 4.1 / 31.2

                      1998 / 4.1 / 26.9

                      1999 / 3.5 / 24.5

                      2000 / 3.5 / 25.2

                      2001 / 3.6 / 25.4

                      2002 / 3.6 / 24.8
                      
2003 / 3.5 / 25.2

                      2004 / 3.6 / 24
                      
2005 / 3.5 / 26.6
                      2006 / 3.4 / 28.4

                      2007 / 3.4 / 27.4

                      2008 / 3.4 / 24.7

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:54

                      Amazing how this information is straight from the FBI and the CDC

                      250 caught/convicted serial killers 2014

                      Rate per 100k/ Population / # serial killers / race

                      0.065756141 / 223,553,265 / 147 / white
                      0.210638 / 38,929,319 / 82 / democrat/black
                      0.031697232 / 50,477,594 / 16 / democrat/hispanic
                      0.009509798 / 14,674,252 / 3 / asian
                      0.028430683 / 4,263,000 / 2 /native American

                      So since sane and intelligent people understand the crime levels are based on rates per population, it is indeed true that blacks are twice as likely to be serial killers than whites, 6 times more likely than Hispanics.

                      But since you idiots insist Hispanic’s are white, then the real rate difference is 3.20 times more likely blacks are to be serial
                      killers.

                      Of course, we see where multiple forensic psychologists have already identified serial killers and pedophiles having the same exact set of habits, personalities, etc, etc…

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:55

                      KKK: Lynchings 1882-1968 3,446 (1,294 whites also)

                      Chicago: 1991-2009 9,500 blacks killing blacks

                      Philadelphia: 2006-2009 1,196 blacks killing blacks

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:58

                      Between 1976 and 2005, African-American/demokrats, 12.6% of the population in the last census, committed 52.2% of all homicides.

                      http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

                      That is, over the 30-year period, African-American/demokrats committed murder at about 7.33 times the white rate. (Whites here include Hispanics.)

                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

                      Of homicides committed by strangers, on average, 18.77% involved black/demokrats killing whites, while in 5.08% of the cases, whites killed blacks. African-American/demokrats were therefore nearly 3.7 times more likely to kill a white than a white to kill a black/demokrat.

                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

                      To provide some raw numbers, in 2005, DOJ statistics are, 10,285 African-American/demokrats committed murders. As 8.8% of these were “black/demokrat on white,” there were, assuming only one death per murderer, 905 whites killed, almost 2.5 per day. In the same year, again assuming one killing per perpetrator, 267 black/demokrats were murdered by whites (3.2% of 8,350 killings).

                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

                      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

                      Crime is a young man’s métier.

                      The vast majority of the 52.2% of U.S. murders committed by African-American/demokrats are the work of the roughly 2% of the population who are black/demokrat males between the ages of 15 and 25.

                      Would these figures, courtesy of Eric Holder, surprise most Americans?

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:59

                      http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/01/the-colo

                      In 2010, Chicago was 32.9% Demokrat/African-American,
                      28.9% Demokrat/Hispanic, 31.7% White, and 5.5% Asian:

                      In 2010, Demokrat/African-Americans accounted for 65.7% of arrests for criminal sexual assault and Hispanics accounted for 27.7% of arrests for criminal sexual assault in Chicago. In other words, 93.4% of arrests for criminal sexual assault in Chicago were Demokrat/African-American and Demokrat/Hispanic.

                      In 2010, Demokrat/African-Americans accounted for 85.5% of arrests for robbery and Demokrat/Hispanics accounted for
                      10.8% of arrests for robbery in Chicago. In other words, 96.3% of arrests for robbery in Chicago were Demokrat/African-American and Demokrat/Hispanic.

                      In 2010, Demokrat/African-Americans accounted for 74% of arrests for burglary and Demokrat/Hispanics accounted for
                      18.7% of arrests for burglary in Chicago. In other words, 92.7% of arrests for burglary in Chicago were Demokrat/African-American and Demokrat/Hispanic.

                    • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 07:00

                      Feel free to go scream and wail at the government agencies obvious racism at posting this racist data for all to see!

                      Let us know how your Don Quixote moment turns out sweety!

                  • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:31

                    Your malicious accusation of racism, wholly unsupported by any of the previous posts, is noted.

                    Debate honestly, or get bent.

            • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:16

              are we suppose to assume that everyone who has a weapon concealed or not, is sane? you don’t have to look at them or bump into them. you don’t know what’s going on in that “brain.” if i see someone with a weapon or not, they should not be allowed where i shop or dine with my family.

              • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 23:22

                Well, if someone is carrying a concealed weapon, how would you know?

                And how does that deal with those who actually mean you legitimate harm, who will not care one bit about an establishments rules prohibiting the carrying of a firearm?
                Am I just supposed to place myself in a potentially dangerous situation and divest myself of the most practical means for self defense against an armed lunatic to satisfy your paranoia, so that you “feel” safer, even though you not?

                • tracey marie December 28th, 2014 at 23:39

                  so now you are so paranoid that Crazies are out there waiting to kill unarmed people?

                  • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:56

                    darnit. i didn’t read your post before i used the word “paranoid.” LOL

                  • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 23:59

                    I have a fire extinguisher in my house and car too, but I’m not paranoid about fires, just practical, as said, If you don’t wish to own or carry a firearm, your choice, and I respect it, but I get a choice too, and I neither require nor desire your approval. :)

                    • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 00:07

                      lol, carrying a gun is paranoid, especially when you believe as you do. I am done

                    • neighbor kid December 29th, 2014 at 00:09

                      Have a good one.

                  • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:29

                    I thought YOU were the one “paranoid of Crazies”?

                    Oh yeah, you are: “really, and that same good guy could go all crazy if someone looks at him/her wrong or bumps them with a cart…since their is no mental stability test for owning or carrying a weapon designed for one thing, to kill”

                    Make up your mind, eh?

                • whatthe46 December 28th, 2014 at 23:51

                  if you’re that paranoid, stay home. i don’t want you or any other gun nut, thinking he’s saving the imaginary day. so, everyone is suppose to just shoot up the place? someone suggested when the aurora (theatre) shooting happened, that if others had a concealed weapon, then they could have fired back. really? then that would certainly have caused more deaths as you would never know who’s the “good guy” with the gun shooting or the “bad guy.” considering its pitch dark. how dumba&& is that thinking?

                  • neighbor kid December 28th, 2014 at 23:55

                    So again, you’re idea is to just sit tight and wait to get shot by lunatic. That’s your choice, not mine. As I stated in other posts, I prefer carrying concealed, that way no one knows, especially paranoid individuals such as your self, see easy fix. :)

                  • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:26

                    No, you are the paranoid one; YOU stay home. I will peacefully, lawfully and safely exercise my Rights without fear.

                    Have a really great day.

                  • PavePusher December 29th, 2014 at 00:28

                    “… then that would certainly have caused more deaths as you would never know who’s the “good guy” with the gun shooting or the “bad guy.” ”

                    Right, because no-one saw the guy at the front of the theater doing the shooting? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on. And if you think MORE people would have been killed, you need to cite ANY similar such instance in which 12 or more people were killed by “good guys”.

                    Otherwise, you are talking from your lower colon.

              • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:38

                Funny how the 1 mil police are 11 times more likely to accidentally shoot someone than the law abiding civilains, that and the police violent crime rate is slightly higher than those law abiding civilians open/concealed carrying……

                But since one anti gunterd demokrat politician (leeland yee) was caught running guns to gangs, therefore all anti gunterd demokrat politicians cant be trusted and are automatically illegal gun runners to gangs and should be locked up for public safety…..sounds reasonable!

                We are afraid of AID’s, and since the disease is linked to homosexuals, it is indeed reasonable that all homosexuals be removed for public safety into camps for the public safety….how is that not reasonable!

                You want to keep playing your idiotic and stupid absolutist BS game sweeties……..

                We also recognize the US govt. data proving how law abiding civilians since 1960 have by lawful armed self defense, prevented over 1.131 mil murders, prevented over 6.5 mil injuries, and prevented over $2.17 trillion in medical expenses……

              • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:40

                Of course we see how in dozens of court rulings that the police are by law, not legally liable to protect the individual civilian.

                Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

                Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

                Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat.
                4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no
                liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

                “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

              • Wfeather1940 December 29th, 2014 at 06:42

                Of course we see how police each year, fail to solve more than 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year.

                Police response times at best are 4 minutes, 15-20 minutes on average.

                FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.

                http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.htm

                The British and Canadian govt. does an identical study to the Victimization reports, says the same thing!

                http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/bcs1011tech1?view=Binary



                http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm

                http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224

                But oh wait, we have to remember the 70% of violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

                http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2008/tables/D04Mar08.pdf

                http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf

                So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

                So when are you anti gun freaks going to walk your talk and prove you have no life, car, home or medical insurance as being prepared for the worst case scenario is insane based on your statements and beliefs

        • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 09:12

          Personally I think open carry is a bad idea, it’s too easy to disarm you.
          CCW as you say makes them wonder who is armed.

          • rlemerysgt December 29th, 2014 at 09:14

            Why does brandishing a weapon then chase the bad guy off the vast majority of the time…………..

            • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 09:18

              Because they are cowards and prefer defenseless targets?

      • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 09:13

        Also designed to hunt with, I take hogs with a 1911.
        easier to use in the brush than a rifle or shotgun.

        • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 14:01

          hunting is killing, you proved me correct

          • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 14:24

            Yes it is, but a weapon is a tool like a hammer, a knife, or a shovel.
            This killing is for a good purpose. Those two hogs, and the deer from this year went in the freezer to feed my family.
            The killing by illegal carriers in DC and Chicago are for no good reason. That is the difference.

            • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 15:23

              a tool designed to kill, period.

              • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 15:45

                A knife was originally designed to kill, do you use yours for that?
                And what is wrong with using one to feed my family?

              • Old SF MJT December 30th, 2014 at 00:14

                I notice that you still haven’t answered ‘momgoose’s’ question: “So exactly what have I said that is racist and how was it racist?” You made the comment, so you owe him an answer!
                De Oppresso Liber

            • tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 15:24

              when you make racist comments you look foolish and ignorant.

              • amongoose December 29th, 2014 at 15:44

                So exactly what have I said that is racist and how was it racist?

              • John Crawford December 29th, 2014 at 16:08

                No word, clause, phrase, or sentence, in his post, is racist in any manner. You continue to accuse others of posting racist remarks, or name calling, but haven’t yet pointed to any specific remarks or names. When will you do so?
                Semper fi

              • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 10:16

                You still haven’t identified the “racist comments” you insist have been made. Your failure makes you look like a fool. It’s time to step up and take responsibility for your words. Put up, or shut up.
                Semper fi

                • Old Jarhead December 30th, 2014 at 10:40

                  I don’t think you will be hearing back from tracey. She hasn’t got facts on her side. She even excoriated me for using a website she doesn’t approve of when I quoted some statitics, even though it was clearly identified as the CDC website in my comment. She kept that up for about 3 comments. But I did get a nice new link!

                  • John Crawford December 30th, 2014 at 10:49

                    I think you’re right, undoubtedly. She’s a bomb-thrower only.
                    Semper fi

              • amongoose December 30th, 2014 at 10:23

                Thank you for your answer to my question.
                It is exactly what I expected.
                .
                Crickets.

    • Mike List December 29th, 2014 at 01:24

      “Starts shooting”. A little late to make plans. If I am in fear for my life, a theft charge means nothing to me.

      • neighbor kid December 29th, 2014 at 01:41

        If someone comes in and starts shooting, then yeah running is as good an idea as you can get, given the alternative, and in that case no one is going to be worried about a theft charge.

        However, again, If a guy comes in sits down to order a meal say, and you run out of the place, yes, you should be worried about a ‘dine and dash’ charge of theft, since the only one breaking the law would be you.

        Of course the police are always 5-10 minute away, so if your a fast runner, you could potentially eat for free.

1 10 11 12 13

Leave a Reply