published Wednesday, January 9th, 2013

Gun Sales

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

188
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Easy123 said...

"Alright !! Soylent Green for everybody."

You're abnormally dense.

January 9, 2013 at 12:20 a.m.
fairmon said...

A missed tax opportunity happening now. If you want more of something recognize and reward it, if you want less of something tax it. Less tobacco use with tax revenue to cover some of the cost is working except the revenue is not flowing to health care. Why not tax guns and ammo enough to cover the cost of school security and other cost resulting from guns? Apparently we want fewer or less wealthy people so we tax them more, that will work and the tax rates for those considered wealthy along with every one else will increase again. Those considered wealthy will be less wealthy and fewer but those not considered wealthy will not be more wealthy. Owning a gun is constitutionally protected, irresponsibility is not.

January 9, 2013 at 12:25 a.m.
fairmon said...

Spending discretionary money on guns instead of food or farm machinery or you will reap what you sew? Guns and butter? A car in every yard and a gun in every house? The grim reaper is everywhere...

Starting in February the state of Washington will tax electric vehicle owners $100 per year. The money raised will go to the state's road maintenance fund. In essence, Washington wants electric car owners to pay $100 for the privilege of driving around the state.

There is encouragement and incentives to own hybrids or electrical vehicles but then like every government intervention in the markets there are consequences that increase the cost to someone or something.

The federal government collects 18.4 cents for every gallon of gas pumped in this country. The federal gas tax has gradually increased from 1 cent a gallon back in 1932 to its current rate of 18.4 cents. The Simpson Bowles deficit-reduction commission called for raising the federal gas tax as a way to help cut the deficit.

What would the consequences of a 100% federal tax on gun sales be? A $1200 gun would cost $2400 plus local and state taxes.

January 9, 2013 at 3:46 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Ha.

The caped guy is our attorney general, giving thousands of assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels that do not hesitate to use them?

Marietta, where guns are mandatory, has had four gun murders in thirty years, and the population has increased sixfold or so? (By all means correct these figures if they need it.) Chattanooga, stagnant with five times the people, has five times the murders in an average year? Face facts, ye liberal fundamentalists.

January 9, 2013 at 5:50 a.m.
hambone said...

Liberal fundamentalists ?????????????

January 9, 2013 at 6:25 a.m.
jesse said...

Interesting stats from Kennasaw Ga. where gun ownership is mandatory!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

January 9, 2013 at 6:31 a.m.
Easy123 said...

How does the gun death rate in a small town in rural Georgia prove anything?

You'll accept and use that statistic but you discount the statistics of entire countries with strict gun laws and lower crime rates i.e. the UK, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, etc.

Explain that to us logical folks.

January 9, 2013 at 6:45 a.m.
jesse said...

UUUH easy ,last time i checked they were in Cobb co.Ga. which ain't rural! Any how,i ain't got no horse in this race,if they confiscate every gun in the country they won't beez gittin none at my house! What was interesting to me was not the gun murder rate as much as the fact that it went DOWN after the law was passed!

January 9, 2013 at 7:35 a.m.
Sailorman said...

"How does the gun death rate in a small town in rural Georgia prove anything?"

It doesn't. It's only marginally less misleading than your next statement. Strict guns laws and lower crime rates don't go hand in hand. The violent crime rates in the UK are far worse than ours. Japan has a huge suicide problem and an entirely different societal makeup. There are multitudes of factors at work other than guns.

On Morning Joe today, they spent a fair bit of time talking about "nobody needs assault weapons" and "even my hunter buddies say we don't need assault weapons". At the time, they support that everybody has a right to a handgun to protect themselves and their homes.

According to the FBI:

Idiots with handguns killed 6220 people in 2011.

Idiots with rifles (including the description du jour of "assault weapon"" of all types killed 323

See the disconnect? No agenda here.

Murder rate among blacks 14.4/100,000 mostly ages 13-29 Murder rate among whites 2.4/100,000

The problem doesn't seem to be the much maligned redneck with an AR. We may be barking up the wrong tree - or the least effective anyway.

According to today's news, new legislation would include "stiffer penalties for gun possession on school property" Yeah that will help.

I'm going to use my assault fork to eat breakfast. You folks have a nice day.

January 9, 2013 at 7:45 a.m.
Easy123 said...

"UUUH easy ,last time i checked they were in Cobb co.Ga. which ain't rural!"

Uhhhhhhh, last time I checked, Kennesaw, Georgia meets the definition of "rural" perfectly.

Just so you're aware, it went back up.

January 9, 2013 at 7:56 a.m.
fairmon said...

What is wrong with registration and regulation of all guns by strict qualifications and training with owner accountability? Gangs and punks may still kill each other but the collateral damage should be much less.

January 9, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.
fairmon said...

Jack Lew....who? why? Another lacking experience in a key and very critical position. The best team in the world can't handle too many playing a position without experience.

January 9, 2013 at 8:04 a.m.
mowgli16 said...

Kennesaw might have been rural long ago, but it isn't now. It's suburban. I have friends & family there, neither of whom own guns. Hate to break it to you, but that mandatory gun ownership thingy is a farce. There is no way to enforce it, and many in the community scoff at the law.

January 9, 2013 at 8:07 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Sailorman,

"Strict guns laws and lower crime rates don't go hand in hand."

In general, they do.

"The violent crime rates in the UK are far worse than ours."

The murder rate in the United States is far worse than most other industrialized countries. What about the crime rates in Germany, Australia, New Zealand? How do they compare? I think you probably know. You just omitted those.

"Japan has a huge suicide problem and an entirely different societal makeup."

Irrelevant and false. Their societal makeup isn't much different than any developed country. They have the same video games, violent movies, etc. that we have in the U.S.

"There are multitudes of factors at work other than guns."

Guns are at the top of the list.

"See the disconnect? No agenda here."

How can you tell a disconnect? I'm sure some of those handguns would probably qualify as assault weapons and I bet some of those rifles didn't qualify.

"Murder rate among blacks 14.4/100,000 mostly ages 13-29 Murder rate among whites 2.4/100,000"

Irrelevant.

"The problem doesn't seem to be the much maligned redneck with an AR. We may be barking up the wrong tree - or the least effective anyway."

I haven't heard anyone say that the problem was with "rednecks with an AR". That just sounds like you trying to misrepresent the situation and/or attempt to lump the problem/blame on African-Americans.

"According to today's news, new legislation would include "stiffer penalties for gun possession on school property" Yeah that will help."

Why wouldn't it help?

"It's only marginally less misleading than your next statement."

Yet, still less misleading than your entire argument.

January 9, 2013 at 8:18 a.m.
Easy123 said...

mowgli,

"Kennesaw might have been rural long ago, but it isn't now. It's suburban."

Anything that isn't urban is usually classified as rural. "Rural" doesn't mean a bunch of farmland.

January 9, 2013 at 8:22 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Easy. I have neither the time nor inclination to use your pedantic response style. This alone is indicative of the depth of your understanding of the issue

"Murder rate among blacks 14.4/100,000 mostly ages 13-29 Murder rate among whites 2.4/100,000"

"Irrelevant."

Irrelavant? Hardly

January 9, 2013 at 8:37 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Sailorman,

"Easy. I have neither the time nor inclination to use your pedantic response style."

You're about to use it. It isn't pedantic either.

"This alone is indicative of the depth of your understanding of the issue"

Not quite.

"Irrelavant? Hardly"

Explain how it's relevant. On a side note, you just used my response style.

January 9, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.
jesse said...

I might could deal with "suburban??

January 9, 2013 at 8:47 a.m.
mowgli16 said...

jesse

Kennesaw is a City of 30,000 and part of the Atlanta Metro Area. It is anything but rural, despite assertions to the contrary.

January 9, 2013 at 8:51 a.m.
Easy123 said...

mowgli,

"Kennesaw is a City of 30,000 and part of the Atlanta Metro Area."

The Atlanta Metropolitan Area consists of 28 counties and 140 cities and towns. That doesn't exactly make your argument.

"It is anything but rural, despite assertions to the contrary."

The first definition was developed by the Census Bureau which identifies two types of urban areas :

Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;

Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.

The Census does not actually define “rural.” “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Whatever is not urban is considered rural.

http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/policy/definition_of_rural.html

Do I need to go over this again?

January 9, 2013 at 8:57 a.m.
alprova said...

Jesse wrote: "UUUH easy ,last time i checked they were in Cobb co.Ga. which ain't rural!"

Kennesaw is very much a rural city.

"What was interesting to me was not the gun murder rate as much as the fact that it went DOWN after the law was passed!"

The murder rate nationwide has been going down for thirty years. The reason the law was passed was not to address anything surrounding gun violence.

It was passed to reduce house burglaries that at the time were out of control. It worked too. Burglaries nosedived almost overnight.

January 9, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.
jesse said...

I guess if wall to wall subdivisions and strip malls is rural then it is rural!

Easy and Al share a motto "I have my faults BUT being wrong ain't one ofum!!"

I guess you define E.Ridge and Red Bank as "rural" too!

January 9, 2013 at 9:09 a.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"I guess if wall to wall subdivisions and strip malls is rural then it is rural!"

It is.

"Easy and Al share a motto "I have my faults BUT being wrong ain't one ofum!!""

That's because I'm correct.

"I guess you define E.Ridge and Red Bank as "rural" too!"

Now you're getting it.

January 9, 2013 at 9:39 a.m.
fairmon said...

On the lighter side...

BREAKING NEWS: Obama has stepped in and decided that Alabama got too many points Monday and has redistributed some of those points to Notre Dame resulting in a tie in the game and a tie for the national championship. When asked for a comment, Obama said, "Alabama obviously got more than their fair share. They didn't win that all by themselves! What does one team need all those points for"?

Congress may pass a law saying everyone will have one assault weapon and if you can't afford one we will provide one for you. One half of the ammo bought by those that can afford it will be withheld to give to those that cannot pay for their own.

January 9, 2013 at 9:55 a.m.
limric said...

Wow Clay, stunningly good metaphor. This is as good example as any why you’re a political cartoonist of the same caliber (pun intended) as Ramirez, Toles, Allie, Morin, Tom Tomorrow, Payne, Trudeau, Horsey and many others.

Well done Clay. You deserve (as they say in Rock Ridge) “A Laurel - and Hardy handshake.”

The link below is to a short essay. While I don’t agree with the authors take on most subjects, when he’s right – he’s right.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/08/buchanan-americas-coming-gun-war/

January 9, 2013 at 9:55 a.m.
patriot1 said...

A young black male is safer in Afghanistan than in cities like Chicago, Newark, etc. Lots of guns in Afghanistan, and some of them big scary ones too, so....is it about guns?

January 9, 2013 at 9:56 a.m.
Rebus said...

Easy now schooling the masses on geography, public administration, and more. He's gaining much from those online courses. Oh, and new word to ad to his hackneyed list....Irrelevant. The precocious one, striving to educate the great unwashed.

January 9, 2013 at 9:59 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Jack_Dennis,

"Easy now schooling the masses on geography, public administration, and more."

Not really.

"He's gaining much from those online courses."

Not taking any.

"Oh, and new word to ad to his hackneyed list....Irrelevant"

How can something be hackneyed when it accurately describes something? Your attempts to look intelligent and/or wiity end in utter failure again.

"The precocious one, striving to educate the great unwashed."

Rebus_Jack_Dennis still talking out of his ass after all these years. "Here lies Rebus_Jack_Dennis and his talking ass".

January 9, 2013 at 10:05 a.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"A young black male is safer in Afghanistan than in cities like Chicago, Newark, etc."

And?

"is it about guns?"

Yes.

January 9, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.
tderng said...

hmmm...wonder why East Ridge and Red Bank aren't considered rural clusters?

January 9, 2013 at 10:13 a.m.
Rebus said...

Snuggle up to that Acer, Easy. Time for class! HAHAHAHAHA

January 9, 2013 at 10:14 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Easy - powered by Microsoft and wikipedia. I bet he googled "Soylent Green" just this morning.

January 9, 2013 at 10:14 a.m.
Easy123 said...

tderng,

"hmmm...wonder why East Ridge and Red Bank aren't considered rural clusters?"

Because there is no such thing.

January 9, 2013 at 10:14 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Jack_Dennis,

"Snuggle up to that Acer, Easy. Time for class! HAHAHAHAHA"

Mind numbing stupidity. Troll on, coffin dodger. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH !!

Talk about "hackneyed"! Keep yapping out of that poop-shoot, Jack_Rebus.

January 9, 2013 at 10:16 a.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"Easy - powered by Microsoft and wikipedia."

I wish. I'd be seeing a lot more cash flow if that was the case.

"I bet he googled "Soylent Green" just this morning."

How much would you like to wager?

January 9, 2013 at 10:17 a.m.
chatt_man said...

If it were about guns, the national discussion would also be about hammers, knives, and automobiles. I know, let's outlaw guns like we did drugs, that worked well.

January 9, 2013 at 10:25 a.m.
jesse said...

Not to belabor the issue but i think this trumps wikipedia!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rural

January 9, 2013 at 10:26 a.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"If it were about guns, the national discussion would also be about hammers, knives, and automobiles."

That statement doesn't make much sense. There has already been a discussion about automobiles. That's why they are highly regulated.

"I know, let's outlaw guns like we did drugs, that worked well."

Hell, let's get rid of speeding laws too! People still speed. And prostitution laws! So many of those still out there. Let's do away with all those laws against murder and rape too since murder and rape are still rampant!

It is important to note that no one is advocating the outlaw of guns. Try to stay on topic.

January 9, 2013 at 10:29 a.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"Not to belabor the issue but i think this trumps wikipedia!"

No one cited wikipedia but it wouldn't trump it anyway.

January 9, 2013 at 10:32 a.m.
limric said...

Chatt_man, your 10:25 post is a straw man. It is not relevant.

January 9, 2013 at 10:35 a.m.
Rebus said...

Easywiki: People are beginning to see thru your wiki-driven, invective laced, hollow attempts at being somebody. Suggest you find a teenage chat room and maybe you can inspire those more in your age-group. You're becoming irrelevant (there's that word again) on here. Name calling only goes so far, junior. Go forth and work on those zits, loser.

January 9, 2013 at 10:42 a.m.
mowgli16 said...

The reason we have definitions is so that we can differentiate between things. If 'rural' is a catch all that includes places like Whitwell, Pikeville, & Kennesaw, then it is a useless definition. Any child who has watched Sesame Street knows that "one of these things is not like the other." Not trying to convince this Easy123 character of anything, b/c facts contrary to his/her beliefs only seem to embolden him/her.

Just looked at the definition of suburb in Wikipedia, and it specifically mentions areas around Atlanta as suburban. Imagine that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb

January 9, 2013 at 10:49 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Bennett's brainwashing is showing through. Statistics show that as firearm ownership in the United States rises, violent crime goes down. Certainly, the grim reaper will not be trading in his scythe for a combine.

At the risk of being labeled a racist for stating facts, if you look at the gun violence rate with African Americans removed from the data the United States has statistics very similar to Europe. Progressives are wasting their time and trying to take our freedom away by going after "assault" rifles (That would be any rifle that looks "scary" to the uninformed) when they have an urban culture problem and a violent underground economy created by the prohibition on drugs.

The product of the loins of a single urban mother on welfare is statistically MANY, MANY TIMES more dangerous than any legally owned semi automatic variant of the AK47.

January 9, 2013 at 10:50 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Dennis,

"People are beginning to see thru your wiki-driven, invective laced, hollow attempts at being somebody."

I'm not trying to be anyone. I do research and call things how I see them. There is nothing to see through. That's just how it is.

"Suggest you find a teenage chat room and maybe you can inspire those more in your age-group."

Why would I do that when I can make you look like a fool all day long? I know you really want me to leave Rebus_Dennis. I guess you're intimidated and tired of being called out but I'm not going anywhere.

"You're becoming irrelevant (there's that word again) on here."

No, that would be you. You haven't said anything on topic in months. No one cares about anything you say. I'm still capable of having discussions with people here.

"Name calling only goes so far, junior."

Are you listening to yourself, ye old hypocrite?

"Go forth and work on those zits, loser."

Is this supposed to be witty? Should I start doing diaper jokes and asking you about your plot at the cemetery?

You're a troll, Rebus_Dennis. That's all you'll ever be. I know you'll deny it but that's ok with me. I don't care if you stay or leave. I'm not sure why you care if I stay or leave. I must be doing something right for you to feel so threatened by my posting here. I'll always be here, sweetheart.

January 9, 2013 at 10:51 a.m.
Easy123 said...

mowgli,

"If 'rural' is a catch all that includes places like Whitwell, Pikeville, & Kennesaw, then it is a useless definition"

No, it isn't.

"Any child who has watched Sesame Street knows that "one of these things is not like the other.""

All three would fit the definition of rural.

"Not trying to convince this Easy123 character of anything, b/c facts contrary to his/her beliefs only seem to embolden him/her."

Actually, that would seem you be your problem. All you have done is say "no it isn't.".

"Just looked at the definition of suburb in Wikipedia, and it specifically mentions areas around Atlanta as suburban. Imagine that."

I never disputed the term "suburban". I disputed your claim that Kennesaw wasn't rural.

Would you like to continue?

January 9, 2013 at 10:56 a.m.
Rebus said...

wikiEasy: I'm many things but threatened is not one of them. I don't care if you go or stay. I'm simply trying to save you from yourself. You're a pathetic little boy trying to exist in a big world of adults. Keep the faith and keep your nose in the books at the YMCA law school. (nights) Oh, and I hear that Proactiv works wonders. hahahahahha LMFAO

January 9, 2013 at 11:01 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Dennis,

"I'm many things but threatened is not one of them."

Rationalize it however you want.

"I don't care if you go or stay."

Really? What's with all this "find a teenage chat room and maybe you can inspire those more in your age-group" stuff then?

"I'm simply trying to save you from yourself."

No, no you aren't.

"You're a pathetic little boy trying to exist in a big world of adults."

You're a bitchy old man that doesn't like to get insulted, outsmarted, and outwitted by a younger person. You cannot stand it and it shows. Apparently, I'm the bane of your cyber existence.

"Keep the faith and keep your nose in the books at the YMCA law school. (nights)"

See what I mean? You can't even come up with another insult. This is all you have. This is the extent of your wit. My college transcripts would make you look like a special ed student. While you're sitting at home, scratching your saggy balls, I'm out in the real world, furthering my education and paying for my own way. You know, being an adult.

"Oh, and I hear that Proactiv works wonders. hahahahahha LMFAO"

I hear Cialis works great for erectile disfunction. Don't take too much now! Your heart might give out! I can match these lame jokes all day and laugh at my own jokes too. Watch me: HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !! LMFAO!!!

Are you done trolling? Or would you like to go another round?

January 9, 2013 at 11:11 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

You will not disarm me and give those who want to kill innocent people around me - my family included - a free shot. Look around now, our government and police are helpless at defending us, so we have to defend ourselves. No amount of of legislation is going to protect you from people bent on killing you. Only you will be able to do that - if you are armed as they are.

January 9, 2013 at 11:15 a.m.
Easy123 said...

whatsnottaken,

"You will not disarm me and give those who want to kill innocent people around me - my family included - a free shot."

No one is advocating disarmament.

"No amount of of legislation is going to protect you from people bent on killing you."

How many people are out to kill you?

"Only you will be able to do that - if you are armed as they are."

Why are you so afraid?

January 9, 2013 at 11:19 a.m.
chatt_man said...

limric - and why would that be? Easy's answer was "There has already been a discussion about automobiles. That's why they are highly regulated". Guns are regulated too. Could there be more, maybe? (as long as they were reasonable) But, if a person passes the requirements set by the authorities, they can hurl a 2 or 3 thousand pound piece of metal down the road, toward others.

If I pass the requirements set by the authorities, I can purchase a gun. And, if I pass another, very stringent set of requirements, I can carry that gun certain places as the law allows.

"Straw man, relevant...lefty terms.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Limric and Easy... hold this.

January 9, 2013 at 11:24 a.m.
Rebus said...

Easywiki: No one on this forum has ever been outsmarted by you, junior.....Invectives and friendly wiki sites do not a retort make. I've never heard an original thought outta you, zit boy. BTW, it takes a set you to accuse another of being insulting. You're the Sultan of Insulting on this forum....very childish I might add.
And another thing, you seem to take an unusual interest in my sex-life. Perhaps a strange proclivity of yours. You wanna discuss it? I'm here for you, sonny.

January 9, 2013 at 11:27 a.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

The strawman was your misrepresentation of the situation:

"I know, let's outlaw guns like we did drugs, that worked well."

As I stated, no one is advocating an outlaw on guns. You're arguing against a position that no one holds. That is a strawman argument.

"Straw man, relevant...lefty terms."

You just don't understand them.

"Limric and Easy... hold this."

You might want to hold a dictionary and look up some of those "lefty" terms before you make yourself look more idiotic.

January 9, 2013 at 11:31 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

The mindset of our politicians is mind-boggling. When it comes to foreign policy, they seem to recognize that some countries are more hostile and less socially responsible than others, and, as such, they feel perfectly justified in establishing protective defense policies involving various kinds of weapons and/or even the right to develop the technology needed to create certain kinds of weapons.

But when it comes to applying this same kind of defensive thinking on a smaller scale to help protect our communities and to tackle the out of control gun violence problem that we obviously have here in America, these same people become outraged over the idea of doing so. What gives with this kind of thinking? Granted, the scale involved is different, but the principles involved are the same.

Indeed, if our politicians can ban weapons and stand up to hostile countries abroad in an effort to make the world a safer place, why can’t they ban "war weapons" here at home and stand up to these hostile organizations like the NRA to help make our communities a safer place to live? In 2010, 10,000 lives were lost due to gun violence in the U.S. And since 9/11, jihadist terrorists have killed 17 Americans in the U.S while 88,000 Americans have died due to gun violence from 2003 to 2010.

January 9, 2013 at 11:33 a.m.
Rebus said...

Sheesh, I forgot "strawman".

January 9, 2013 at 11:34 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Jack_Troll,

"No one on this forum has ever been outsmarted by you, junior"

You have many times. A few times today actually.

".....Invectives and friendly wiki sites do not a retort make."

I use much more than "invectives and wiki sites".

'I've never heard an original thought outta you,"

You wouldn't "hear" anything on here. However, if you haven't read anything original then you must be illiterate.

"zit boy."

And you're calling me unoriginal... Pot meet kettle.

"BTW, it takes a set you to accuse another of being insulting."

How does it "take a set" to characterize/define your actions? These "accusations" are true unless those weren't insults. Were you not insulting me?

"You're the Sultan of Insulting on this forum....very childish I might add."

Look who's talking. Pot meet kettle, again. You're the one making zit jokes. If my insults are childish then yours are fetal.

"And another thing, you seem to take an unusual interest in my sex-life."

I haven't mentioned your sex life at all. I've mentioned your erectile dysfunction. There is a difference between erections and sex. Well, maybe not for you.

"Perhaps a strange proclivity of yours."

Perhaps not.

"You wanna discuss it? I'm here for you, sonny."

LMFAO! This must be your attempt at a pickup line.

"Sheesh, I forgot "strawman"."

Words mean things, moron. You'll never understand but I'll keep trying to explain it.

Wanna go another round, Rebusted_Jack?

January 9, 2013 at 11:39 a.m.
Rebus said...

So Laurel, the NRA is a hostile organization?

January 9, 2013 at 11:40 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

It is frustrating to watch "progressives" scapegoat firearms and firearm ownership when the real problem is a social malaise created in big part by their own ham fisted progressive government.

When the grand social plan fails I suppose you have to go looking for someone to blame. The weak minded are very easily distracted from the real issues.

January 9, 2013 at 11:55 a.m.
chatt_man said...

mountainlaurel asks... if our politicians can ban weapons and stand up to hostile countries abroad in an effort to make the world a safer place, why can’t they ban "war weapons" here at home"

I'm not so sure what's included in war weapons, but the Americans will tolerate our government going over to other countries and going door to door to remove guns, but it will never be tolerated here at home.

The short answer to your question... because the people in these other countries are either not armed themselves, or it requires a level of violence Americans will only tolerate from afar.

January 9, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

It is frustrating to watch "regressives" scapegoat a social malaise created in big part by the progressive government when the real problem is primarily firearms, firearm ownership and the gun culture.

"When the grand social plan fails"

That would be your wet dream.

"I suppose you have to go looking for someone to blame."

You and your ilk have been blaming for 5 years now. You don't get to have all the fun.

"The weak minded are very easily distracted from the real issues."

Repeat that to yourself over and over. It won't sink in but it's worth a shot.

January 9, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Rebus asks: “So Laurel, the NRA is a hostile organization?”

An organization that spends millions of dollars fighting sensible gun laws can hardly be considered a “friendly” neighborhood organization. . . So, yes. I’d say the NRA is hostile.

January 9, 2013 at 12:13 p.m.
tderng said...

mountainlaurel...A semi-automatic weapon is not a war weapon. An automatic weapon is. Excluding a sniper rifle of course.

January 9, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

Judging from Bennet's profile, it seems very few schools wanted him around and too many newspapers. Fire him and get a decent cartoonist instead of a drooling, hydrochephalic liberal scribbler.

January 9, 2013 at 12:48 p.m.
Astropig said...

When guns are outlawed,only liberal hypocrites will have guns. People like Carl Rowan.

January 9, 2013 at 12:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tderng,

"Excluding a sniper rifle of course."

And the M4.

January 9, 2013 at 12:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Astropig,

"When guns are outlawed,only liberal hypocrites will have guns. People like Carl Rowan."

Strawman argument.

January 9, 2013 at 12:57 p.m.
limric said...

Mountainlaurel,

Let me do a little bit of devils advocating. Couldn’t the same (a hostile organization) be said for any number of anti-gun/control groups?

To people like BRP, myself - and I’m sorry if I’m leaving out other gun right proponents here; some anti-gun/control groups (my favorite being ‘MAIG’) are considered 'hostile organizations' and a threat to what is deemed a constitutional right.

See what I mean.

January 9, 2013 at 12:59 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Chatt_man said: "The short answer. . . because the people in these other countries are either not armed themselves, or it requires a level of violence Americans will only tolerate from afar."

So what is the benchmark here at home? How many lives need to be lost before our politicians take some “pre-emptive” steps to help make our communities a safer place to live?

January 9, 2013 at 1:01 p.m.
Astropig said...

"Strawman argument."

Tell that to the guy he shot.

January 9, 2013 at 1:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

limric,

"See what I mean."

I see what you did there. I'd just like to see people discussing this issue sensibly.

January 9, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Astropig,

"Tell that to the guy he shot."

He didn't make the fallacious argument. You did.

January 9, 2013 at 1:05 p.m.
Astropig said...

Strawman- When the facts are against a lib, he'll accuse his antagonist of "strawman" arguments. He'll never address the facts (in this case hypocritical libs that will double tap an intruder if it comes down to him-or-me),but will accuse the person that posits such facts of "setting up a strawman" so that Carl Rowan or another hypocrite with a gun can pop a cap in that "strawman".

123.You're not even very good at this. But thanks for playing.

January 9, 2013 at 1:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mountainlaurel,

"How many lives need to be lost before our politicians take some “pre-emptive” steps to help make our communities a safer place to live?"

That's a great question that will probably never be answered. I don't think it is feasible for the United States ever be a "safe" place to live in the minds of people that "need" guns.

I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that "need". Someone enlighten me.

January 9, 2013 at 1:14 p.m.
Rebus said...

Let's disarm the country because we have the occasional nut-case? Doesn't seem too logical to me.

January 9, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Astropig,

"Strawman- When the facts are against a lib, he'll accuse his antagonist of "strawman" arguments."

No. "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Example "When guns are outlawed,only liberal hypocrites will have guns."

No one is advocating a gun ban.

"He'll never address the facts (in this case hypocritical libs that will double tap an intruder if it comes down to him-or-me),but will accuse the person that posits such facts of "setting up a strawman"

I addressed the facts of your strawman argument. Carl Rowan isn't here. No one here is advocating a gun ban or being a hypocrite about the subject.

"so that Carl Rowan or another hypocrite with a gun can pop a cap in that "strawman"."

You have no clue what you are talking about.

"123.You're not even very good at this. But thanks for playing."

You might want to rethink that. If you would like to discuss the real positions of the people ON THIS SITE, then you should forego any further attempts at creating more straw man arguments. Don't be ignorant.

January 9, 2013 at 1:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Jack_Dennis,

"Let's disarm the country because we have the occasional nut-case? Doesn't seem too logical to me."

First, no one is advocating disarmament. Secondly, gun homicides are a lot more prevalent than "the occasional nut-case".

January 9, 2013 at 1:23 p.m.
jesse said...

I think every one wants to stop the killing , the flak starts over how to go about it! IMO, gun laws (Or MORE gun law ) is not the answer! we don't enforce the laws we have now and the folks that violate the old laws aren't going to obey the new ones! As i have said on here before,i got out of the gun and shooting buis. 30 years ago so it's no hassle for me! The pols are grandstanding on this issue knowing full well it's DOA!

January 9, 2013 at 1:24 p.m.
Astropig said...

Ignorant- When you disagree (or show up) a liberal.

January 9, 2013 at 1:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"we don't enforce the laws we have now and the folks that violate the old laws aren't going to obey the new ones!"

I would gladly accept more strict enforcement of the current guns laws (plus some additional restrictions/tougher punishments/etc.) as a way to curb gun crimes. But that would probably mean more state and federal tax dollars going towards law enforcement.

January 9, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Astropig,

"Ignorant- When you disagree (or show up) a liberal."

I guess you just get to ignore everything else I posted before I encouraged you not to be ignorant. You aren't taking my advice. I simply pointed out that no one here is advocating a gun ban and you are attempting to argue against a position that no one here holds. It's disconcerting that you haven't grasped that yet.

Would you like to try a more nuanced approach to this debate or are you going to keep up the indignant approach?

January 9, 2013 at 1:29 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"Biden just stated that obastard is considering "Executive Order" to deal with guns."

That's probably the only way the President could make any headway on the issue.

January 9, 2013 at 1:33 p.m.
Rebus said...

wikiEasy: Don't pretend that stricter gun laws are not driven by the recent mass murders. Even you should understand this. And yes, if the left had their way, complete gun banishment would happen. (make that attempted) Jesse is correct in that this is just grand-standing bye the likes of Cuomo, Plugs Biden, Pelosi, and other leftists.

January 9, 2013 at 1:33 p.m.
jesse said...

Well easy ,it seems there are no cheap easy solutions so if we want to dance we gotta pay the guitar picker! I think LONG prison terms w/no plea bargains for any crime involving a fire arm would go a long way! Like 25 years for a first offense ,no parole! You do every min.of it!The court sys. has more to do w/whats going on than lax gun law!

January 9, 2013 at 1:34 p.m.
Astropig said...

"I guess you just get to ignore everything else I posted before I encouraged you not to be ignorant. You aren't taking my advice."

Why would I take the advice of someone so intellectually dishonest? Good heavens,mon ami, you call names and attribute bad faith to everyone that disagrees with your narrow,extreme world view,but you want them to adopt your advice? That's...daft.

Look. You're the kind of person that believes that the means (taking away our liberties)justify the ends (letting people like you have dominion over us "for our own good"). Others may cower before your towering intellect,but you're just a blowhard that wants to tell other people how to run their lives. Well,phooey on that.Go back to the classroom where your crackpot theories never fail. And get a thicker skin. You're wayyyyyyy too easy to enrage. (and don't get a gun, either)

January 9, 2013 at 1:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Dennis,

"Don't pretend that stricter gun laws are not driven by the recent mass murders."

The gun debate has been going on for a long time. These mass murders just bring the issue to the forefront.

"And yes, if the left had their way, complete gun banishment would happen. (make that attempted)"

And this is based on nothing but conjecture. It can be dismissed just as easily as it was posed.

"Jesse is correct in that this is just grand-standing bye the likes of Cuomo, Plugs Biden, Pelosi, and other leftists."

Or maybe they're just genuinely worried about gun crime.

January 9, 2013 at 1:38 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"Like 25 years for a first offense ,no parole! You do every min.of it!The court sys. has more to do w/whats going on than lax gun law!"

That might be a little steep but 8-10 might work for the first offense. I agree that law enforcement should crack down.

January 9, 2013 at 1:39 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Here is a rational suggestion a "progressive" will never go for...

Let the states work it out and see what works best. Some states can take on the responsibility of providing armed protection in gun free zones they have created, like schools.

And other states can try limiting access to firearms for law abiding citizens (boy, does that sound like a silly response when I say it!).

I know, I know, when the startling success of the former stands in stark contrast to the failure of the latter the liberals will blame the states that have not taken rights away for their own failure. That is the kind of thing that they do best when their schemes do not work.

What about letting states set their own drug laws? It would be interesting to see what happens to the violent crime rate in a state when the underground economy is obliterated. Just think of the money that could be saved by not jailing so many of our citizens. You would probably free up enough prison guards to post armed guards in every school in the country.

On the other hand, if progressives actually addressed the root problems it would almost certainly result in a big drop in violent crime and the statistics they like to try to use to promote gun control would turn sharply against them. Can't have that.

Go look at the violent crime rates before, during and after prohibition. You might figure something out.

January 9, 2013 at 1:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Astropig,

"Why would I take the advice of someone so intellectually dishonest?"

I haven't been intellectually dishonest. You should take the advice because you look ignorant.

"Good heavens,mon ami, you call names and attribute bad faith to everyone that disagrees with your narrow,extreme world view,but you want them to adopt your advice?"

I only call names when name-calling is warranted. I didn't attribute any bad faith to anyone that disagreed with me. And you have no idea what my worldview is. And yes, it would do you good. I should also point out that you are creating another straw man.

"That's...daft."

The fact that you feel like I've disagreed with you in some way is daft. I haven't. I simply pointed out the logical fallacy in your statement. Why can't you grasp that?

"Look. You're the kind of person that believes that the means (taking away our liberties)justify the ends (letting people like you have dominion over us "for our own good")."

False. You're building another straw man. I do no believe any of that. That "ignorant" thing is rearing its ugly head.

"Others may cower before your towering intellect,but you're just a blowhard that wants to tell other people how to run their lives."

I haven't told anyone how to run anything. This is simply more of your straw man argument.

"Well,phooey on that.Go back to the classroom where your crackpot theories never fail."

Who are you talking to? You're obviously not debating me. Nothing you have said so far has characterized me in the least.

"And get a thicker skin. You're wayyyyyyy too easy to enrage. (and don't get a gun, either)"

Don't flatter yourself, sweetheart. You're the one ranting.

January 9, 2013 at 1:45 p.m.
Rebus said...

Jacob J. Lew, President Obama’s presumed choice to lead the Treasury Department, has close ties to Wall Street, receiving more than $900,000 in bonus cash from a division of Citigroup just as the company was getting bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.

BHO protecting the folks from the evil Wall St. Bwahahahaha

January 9, 2013 at 1:47 p.m.
Astropig said...

"I only call names when name-calling is warranted"

Like when they disagree with your extremism. I was one of the smaller members (in stature) of my class in school. The school bullies made a stop by my desk pretty frequently. I know a bully when I see one and you're a bully. If it were possible to stamp your feet and lash out physically on these pages,you'd do it. I'm just pointing out something that you'd rather not see and it's got you...Unhinged.You don't have a beef with guns at all. You're actually pretty ambivalent about guns. Thats obvious. You just don't like people that would use them to stand up to...bullies.That's what's behind this rage you're feeling.Let it out. Exhale. Go to a firing range and blow off some steam!

January 9, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric said: “Let me do a little bit of devils advocating. Couldn’t the same (a hostile organization) be said for any number of anti-gun/control groups. . . some of these anti-gun/control groups (my favorite being ‘MAIG’) are considered extremely hostile and a threat to what it deemed a constitutional right.”

Well, Limric, in all due respect, it seems to that certain responsibilities come with gun ownership for obvious reasons, and it makes sense to me that communities would want to take steps to help assure that the individuals who own guns have demonstrated they are capable of being a responsible person. Do you think it’s reasonable that criminals, immature teens, and mentally unstable persons can purchase a semi-automatic assault rifle from somebody at a gun show without having to show ID and without a background check?

January 9, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
Rebus said...

Stop it wikiEasy. You're making a complete ass of yourself. Go online and study.

January 9, 2013 at 1:56 p.m.
jesse said...

Pretty astute astro pig BUT i would bet serious money that if we were all sitting around a table face to face debating we would be hearing a lot of yes sirs and no sirs from easy!

Easy is apparently fairly young and has some HARD life lessons coming up on his journey thru life!Hope he survives them!

January 9, 2013 at 2:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Astropig,

"Like when they disagree with your extremism."

No. You and I haven't disagreed on gun control. You don't even know my position. I haven't even called you a name...yet

"I was one of the smaller members (in stature) of my class in school. The school bullies made a stop by my desk pretty frequently. I know a bully when I see one and you're a bully."

Not at all. I simply pointed out the logical fallacy in your statement. Then you went on to build an elaborate straw man argument about me when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about in regard to my position.

"If it were possible to stamp your feet and lash out physically on these pages,you'd do it."

No, I wouldn't. More straw man.

"I'm just pointing out something that you'd rather not see and it's got you...Unhinged."

It seems to be the other way around actually. You have no clue what you are talking about and you have continued to mischaracterize me at every turn. Then you accuse me of being "unhinged" while you're ranting. Mind numbing stuff.

"You don't have a beef with guns at all. You're actually pretty ambivalent about guns. Thats obvious."

That statement goes against everything you have said about my position thus far.

"You just don't like people that would use them to stand up to...bullies."

If a bully threatens your life, by all means, shoot the bully.

"That's what's behind this rage you're feeling.Let it out. Exhale. Go to a firing range and blow off some steam!"

You must being talking about yourself. You're the one ranting. I have answered each of your posts very cordially. Congratulations, you've built a very elaborate straw man at this point.

Would you like to come down to earth now?

January 9, 2013 at 2:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Dennis,

"Stop it wikiEasy. You're making a complete ass of yourself. Go online and study."

How so? Drink your Ensure and check your prostate.

January 9, 2013 at 2:04 p.m.
Rebus said...

jesse is exactly right...back in the day you had to pay the price for insulting people. These roots have no clue and seem determined to stay clueless. A QUICK look on wiki and they're expert an any topic.

January 9, 2013 at 2:05 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

I have lived over 60 years in America never giving a second thought as to whether I was going to get shot going to school, to work, a movie theater, the shopping mall, or a restaurant. The thought of strapping a gun to my side or even keeping one in the glove compartment of my car never occurred to me. Everywhere I went was a "gun-free zone." And so far removed was the idea of the need for a gun in any sector of public life that the term "gun-free zone" didn't even exist in anyone's consciousness.

Until today. We have become so inundated with guns, and the gun culture has managed to take hold so firmly in our collective psyche that the gun fetishists are winning the argument for turning our former gun-free society into a fully armed one. They not only do not mind the thought of everybody packing heat everywhere we go, they love it!

We are a nation awash in guns and with people who have an adolescent fascination for things that go boom and rat-a-tat-tat. They like the very thought of being wannabe cowboys and Rambos and it seems that nothing is going to stop them from living out their fantasies, whether on the shooting range or playing soldier with their buddies in some backwoods militia as they pretend to fight off the big bad government that's coming to take away their precious second-amendment-protected arsenal of weapons.

I hate to say it but we who see these military-style assault weapons for what they are - war-time killing machines of mass destruction - are probably going to lose not only the battle but the war. It looks like those ugly, damn tools of death are here to stay because the little boys with their toys are ready to kill for their "right" to own guns that can kill the most number of people in the least amount of time. So let's all celebrate the new normal as we pack our Glocks and sling our AR15s on our shoulders, heading out to work or to play each day. Who wants peace when it's so much more fun to play war, right?

God bless Amurika and God bless our guns! Yeehaw!

January 9, 2013 at 2:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"Pretty astute astro pig BUT i would bet serious money that if we were all sitting around a table face to face debating we would be hearing a lot of yes sirs and no sirs from easy!"

Don't flatter yourself, old timer.

"Easy is apparently fairly young and has some HARD life lessons coming up on his journey thru life!Hope he survives them!"

No, I don't. Hope you make it to next year!

January 9, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Hi easy - since I have some spare time

"Strict guns laws and lower crime rates don't go hand in hand."

In general, they do.

Prove it. Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland, and Newark come to mind.

"The violent crime rates in the UK are far worse than ours."

The murder rate in the United States is far worse than most other industrialized countries. What about the crime rates in Germany, Australia, New Zealand? How do they compare? I think you probably know. You just omitted those.

I didn't say murder rate, I said violent crime. Cherry pick all you want. Luxemburg is probably pretty low too

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

"Japan has a huge suicide problem and an entirely different societal makeup."

Irrelevant and false. Their societal makeup isn't much different than any developed country. They have the same video games, violent movies, etc. that we have in the U.S.

You're missing the point. It's more about cultural mores than video games. Irrelevant how? Japan is often held up as an example of good gun control in spite of the obvious fact that there are other forces at play.

"The Japanese and American ways of thinking about crime, privacy, and police powers are so different -- and Japan is such a generally peaceful country -- that it's functionally impossible to fully isolate and compare the two gun control regimens."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Sorry but not false.

http://www.economist.com/node/11294805

"See the disconnect? No agenda here."

How can you tell a disconnect? I'm sure some of those handguns would probably qualify as assault weapons and I bet some of those rifles didn't qualify.

Semantics. An "assault weapon" is whatever somebody wants it to be - Pistol, rifle, or spork. You know as well as I do the source of that term. The fact remains that handguns were used 19.25 times more than rifles of all kinds yet the media and politicians hammer us with images of look alike scary rifles and a constant refrain of "you don't need those".

January 9, 2013 at 2:11 p.m.
Sailorman said...

easy Pt 2

"Murder rate among blacks 14.4/100,000 mostly ages 13-29 Murder rate among whites 2.4/100,000"

Irrelevant.

Why? When attempting to solve a problem, you go where the numbers point you. The fact that there's not an easy, soundbite solution doesn't make it any less important.

"The problem doesn't seem to be the much maligned redneck with an AR. We may be barking up the wrong tree - or the least effective anyway."

I haven't heard anyone say that the problem was with "rednecks with an AR". That just sounds like you trying to misrepresent the situation and/or attempt to lump the problem/blame on African-Americans.

Don't be disingenuous. The media has beaten that drum nearly to shreds. Remember the "clinging to their guns and bibles bit"?

I'm not lumping anything - the numbers speak for themselves.

"According to today's news, new legislation would include "stiffer penalties for gun possession on school property" Yeah that will help."

Why wouldn't it help?

It's already against the law.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) is a federal United States law that prohibits any individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a "school zone" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25)

What would you add to that to make it more effective? That's in addition to the already on the books 20,000+ guns laws. Maybe we have an enforcement issue.

January 9, 2013 at 2:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus_Troll_Dennis,

"jesse is exactly right"

Of course. Keep riding those coattails.

"...back in the day you had to pay the price for insulting people."

And? If you're feeling froggy, please leap.

"These roots have no clue and seem determined to stay clueless."

Never as clueless as the person that demonizes research.

"A QUICK look on wiki and they're expert an any topic."

Never claimed to be an expert on any topic. But, apparently, you think your age makes you an expert. This coming from the same person that demonizes education.

Another round?

January 9, 2013 at 2:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Sailorman,

"Prove it. Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland, and Newark come to mind."

Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan.

"I didn't say murder rate, I said violent crime. Cherry pick all you want. Luxemburg is probably pretty low too"

I wasn't referring to what you said. I was referring to the murder rate. No cherry picking. Just facts.

"You're missing the point. It's more about cultural mores than video games. Irrelevant how? Japan is often held up as an example of good gun control in spite of the obvious fact that there are other forces at play."

Then be more specific about the differences in culture. Japan has basically all the same things that Right-wingers accuse of influencing people to kill e.g. violent movies, music, video games.

"Sorry but not false."

False. They have the same things we do minus all the guns, yet they are more peaceful. Why?That's the question.

"Semantics. An "assault weapon" is whatever somebody wants it to be - Pistol, rifle, or spork. You know as well as I do the source of that term. The fact remains that handguns were used 19.25 times more than rifles of all kinds yet the media and politicians hammer us with images of look alike scary rifles and a constant refrain of "you don't need those"."

So where is the disconnect? Would you rather the argument be about a ban on all guns or just ones that can kill the most people at one time?

January 9, 2013 at 2:23 p.m.
timbo said...

slEasy123.... Ok, I will try one more time to educate the terminally stupid. Mass shooting deaths are a drop in the bucket in total causes of death. FBI statistic show that in shooting of 3 or more for the last 100 years there were only 461 deaths in 100 years! I printed this before and gave the references.

To compare let's look at something that was totally banned in this century and with disastrous consequences. Alcohol is the most desturctive force in the history of the world. Even in the Old Testament is was causing havoc. Lot's daughter got him drunk and had sex with him. Kind of creepy, huh?

Here are the facts: alcohol deaths per year drinking and driving causes over 25,ooo deaths a year. overall 100,000 deaths occur each year due to the effects of alcohol.Correction: According to the NHTSA web site (nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2006/810686.pdf), there were 43,443 alcohol related traffic fatalities in 2005 in the USA. As a comparison, AIDS claimed 18,000 lives in 2003. How can alcohol be blamed for 100,000 deaths each year? 5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol. 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol. 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol. 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol. 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol. 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol. 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol. 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.

Now, nothing on the face of this earth deserves to be banned more than alcohol but it didn't work when we tried it and it wouldn't work today.

The arguments against alcohol are just the same as you stupid liberals us about guns but since you like it so much you don't want your destructive entity to be taken away, no matter the human cost. Alcohol has never protected a family or stopped a crime. It has absolutely no use but to get someone drunk or high and change their perception of reality. Why aren't you "enlightened" people trying to get that banned?

At least guns serve some positive purpose. Alcohol, drugs, etc. do not but it is futile to make them illegal just like guns.

January 9, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

continued to Sailorman,

"Why? When attempting to solve a problem, you go where the numbers point you. The fact that there's not an easy, soundbite solution doesn't make it any less important."

The numbers point you to people. Race is irrelevant. Gun crime is the problem.

"Don't be disingenuous. The media has beaten that drum nearly to shreds. Remember the "clinging to their guns and bibles bit"?"

The media hasn't referred to anyone a redneck. Since when is clinging to guns and Bibles a bad thing for Southerners anyway?

"What would you add to that to make it more effective? That's in addition to the already on the books 20,000+ guns laws. Maybe we have an enforcement issue."

I probably wouldn't add anything. I was simply asking the question. And I agree. There is an enforcement issue.

January 9, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"Ok, I will try one more time to educate the terminally stupid."

You're spouting the same stuff that I've rebuffed in the past. You're the terminally stupid one, not I.

"Mass shooting deaths are a drop in the bucket in total causes of death. FBI statistic show that in shooting of 3 or more for the last 100 years there were only 461 deaths in 100 years! I printed this before and gave the references."

It's not about mass shootings. It's about shootings.

"Alcohol is the most desturctive force in the history of the world."

Highly debatable.

"The arguments against alcohol are just the same as you stupid liberals us about guns but since you like it so much you don't want your destructive entity to be taken away, no matter the human cost."

Not at all the same.

"Why aren't you "enlightened" people trying to get that banned?"

"Now, nothing on the face of this earth deserves to be banned more than alcohol but it didn't work when we tried it and it wouldn't work today."

You answered your own question!

"At least guns serve some positive purpose. Alcohol, drugs, etc. do not but it is futile to make them illegal just like guns."

Drugs are illegal. Alcohol is restricted. For the thousandth time, no one is trying to make guns illegal.

January 9, 2013 at 2:38 p.m.
limric said...

Mountainlaurel,

WHOA! I’m putting my thumb a forefinger together and waving my hand back and forth. OH NO YOU DI - ENT! You’re attempting to have it both ways by using the exact same straw man I accused Chatt_man of using earlier.

Hokay. I’ll address your post while avoiding getting stuck in the fly trap you so cleverly tried lure me into by offer up a quote from some dude that wears a WWII leather tankers helmet on his head all the time. “We don't enforce the laws we have now and the folks that violate the old laws aren't going to obey the new ones”! He’s right - Isn’t he?...you’re such a beast. ;-)

So, Couldn’t the same (a hostile organization) be said for any number of anti-gun/control groups?

Well...?

January 9, 2013 at 2:40 p.m.
limric said...

"The arguments against alcohol are just the same as you stupid liberals us about guns but since you like it so much you don't want your destructive entity to be taken away, no matter the human cost. Alcohol has never protected a family or stopped a crime. It has absolutely no use but to get someone drunk or high and change their perception of reality. Why aren't you "enlightened" people trying to get that banned?

Awesome. Such banality causes dead horses to contract hives and prevents those *Jew killing Iranians from becoming famous.

*JonRoss

January 9, 2013 at 2:49 p.m.
timbo said...

Again you Liberals use emotional responses and never never look at the facts. The recent attempt to control firearms are just baby steps in the direction of a total ban. To say anything different is basically a lie. What you guys don't get is that people who need guns already have. Furthermore they are probably unregistered and the government will never know where they are Or who has them. So you guys can keep blabbing all you want but the horses already left the barn.

January 9, 2013 at 3:01 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"At least guns serve some positive purpose. Alcohol, drugs, etc. do not but it is futile to make them illegal just like guns." - bimbo

Alcohol, when used in moderation, has been scientifically proven to have positive health benefits. Moderate drinkers have been shown to be in better health than some tee-totalers. The vast majority of drinkers are able to control their drinking to the point of making it a pleasurable, if not healthful, experience.

likewise certain drugs can be beneficial. Marijuana has proven to have many medical benefits, and it is not addictive. People who have smoked it for years and decades have not suffered any deleterious effects from it. And smoking pot is extremely relaxing and does not lead to aggressive or violent behavior.

Guns are made to KILL. Period. Sure, sometimes the killing is justified, as in self defense, and when used in hunting; but the number of self-defense killings pales in comparison to the number of homicides and accidental deaths.

Just like certain, but not all, drugs should be made illegal, certain, but not all, guns should be made illegal, too. Killing machines of mass destruction originally made for war have no business being in the public sector. But not to worry...I'm sure you little boys in love with your toys will get to keep your precious cache of high-powered macho weaponry to protect yourself against the bogey-man or the big bad government... or against Obama himself. Congress is way too wimpy to dare to ruffle the feathers of your high-and-mighty NRA. So rest assured, there is little danger that you won't be able to caress your little baby of cold hard steel and whisper sweet-nothings to it each time you hold it. Your guns are safe because this is a friggin' gun-crazy country.

January 9, 2013 at 3:01 p.m.
jesse said...

"counselor", It keep the bird sh!t outta my hair!!

January 9, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Somebody had better tell this idiot in Iowa that the standard talking points are that no one is talking about taking guns away. He is going to let the cat out of the bag.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/

January 9, 2013 at 3:05 p.m.
patriot1 said...

So....an executive order supersedes the 2nd ammendment? Good luck with that.

January 9, 2013 at 3:09 p.m.
patriot1 said...

He is supposed to meet with the NRA ,et al, tomorrow. Don't confuse me with facts, we have already made up our mind. Hey Joe, since the Atty General is sitting at your right, let's talk Fast and Furious.

January 9, 2013 at 3:15 p.m.
Rebus said...

easywiki troll: Demonized education?? Huh?

January 9, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."

Barak Obama, as quoted to John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, while both were working at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. From the book "Debacle", by Grover G. Norquist and John R Lott, Jr., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Publisher

January 9, 2013 at 3:37 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

Barak Obama to Sarah Brady regarding gun control. Jason Horowitz, Washington Post, April 11th, 2011

January 9, 2013 at 3:37 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby."

From "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

January 9, 2013 at 3:38 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes , Oct 21, 2004

January 9, 2013 at 3:39 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Q. Do (you, Obama) support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate , Apr 16, 2008

January 9, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
alprova said...

"YouTube gun enthusiast's shooting death spurs hunt for suspect"

"Authorities in Georgia are searching for suspects in the shooting death of a gun enthusiast and weapons expert who managed a popular YouTube channel showcasing high-powered guns and explosives."

"Keith Ratliff, 32, who helped operate FPSRussia firearms channel on YouTube, was found dead inside his Carnesville, Ga., office on Jan. 3 from a single gunshot wound to the head."

Read the rest: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/09/georgia-authorities-hunt-suspect-in-shooting-death-youtube-gun-enthusiast/#ixzz2HVrkFEAl

January 9, 2013 at 3:41 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"(I, Obama) am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 , Aug 14, 2007

January 9, 2013 at 3:42 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:

Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test , Jul 2, 1998

January 9, 2013 at 3:43 p.m.
jesse said...

The bottom line on all this gun nonsense is all the pro and con's are gonna jawbone it to death and the pro control side will pass some new laws that will be fought thru the courts for 5 years before the SCOTUS knocks them down and after 5 years and millions of dollars we MIGHT wind up w/a 10 round max. mag. capacity! And that's all ,folks!

January 9, 2013 at 3:44 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Voted against a 2005 law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers stemming from acts committed by others using their products. Supports instant criminal background checks on people purchasing guns and believes law should apply to gun sales at gun shows. Calls for permanently reinstating assault weapons ban. Voted for 2005 amendment placing restrictions on rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed" to be armor-piercing. Supports making guns childproof and voted for 2005 child safety lock amendment. Would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to share data on history of sales and transfers of firearms used in crimes only with federal agencies for national security purposes, or prosecutors needing it for an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Regarding the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama did not sign a friend-of-the-court brief that urged the Supreme Court to overturn the District of Columbia gun ban. At a debate, when asked about case, Obama said he believes "that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right." Voted for 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency.

CNNPolitics.com

January 9, 2013 at 3:45 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"We need to make the expired Assault Weapon ban permanent. We need to express our collective anger through collective action."

Barak Obama - Speech 07/15/07 (Associated Press)

January 9, 2013 at 3:46 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

Attorney General Eric Holder - "Obama To Seek New Assault Weapons Ban", Jason Ryan, ABC News, 02/25/09

Funny, was this in the middle of Fast & Furious, was F&F meant to manufacture statistics for these gun control freaks to use?

January 9, 2013 at 3:48 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law."

Source: 2003 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire

January 9, 2013 at 3:49 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’

Source: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away’ Wall Street Journal September 5, 2008

January 9, 2013 at 3:49 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

"But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns."

Source: Second Presidential Debate - October 16, 2012

January 9, 2013 at 3:51 p.m.
limric said...

Is it possible by executive fiat (beep beep) to circumvent a constitutional right?

January 9, 2013 at 3:53 p.m.
Sailorman said...

easy

lol I have to wonder if you really believe some of those responses or if you're just trying to yank chains. Short on time so I'm just going to hit a couple.

"I wasn't referring to what you said. I was referring to the murder rate. No cherry picking. Just facts."

You have a problem discussing a topic not defined by you?

Re Japan

You're missing the point. It's more about cultural mores than video games. Irrelevant how? Japan is often held up as an example of good gun control in spite of the obvious fact that there are other forces at play.

"The Japanese and American ways of thinking about crime, privacy, and police powers are so different -- and Japan is such a generally peaceful country -- that it's functionally impossible to fully isolate and compare the two gun control regimens."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

your response

Then be more specific about the differences in culture. Japan has basically all the same things that Right-wingers accuse of influencing people to kill e.g. violent movies, music, video games.

I'm not here to teach a class in Japanese culture. You really didn't read and comprehend what I said or the link did you.

Re the black vs white murder rate

You said "The numbers point you to people. Race is irrelevant. Gun crime is the problem."

When group A does anything 20 more times than group B, the makeup of those groups is most certainly relevant. That's not to say there aren't other factors but, whatever they are, they are endemic to each group individually. In so far as causal determination, it wouldn't matter if the numbers were reversed. The issue is the same. And the problem is crime - period.

at least we agree on the enforcement issue.

With that, I'll leave you to your ongoing battle with timbo and jesse

Have a nice day

January 9, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I have heard that there are some mental giants out there that think Obama and democrats in general are not anti 2nd Amendment and that Obama has not had gun control ambitions that he was sitting on through his first term, or that the show boating after Sandy Hook is not gun control, it is all about the safety of the children.

Can someone please confirm this? What kind of comedy show has our political world become?

January 9, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
alprova said...

The Rascal Scooter: Now With 90% More Freedom

http://i.imgur.com/oEnkc.jpg

January 9, 2013 at 4:02 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Q. Do (you, Obama) support state legislation to:

a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.

b. ban assault weapons? Yes.

c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate , Apr 16, 2008

January 9, 2013 at 4:08 p.m.
conservative said...

You will never see from this loontoonist a picture of a prison with a revolving door and the released prisoners illegally acquiring guns to commit their next killing.

January 9, 2013 at 4:09 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."

Barak Obama, as quoted to John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, while both were working at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. From the book "Debacle", by Grover G. Norquist and John R Lott, Jr., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Publisher

January 9, 2013 at 4:13 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Now that we understand the actor, should gun owners be concerned about a wanna be dictator that is signalling use of executive orders?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/9/biden-executive-orders-action-can-be-taken-guns/

January 9, 2013 at 4:16 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP, your sarcasm is noteworthy, and your statistics aside, there is an undeniable fact that is fueling all this debate. Since the shooting of Gabby Gifford in Tucson a year ago yesterday, there have been 11 mass murder events involving guns. That's an average of one per month.

I reduce my chance of becoming a victim of such an event by avoiding places where there are lots of people. You might be someone who believes that arming yourself at all times will reduce your chances of becoming a victim of violence. I consider that prospect rather pathetic and a sad testament to just how dangerous it is to live in the United States.

Without question, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners, but there seems to be a growing epidemic of people who are not so responsible and we all risk becoming target practice for people who are unstable.

Registration of all firearms as well as ammunition purchases, and the banning of all weapons designed for warfare rather than for hunting and personal protection, should be a part of a productive discussion in how to address a growing problem that we face in this nation.

No...it's not the fault of the weapons that these things happen, but reducing the access to disturbed people, by any means necessary, should be embraced by all responsible gun owners.

January 9, 2013 at 4:22 p.m.
limric said...

Ooh, I like the scooter Alprova. I've got some too. Not as funny though. {:-(

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/cantrun8562web.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/guncontrol51.jpg/

January 9, 2013 at 4:26 p.m.
Rebus said...

limric asksIs " it possible by executive fiat (beep beep) to circumvent a constitutional right?"
would you like that, lim?

January 9, 2013 at 4:27 p.m.
Rebus said...

Rickyroo says" People who have smoked it for years and decades have not suffered any deleterious effects from it. And smoking pot is extremely relaxing and does not lead to aggressive or violent behavior."

*perhaps you're not old enough to know, Roo. Like me, most of my friends from the early 70's outgrew the weed. A few have smoked it almost daily for 40+ years. I can assure you that these people ain't right in the head...you don't need a shrink to tell that they're seriously effed up.

January 9, 2013 at 4:31 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova,

I still maintain that there are reasons, other than firearms, they have been around for a very long time, that are creating the situations that so alarm you. I would also submit that the federal government has contributed to the creation of those situations through the erosion of family, erosion of religious freedom, prohibition on drugs, erosion of the work ethic, creating a sense of entitlement and fostering feelings of victimisation and resentment for other citizens.

I would really appreciate it if the social engineers would focus on cleaning up the huge mess they have created and please kindly leave me and my firearms alone.

January 9, 2013 at 4:32 p.m.
limric said...

Oh yes Rebus. I would I would. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't everybody? Silly man. Of course we would.

Lets sing!!

January 9, 2013 at 4:33 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

How is the complete ban on all firearms working out for the Mexicans?(noone is advocating a gun banishment) Seems like only the cartels have guns and the people are powerless to a currupt government. Just my opinion but if one of those cartells showed up and decapitated a villager how long before granny came out a shooting if allowed the right to defend her family. How many people have been decapitated by armed thugs? But it could never happen here .... right?.... is this a strawman?

January 9, 2013 at 4:37 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

What DJHBRAINERD said!

January 9, 2013 at 4:41 p.m.
conservative said...

You will never see from this loontoonist a picture of dead people and a gun suspended in mid- air in the act of firing, no person holding the gun, just the gun in mid- air with a puff of smoke.

January 9, 2013 at 4:47 p.m.
alprova said...

Rebus wrote: "A few have smoked it almost daily for 40+ years. I can assure you that these people ain't right in the head...you don't need a shrink to tell that they're seriously effed up."

I find myself in agreement with that statement.

I have a brother-in-law that lives for nothing but isolating himself in an outbuilding where he surfs the web and smokes weed from daylight to dark. He's 57 years old and he spends his disability checks that he was awarded God only knows how, on pot.

Ten years ago, he was a decent guy. Today, he's just a waste of space and oxygen.

January 9, 2013 at 4:56 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "I still maintain that there are reasons, other than firearms, they have been around for a very long time, that are creating the situations that so alarm you."

They should alarm everyone, including yourself.

"I would also submit that the federal government has contributed to the creation of those situations through the erosion of family, erosion of religious freedom, prohibition on drugs, erosion of the work ethic, creating a sense of entitlement and fostering feelings of victimisation and resentment for other citizens."

Let's not go off the deep end.

How can you begin to say that the Gov't has contributed to the erosion of families?

Religion? If uber-religious people would confine their religious expressions to their own private space and churches, where it belongs, there would be no problem.

I agree that the war on drugs has been useless and hopeless.

Erosion of the work ethic? When are people going to take responsibility for their own downfalls? People learn their ethics, morality, and much more from their parents.

I'm sure that your kids are just like my own, in that I have taught them how to earn a living, to save for hard times, and to treat other people with respect at all times.

Don't blame the Gov't. Blame the people who influence their kids to be bums.

Social Security and Medicare are the only true entitlements....IF and only if one has worked most of their life and contributed to those entitlement programs.

I'm quite liberal, but if anyone is physically or mentally able to work, they should not be getting a free ride in life. Everyone who is able should contribute to society in some manner.

"I would really appreciate it if the social engineers would focus on cleaning up the huge mess they have created and please kindly leave me and my firearms alone."

I am in full disagreement with any measure by the President to address this issue by Executive Order. That would be a horrible mistake.

I'm just a squirrel among the citizenry of this nation, but I would be on board with the forced and required registration of every single firearm that everyone owns, a database where each and every bullet purchased would be able to be tracked, and severe penalties for ANYONE who uses a firearm in the commission of any crime.

The murder rate in this nation has been falling steadily for the past 30 years. At the same time, the instance of mass murder involving people unknown to the assailant has risen sharply.

It would be nice if there were some quotient that could be found to identify the reason behind someone that performs such a deed, but there are only guesses for the most part what motivates such people.

January 9, 2013 at 5:17 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Silly argument, alprova (regarding pot smoking). Of course there are some people who will abuse any substance and turn it into a negative. So what? I know many people who have smoked weed for years responsibly. They have good jobs, have raised families, and contribute to society in meaningful ways. They have found pot to be relaxing and pleasurable, without their health or mental capacity being adversely affected. Then there are many who derive the purely medical benefits from it.

Furthermore, the ones I know who have smoked it long-term do it in moderation; they do not smoke it all day every day. That is obsessive behavior and is destructive, no matter what substance or activity we're talking about.

January 9, 2013 at 5:20 p.m.
alprova said...

Rickaroo wrote: "Silly argument, alprova (regarding pot smoking)."

Hey, don't get me wrong, I have no issue with pot. If I had access to some, I wouldn't mind lighting up a joint every now and then myself.

"Of course there are some people who will abuse any substance and turn it into a negative. So what?"

In the case of my BIL, it's all he lives for. He verbally abuses his wife in front of God and everyone else, he contributes not a penny toward household expenses, is quite anti-social, etc.

The man is a lost soul on all fronts and I do blame the pot, in his case.

"I know many people who have smoked weed for years responsibly. They have good jobs, have raised families, and contribute to society in meaningful ways."

I do too, in fact a couple of rather successful people as well, but none of them smoke it like people smoke cigarettes.

I dunno, I'm guess I'm contradicting myself as I go along here, but you'd have to meet my brother-in-law to get an idea just how bad one can be "hooked" on pot.

"They have found pot to be relaxing and pleasurable, without their health or mental capacity being adversely affected. Then there are many who derive the purely medical benefits from it."

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, and I do believe that pot should be totally decriminalized, to the same extent that alcohol is. No driving while high and never on the job.

January 9, 2013 at 5:36 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Understood. Your original comment did not make it that clear to me.

January 9, 2013 at 5:53 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Hi Al it's been a while - hope you are well

Couple of questions:

What would the registration do to prevent? I can see it being beneficial after the fact. Ammo is especially problematic. Do I have to stop casting my own bullets?

What would be the impact if penalties were actually enforced today? After all, we have some 20,000+ gun laws on the books today and there are plenty of known felons with guns out there. If the system doesn't do any better with new ones, not sure we'll see any improvement.

Depending on how this shakes out, I see a real marketing opportunity for the cartels. They'll make a fortune peddling guns and ammo to their current customer base. Sadly, the full auto stuff will probably be M-4's provided to the Mexican army by us.

January 9, 2013 at 5:59 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Alprova.... While in theory I would be inclined to support a national registration of firearms I have my reservaions. I list could be the first step toward confiscationand and making a public record of any private purchase is a slippery slope to tread. Look toward cigaretts as a model for an aganda based movement. They didn't start with outside public bans they started with nonsmoking sections then only where food was served and so forth. Could turnout the same with guns....gotta get em checked each year (for a nominal fee) for public saftey. Who knows what could be done with a list of legally purchesed firearms. I have worked in an ER for several years and have seen more than my share of gunshot victims and (forgive me for being general but hippa won't allow specifics) of the one's I remember none were even of the legal age to own a firearm much less the legal owner of the weapon. So as always in my mind it comes back to law enforcement and societal acceptance of certain behaviors. Did you notice an article a couple days ago where 4 teens were shot at a 14 year olds birthday party? 200 people in attendence....no witnesses. The acceptance and glorification of gun violence to me would be a better place to start than a list.

January 9, 2013 at 6:06 p.m.
patriot1 said...

alpo (registered republican) says he avoids place where there are lots of people.....I'm with you on that one alpo, I don't even go to a football game anymore...when they get in a huddle I think they're talking about me.

January 9, 2013 at 6:10 p.m.
jesse said...

Hell, I KNOW they are talkin about me!

"Just because your paranoid don't mean they ain't after your ass!!"

January 9, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.
alprova said...

"Hi Al it's been a while - hope you are well"

Hello, and I hope you are the same.

"Couple of questions:"

"What would the registration do to prevent? I can see it being beneficial after the fact."

Which MIGHT make people who think they are going to get away with a crime, less likely to do so. Also, if responsible gun owners know that a gun stolen from them would lead to themselves, they might take more caution to lock them away when not at home.

"Ammo is especially problematic. Do I have to stop casting my own bullets?"

You might need to rethink doing so, as private manufacturing of legal ammunition should be prohibited.

"What would be the impact if penalties were actually enforced today? After all, we have some 20,000+ gun laws on the books today and there are plenty of known felons with guns out there. If the system doesn't do any better with new ones, not sure we'll see any improvement."

Thus the loopholes that need to be addressed. Gun shows sales with no background checks, exchanges of guns between private owners with no paper trails, etc. should come to a screeching halt.

Sales of weapons outside of registered firearms dealers are largely unregulated, thus a big problem. I'm sure that even the most adamant gun proponents understand that there is a problem with unregulated weapons exchanges that needs to be addressed somehow, some way.

"Depending on how this shakes out, I see a real marketing opportunity for the cartels. They'll make a fortune peddling guns and ammo to their current customer base. Sadly, the full auto stuff will probably be M-4's provided to the Mexican army by us."

By who?

January 9, 2013 at 6:24 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric said: “I’ll address your post while avoiding getting stuck in the fly trap you so cleverly tried lure me into by offer up a quote from some dude that wears a WWII leather tankers helmet on his head all the time. “We don't enforce the laws we have now." . . So, Couldn’t the same (a hostile organization) be said for any number of anti-gun/control groups?”

I wasn’t trying to lead you into a flytrap, Limric. I was trying to lead you toward reality.

I have no trouble understanding why someone who belongs to a pro gun control group might feel some hostility in regard to this issue. After all many of the people who belong to these groups have lost friends, children, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and colleagues as a result of gun violence, and this has to be a painful experience.

It seems to me that any sane responsible gun owner would be the first to understand any hostility that some of these people might feel. Gun owners know guns kill people, and I also feel that they know it’s not wise to make it so easy for criminals, immature teens, and mentally unstable persons to purchase guns, especially semi-automatic assault rifles.

I do not have any sympathy for irresponsible and self-serving organizations like the NRA. The NRA not only spends millions of dollars fighting against sensible gun control laws, but they go out of their way to pump up the paranoia and/or machismo of our “rooster” population – solely because the NRA wants to help gun dealers make more money.

As to Jesse’s quote, what law/s is he referencing? Do you actually know?

January 9, 2013 at 6:27 p.m.
jesse said...

Well ML right off the bat Adam Lanza violated the "gun free zone" around Sandy Hook school!

Now if you know how they could have enforced that law please enlighten me! If you spend some time in Judge Rebecca Sterns court and watch how fast she can send repeat gun offenders out the door and back to the hood then you will start getting a handle on what the REAL prob. is!If i thought for one minute that more gun laws would fix this i would be on board like snyders pup!

BTW: thers a good step in the direction of the gang prob.we got in Chatta. Get rid of Bill Cox and these bleeding heart Judges ,put som hard nosed hangin type judges on the crim.ct. benches and start layin some serious time on these animals!turn loose most of the pot smokers to make room for the really bad guys!!

January 9, 2013 at 6:38 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Al

The "gun show loophole" has lttle to do with gunshows as you no doubt know. I generally have little problem with private sales going through FFL though it would seem silly when, for example, giving a gun to my son.

That wasn't what i was referring in the question about existing enforcing laws anyway. Reread the question.

We can agree to disagree on the ammunition issue though there is no doubt a way to control some component.

Not sure what you're asking with "by who". One of the primary arms suppliers to the Mexican army, as well as most of armies of Central and South America is our very own U S Government. Eric Holder's little fiasco not withstanding, it's common knowledge in Mexico the army is the source of much of the cartel's weaponry. You think there won't be a steady flow of arms north? Whatever the new regulations turn out to be, it's unlikely to slow down the gangs.

"Sensible", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. i would prefer "effective" anyway

January 9, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
alprova said...

DJHBRAINERD wrote: "Alprova.... While in theory I would be inclined to support a national registration of firearms I have my reservaions. I list could be the first step toward confiscationand and making a public record of any private purchase is a slippery slope to tread."

Motor vehicles are subject to strict registration requirements in all 50 states, and yet nobody has moved to confiscate them, despite the number of deaths that they cause each year.

"Look toward cigaretts as a model for an aganda based movement. They didn't start with outside public bans they started with nonsmoking sections then only where food was served and so forth."

Yes, but then I doubt that you would find a person on this Earth who would defend cigarettes as something that benefits a soul. In other words, tobacco is not something that one needs for any reason.

"Could turnout the same with guns....gotta get em checked each year (for a nominal fee) for public saftey."

I kinda doubt that one.

January 9, 2013 at 7:11 p.m.
jesse said...

Sailorman, maybe we could legalize drugs and ban guns!

That way we won the war on drugs and put the cartels in the gun runnin buis.all them guns we sent south of the border would all come back home to roost!Sounds like a plan Uncle Joe Biden would come up with!!!

January 9, 2013 at 7:18 p.m.
moonpie said...

As a gunowner, I am agnostic on the current need for the second amendment. I'm not sure we have a need to maintain a well armed militia, as we did when the constitution was written. (I understand the fear of tyranny that some have, but think there are many other weapons against that.)

I think people on the extremes ends of this argument each have valid points, and if we ever tipped all the way to one side, there would still be some problems.

I would not be troubled by a near complete ban on gun ownership outside of shooting clubs where the guns would stay, as well as a limit on hunting rifles, or shotguns owned by any one person and a limited magazine capacity.

But because I don't see that as a viable political possibility, I can't disagree with arming teachers, if they are trained in police tactics, demonstrate high proficiency tactical training and maintain yearly certification and proficiency. I think all permit carriers should be similarly bound.

A buddy who is sells weapons to the US government tells me that locations where gun ownership is highest actually have the lowest crime rates. I asked him if these were registered weapons and asked him what the gun concentration was in high crime areas. He did not know. He said he would ask some friends who would know. I haven't heard back yet. I suspect it is not gun ownwership but the behavior, mental stability, social stresses and other factors which affect gun violence more than the gun itself.

Perhaps folks on Signal Mountain have more guns in the house than do people in areas with gang problems. A relatively wealthy person may own multiple guns. But I wonder if the number of gun owners are more equivalent.

Does anyone have numbers on this?

January 9, 2013 at 7:19 p.m.
jesse said...

Al, have you thought about the fact that most of the folks that are buying up the guns now already own multiple fire arms! Most folks that own a gun don't own just one! When i was into guns i was a ground hog shooter,long range stuff! One rifle was all i really needed BUT at one time i had 14! 5 single shot hi walls and the rest were bolt actions,never was into semi autos,they wern't accurate enough!I built a bolt action 25/06 one time Just for 800 to 1000 yard shots 'so that shows the gun nuts ain't satisfied w/just 1 or 2!

January 9, 2013 at 7:28 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jesse said: “Well ML right off the bat Adam Lanza violated the "gun free zone" around Sandy Hook school!. Now if you know how they could have enforced that law please enlighten me!”

I suppose if the priority of our politicians is allow everyone including criminals, immature teens and mentally unstable persons to purchase and carry guns, the only way to actually protect people and to prevent “gun owners” from bringing their weapons into “gun free zones” like schools, movie theaters, markets, and places of employment etc. is for our politicians to install body scanners and hire trained security guards to enforce the law at these locations.

January 9, 2013 at 7:35 p.m.
alprova said...

Sailorman wrote: "The "gun show loophole" has lttle to do with gunshows as you no doubt know."

No, I don't know that. There are many unlicensed people who set up booths at gun shows, who sell and trade firearms with no background check requirements in place ever taking place.

"I generally have little problem with private sales going through FFL though it would seem silly when, for example, giving a gun to my son."

No problem, as long as there is documentation in place and submitted to the authorities, transferring ownership of the weapon to your son.

"That wasn't what i was referring in the question about existing enforcing laws anyway. Reread the question."

To be perfectly honest, my idea is not a sound one, because every perpetrator of mass murder has been immediately apprehended or has taken their own life after killing others.

Along with registration, a one-time forensics of all guns should be performed, so that when a bullet is recovered, the cops know where to start looking for the gun.

I know my idea is not perfect, nor will it prevent crime, in and of itself, and it may even be knee-jerk, but it would in time, set forth a very good reason for responsible gun owners to keep those guns near and dear at all times.

It might even prevent some of those guns falling into the hands of children and grandchildren and used at schools.

"We can agree to disagree on the ammunition issue though there is no doubt a way to control some component."

I suppose that there is a way to discover how to make your own bullets on the Internet, but there are supplies that are needed to make them that can only be purchased from weapons dealers.

No need to make a big deal about it. Responsible people, who are not up to no good shouldn't really have a problem with a reporting requirement for all ammunition or component purchases.

Think of it as no more problematic than showing one's I.D. to purchase a pack of cigarettes, alcohol, or to vote.

"Not sure what you're asking with "by who". One of the primary arms suppliers to the Mexican army, as well as most of armies of Central and South America is our very own U S Government."

That is true. I'm all for the United States minding their own business for once and for all.

"Eric Holder's little fiasco not withstanding, it's common knowledge in Mexico the army is the source of much of the cartel's weaponry. You think there won't be a steady flow of arms north? Whatever the new regulations turn out to be, it's unlikely to slow down the gangs."

I'm all for building as many prisons as needed to lock away anyone for life who uses a weapon in the commission of a crime. Lock 'em away and feed them pinto beans for the rest of their days.

January 9, 2013 at 7:44 p.m.
alprova said...

jesse wrote: "Al, have you thought about the fact that most of the folks that are buying up the guns now already own multiple fire arms!"

Oh...I'm sure that is quite true.

I'm not sure that having all those guns makes anyone safer from harm.

My position has always been that if one takes aim at another and cannot disable or kill them after firing six shots, then they have no business firing a weapon at all.

January 9, 2013 at 7:50 p.m.
rolando said...

Congratulations all you Socialist Progressives!

You have voted in another Hitler, another Pol Pot, another Mao TsiTung [however he spelled it], another Stalin, another Fat Little North Korean dude. Yes, you have voted in a soon-to-be dictator who rules his subjects by royal fiat...and damn the Legislature and the Supreme Court, too.

For those living in what are essentially Ghettos and the rest of you 47%ers, your wishes are coming true. Enjoy it. Meanwhile those of us who do NOT live in ghettos are well armed and will stay that way.

Except me, of course. I sold all my semi-auto guns last weekend to the highest bidder at a flea market/swap meet at absolutely premium prices. [All over 21, of course.] But my shotguns abide.

Now to get rid of the unneeded ammo...dumping it in the lake is probably the best way. All except the double-ought buck 12-guage stuff.

January 9, 2013 at 8:01 p.m.
tderng said...

alprova said...My position has always been that if one takes aim at another and cannot disable or kill them after firing six shots, then they have no business firing a weapon at all.

Al, did you realize that most police officers miss their target multiple times during a gunfight? That's why most of them now carry a semi-automatics and extra clips.Adrenaline does strange things during a gun fight.

January 9, 2013 at 8:12 p.m.
rolando said...

"Lock 'em away and feed them pinto beans for the rest of their days."

Cain't do that, alpo. Cruel and unusual punishment, you know. You Progressives have seen to that. Ah. You decided to erase that comment, I see. Doesn't matter...the quote above still stands...so that's what you would do to those who use a weapon to commit a crime, huh? Interesting, that.


...And it isn't just one person that will be the citizens' targets. Dr Leary was right when he said, "...Question Authority"

Then again, he was a shrink so what's that tell you?

January 9, 2013 at 8:18 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Al

Have you been to agun show lately? I've been to a bunch of them and haven't seen any tables selling guns that didn't belong to an FFL. Deals may be going down in the parking lot, but not in the show proper without a NICS check.

We probably in closer agreement than either of us think 😊

January 9, 2013 at 8:21 p.m.
rolando said...

They move fast at swapmeets.

January 9, 2013 at 8:23 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Alpo (registered republican) I too have been to several gun shows and have yet to see anyone with a table selling firearms who is not a licensed dealer. Can't do that. Went to a gun auction last week and the successful bidders got a card each time they purchased a weapon and was required to go by the seller's gun store for background check and complete the sale. These outlaw gun shows and sales are not as rogue as some would like to believe.

January 9, 2013 at 9:11 p.m.
carlB said...

Clay, you made your point of how farm equipment has changed and with the same drawing it is relative to how the weapons for "killing" have changed. Not the weapons FOR HUNTING WHEN ONE SHOT DOES THE JOB UNLESS bird hunting then the capacity is three/four shells.

January 9, 2013 at 9:15 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER TEACHES ARMED ROBBER WHY IT’S A BAD IDEA TO PULL A GUN ON A DAD

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/concealed-carry-holder-teaches-armed-robber-why-its-a-bad-idea-to-pull-a-gun-on-a-dad/

January 9, 2013 at 10:40 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

FOX’S ‘THE FIVE’ RETALIATES AGAINST GAWKER’S NYC GUN OWNER LIST BY AIRING FOUNDER’S PHONE NUMBER

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/foxs-the-five-retaliates-against-gawkers-nyc-gun-owner-list-by-airing-founders-phone-number/

Had to chuckle at that one. I wonder if it is too late to call this jerk...

January 9, 2013 at 10:42 p.m.
alprova said...

Sailorman wrote: "Have you been to agun show lately? I've been to a bunch of them and haven't seen any tables selling guns that didn't belong to an FFL. Deals may be going down in the parking lot, but not in the show proper without a NICS check."

patriot1 wrote: "I too have been to several gun shows and have yet to see anyone with a table selling firearms who is not a licensed dealer. Can't do that. Went to a gun auction last week and the successful bidders got a card each time they purchased a weapon and was required to go by the seller's gun store for background check and complete the sale. These outlaw gun shows and sales are not as rogue as some would like to believe."

Regardless of what the two of you claim, the fact of the matter is that only 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows.

7 states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. Those states are California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado.

4 states require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Those states are Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

6 states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check. Those states are Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska.

A few counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows.

The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.

Please take note that none of the states surrounding our immediate area regulate sales at gun shows at all. If you have not seen unlicensed sellers at gun shows locally, it is merely a coincidence.

January 9, 2013 at 11:17 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Al

You said

"Regardless of what the two of you claim, the fact of the matter is that only 17 states regulate PRIVATE firearm sales at gun shows."

Do you understand "PRIVATE"? It has nothing to do with gun shows. Anybody who has a table at a gunshow will be an FFL and run the NICS check.

If I sell a gun to my neighbor in my driveway, it's a private sale. If we happen to meet in the parking lot at a gunshow, it's a private sale. If we meet standing outside the door of the gunshow, it's a private sale. Do you see the difference? We can talk about how private sales should have to go through an FFL but the "gunshow loophole" shtick is getting tiresome.

January 10, 2013 at 6:18 a.m.
carlB said...

Gun sales are a money making business. It appears that the gun sellers do not want be responsible for who owns the guns they sell and how the guns are used as long as the guns cannot be connected to the orginal owner.

January 10, 2013 at 9:59 a.m.
mtngrl said...

The only thing wrong with Al's post on gunshows is using the word "table". There are private sales all the time INSIDE the shows, not just outside. A friend of mine bought a rifle from a lady walking around inside the show with it over her shoulder, no questions asked, no names exchanged. The guy that killed Sgt Chapin bought guns inside a show here as an escaped convict.

They should have instant background checks on anyone entering or leaving the building with a firearm, and ban all sales in the parking lot.

January 10, 2013 at 10:03 a.m.
Sailorman said...

deleted *

January 10, 2013 at 10:11 a.m.
Sailorman said...

And how exactly to you propose to police that? Are you going to follow everybody to the McDonalds down the street too?

Those who sell/trade guns without concern simply won't go to the gun show to do it. Those who follow the law now will continue to do so. Bad guy 1 selling to bad guy 2 is unlikely to care.

That is not to say private sales shouldn't be subject to NICS. They should. But it won't change the fact that, as with much of the feel good crap we pass in the name of "safety", 99% of those affected will be those who aren't the problem to begin with. The other 1% will continue on as usual.

January 10, 2013 at 10:18 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.