On Tuesday, Joe Biden will turn in his gun violence task force report to Barack Obama concerning new gun control laws and other measures to the wake of the Sandy Hook School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. But as it turns out, the proposed 13-part plan comes from none other than the Center for American Progress, the Far-Left group funded largely by George Soros. This is not the first time that the Obama White House is getting its marching orders from Soros and his C.A.P. Organization. Meanwhile, sales for guns and high-capacity magazines are reaching record levels as law-abiding citizens fear a new series of gun bans. A patriotic group of citizens who believe firmly in the U.S. Constitution are planning on creating their own community in western Idaho called ′The Citadel′. Upwards of 7,000 families of like mind may relocate there to find shelter in our evermore disturbing world.
There is no surprise that Obama is once again relying on George Soros for his agenda, since Obama has never had a single, original thought in his life. Garbage-In, Garbage-Out is the Obama Way. Soros and his confederates have backed Obama since 2007, much to the chagrin of the Clintons. No doubt Hillary Clinton had counted on Soros support for her presidential campaign since her husband Bill had sent U.S. troops to the Balkans to protect the oil pipeline Soros was building. But as it turned out, Obama met the Soros criteria of being more easily corrupted and manipulated, so he won the favor of the notorious billionaire.
Despite all of the facts, that the old so-called assault weapons ban did nothing to reduce crime, that the exact opposite, more citizens being armed has resulted in a 49% decrease in violent crimes and gun-related murders, Obama will once again try to take us down this failed road. Why? Because George Soros and the rest of his anti-American friends want to make the nation more docile and vulnerable. A strong, free America does not fit in their plans for global control. The Second Amendment stands in their way of taming the United States.
Fortunately, many Americans understand this. That our liberty is only secure by an armed population. So is it any wonder that many are considering options such as that proposed by The Citadel group? To establish their own community of like-minded patriots and build a fortified city that will be independent of globalist ambitions. The Citadel offers a variety of residential options starting as low as $545 per month for a condo inside the protection of the town′s planned walls and defenses. They even already have several business opportunities to provide gainful employment. This is what America is really all about!
But not so in the mind′s eye of Barack Hussein Obama. The White House is about to accept the 13-part plan for gun control drafted by the George Soros group, the Center for American Progress. More like Regress! The series of meetings held by the Joe Biden gun violence task force last week were nothing but a sham. A cheap trick to give the illusion of public consensus. Recent polls show that about two-thirds of the nation like the idea proposed by the National Rifle association for having armed guards in our schools following the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook School in Newtwon, Connecticut. One-third of our schools already have armed guards, so why not the rest? If you live in the new community of The Citadel, the whole town in western Idaho will be armed, making you very safe, indeed!
January 13th, 2013 at 8:46 am
Where do you get your statistics that validates your claim that the record level sales of guns and high capacity magazines went to “law abiding citizen”? Truth is, you have none.
In light of the NRA actually bragging about their 100K additional paying members since the shootings, jumping from 4.1 million to 4.2 and even saying “Our goal is to get to 5 million before this debate is over”, it should be obvious that the mass murder of children is simply good for business.
And in your world of Plutocracy and Social Darwinism, businesses, through their purchase of government, speak for the people regardless of the voice of the people.
January 13th, 2013 at 8:47 am
America does not fit in Soros’ plan for a global world. That is the Democrat Party’s goal, global power. The Average Individual American reminds me of David and Soros and the Democrat Party remind me of Goliath and those ever read the old testament knows how that story ended. Does not matter if you believe in God or not. A supreme power is watch (not the Democrats) and it is interesting to see how all this evolves.
January 13th, 2013 at 9:10 am
Ronald, more children are killed by the hood, mothers and other family members than a crazy person. In Chicago 500 minority children were killed in one year 2012 by hand guns in their neighborhood not at school. In a white bread community school the press and the democrat party are all over it. Where is the press and the democrats denouncing murder in the high crime black or minority area. More people are killed by bats, clubs, knives, abortion and cars, fists and hammers than guns. I do have the right to protect myself from this ever growing invasive government and growing number of criminals roaming my community.
One interesting fact I learned yesterday. When the British Banned Guns the Crime Rate went up 4 times. In England for every 100,000 humans the crime rate is 2,000. In America for every 100,000 humans the crime rate is 466. When criminals know they may be shot by an individual they may harm, the criminal thinks twice about commiting a crime. I am grateful most of my neighbors own guns and that criminals do not know if I have a gun or not.
January 13th, 2013 at 9:15 am
One other point. These famous actors and politicians who want to ban guns, have a security team with guns that protects them. The security I have is myself, a spouse if he is not at work and the local police I pay for if they are available not involved in another protection situation. So 90% of the time I have to rely on myself.
January 13th, 2013 at 9:16 am
Ronald,
According to the FBI, some 2.1 million background checks were done in November, followed by 2.8 million in December. If the FBI says its a record amount, then it must be, mustn’t it? Also, there is now a huge back order on high-capacity magazines. AR-15 sales are also way up according to industry trackers.
Even the NYTimes acknowledges these FACTS!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/us/as-us-weighs-new-rules-sales-of-guns-and-ammunition-surge.html?_r=0
You really are becoming quite the bore, Ronald!
January 13th, 2013 at 9:25 am
BTW, Ronald,
As a comparison, according to the FBI ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics ), in the entire year of 2011, the FBI did a grand total of 6,875,625 background checks for those seeking to purchase firearms.
January 13th, 2013 at 9:29 am
Oh, one more thing, Ronald,
“it should be obvious that the mass murder of children is simply good for business.”
You are right about that as there were some 666,000 abortions performed legally by the so-called health industry in 2012. Half were done by Planned Parenthood or an affiliate that they referred their clients to.
January 13th, 2013 at 9:31 am
“Where do you get your statistics that validates your claim that the record level sales of guns and high capacity magazines went to “law abiding citizen”? Truth is, you have none.?”
Truth is you cant validate in anyway how many went to criminals.
On the other had, you idiot, its very simple to compile legal registrations and sales through any retail outlet acting within the law.
Buying thru proper channels is considered “law abiding” and those law abiding owners may or may not in the future use those guns illegally which would be for the courts to decide. So until that situation arises and the guns are purchased thru legal channels and those people are in fact “law abiding citizens”
“In light of the NRA actually bragging about their 100K additional paying members since the shootings, jumping from 4.1 million to 4.2 and even saying “Our goal is to get to 5 million before this debate is over”, it should be obvious that the mass murder of children is simply good for business.”
Wrong ass hole. You’re one sick dude.
Its all this talk of more regulation that has people rushing to the shops.
“And in your world of Plutocracy and Social Darwinism, businesses, through their purchase of government, speak for the people regardless of the voice of the people.”
Then they dont speak for the people you moron
January 13th, 2013 at 9:37 am
Sue, I haven’t advocated eliminating, banning, restricting, or even tweaking gun legislation one way or the other.
What I did was point out the hypocrisy in Andrew’s post (which as usual, really wasn’t much of a challenge). He builds his entire argument on how “the Obama White House is getting its marching orders from Soros and his C.A.P. Organization” while ignoring the cowardly GOP who are owned by the highly profitable and prominent NRA (who are openly bragging about their huge profits and more power acquired by the mass murder of innocent school children).
But then again, this is coming from a guy that just recently condemned health care for the poor as there’s only enough attention to go around for the rich. Doctors tending the lower class would cause the upper class to wait in line longer. The darker side of the GOP mindset just gets uglier by the day.
January 13th, 2013 at 9:44 am
Shut up Ronald.
You have no business using plutocracy and Soros in the same breath.
January 13th, 2013 at 9:48 am
Actually Andy, just this morning on Fox News, Chris Wallace made a comment to gun advocate Larry Pratt that 40% of legal gun sales were without background checks. Pratt agreed and went on to say that universal background checks were “a waste of time”.
January 13th, 2013 at 10:06 am
Andy, I’m honestly believe that you and Micky are one and the same as when your gibberish is debunked, you just go off with any non sequitur babble and then expect to be taken seriously. Rationale and common sense just goes out the window.
For starters, you once again in post # 7 ignore the argument with your usual “yeah, uh, well, look over there, look over there!!!!!” which has nothing to do with anything. You then hold the “heath industry” responsible. You exonerate the NRA exploitation and profiting of mass murdered innocent school kids because Planned Parenthood does it too, or something. Yet PPFA is a nonprofit organization.
January 13th, 2013 at 11:12 am
“Actually Andy, just this morning on Fox News, Chris Wallace made a comment to gun advocate Larry Pratt that 40% of legal gun sales were without background checks. Pratt agreed and went on to say that universal background checks were “a waste of time”.
Yeah, those are from person to person, moron.
“For starters, you once again in post # 7 ignore the argument with your usual “yeah, uh, well, look over there, look over there!!!!!” which has nothing to do with anything.”
Hey Einstein, your sht is not as fckin relevant as you’d like to believe.
WTF are you looking at ?
A safer community or just an argument ?
January 13th, 2013 at 11:18 am
“it should be obvious that the mass murder of children is simply good for business.”
Guess what moron ?
You’re the one meandering off into freekin nowhere.
How the hell does the slaughter of 20 kids directly equate to a jump in gun sales ?
MURDERING CHILDREN IS NOT WHATS GOOD FOR GUN SALES YOU COMPLETE FCKING ASS HOLE !!!!!!!!!!!
ITS LIBERAL SHTS LIKE YOU TALKING ABOUT INCREASED REGULATION !!!!
DO-YOU-UNDER-STAND ???
January 13th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Ronald, why is taking away weapons important to the Marxist agenda?
January 13th, 2013 at 12:49 pm
My apologies for snapping with caps.
But Ronald, you do say some incredibly stoopid sht.
January 13th, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Because the Marxist Orwellian objective is to disarm any resistance to the collective.
Be it thru the media, propaganda or any concept that fosters individuality in any sense. Even if it means blowin the brains outta some guy whos raping your kid, or your country.
Guys like Ron breed petri dishs for anarchy.
Guns are the only thing that stops them.
“Actually Andy, just this morning on Fox News, Chris Wallace made a comment to gun advocate Larry Pratt that 40% of legal gun sales were without background checks. Pratt agreed and went on to say that universal background checks were “a waste of time”.”
“Actually” I DVRd it and just watched Chris say that checks were still effective to some degree.
January 13th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Patrick, I cannot speak for the Marxist agenda so not sure why you asked. As I mentioned in post #9, I haven’t advocated taking away weapons on any level.
I’m not sure why I’m even responding as ovbiously, reading and then understanding what you’ve read doesn’t seem to be your long suit.
January 13th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
“Patrick, I cannot speak for the Marxist agenda ”
Thats a load of crap.
Just about every discussion on economics with you shows your Marxist fangs
January 13th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
“When the British Banned Guns the Crime Rate went up 4 times. In England for every 100,000 humans the crime rate is 2,000. In America for every 100,000 humans the crime rate is 466. When criminals know they may be shot by an individual they may harm, the criminal thinks twice about commiting a crime.”
That may be a tad disingenuous when the murder rate per capita in the United Kingdom is 1.2 per 100,000, while ours is exactly four times that at 4.8. It sounds like you may get your car stereo stolen, but live to tell about it in England.
Oh, just for the heck of it, Honduras is “number one with a bullet” at 91 per 100,000.
January 13th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Its been over 200 years and the pricks are still trying to take away our guns.
And they still havent figured out that when you try to take a guys gun from him with the promise of world peace you’ll get shot.
January 13th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
George Soros ?
Guns saved his ass from being gassed
January 13th, 2013 at 3:11 pm
The Sunday Morning Talking Heads of the MSM seem to be Retreating, at a Full Gallup, from their Cocky Self-Assured positions of only a week or two ago.
Then, it was ‘This Is It. The Final Straw. We will Now Gut the 2nd Amendment’
Now, they are getting a bit more realistic. Political Suicide is not on the menu.
Ain’t Goin’ Be No Assault Weapon Ban. Ain’t Goin’ Be No Mag Cap Limit.
Now, these Idiots will go Batshit on Mental Health. They’ll try to get anyone who farts in church on a ‘No Sell’um Gun’ list.
Considering the obvious nutcases on the Left, a Mental Health Pogrom could backfire.
Jeanine Garofellatio of the Hairy Armpits could be among the first to end up battling Nurse Ratched.
January 13th, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Awl…
This happens every time.
Columbine,Tuscon,Batman movie,Sandyhook…
The talkin heads get on the tube and play gallant ass holes to the rescue.
No one seems to mind armed guards transporting cash in armored vehicles but God forbid we protect humans the same way.
We can put a mans life between cash and a criminal but not between our kids and criminals.
So tell me. Who actually needs the psych evaluation ?
January 13th, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Ronald, your misunderstanding of market economics is classic Marxist dogma, as is the terminology you use. Just assumed the obvious, but I understand not everyone is comfortable with labels and some people believe things without understanding why. (by the way, you don’t have to be a spokesperson to identify with a group, so your comment has nothing to do with your own self-identification)
January 13th, 2013 at 6:07 pm
Would be interesting to hear what Ron believes his self identification is.
Everybody grab a can of BS repellent
January 13th, 2013 at 6:16 pm
“A patriotic group of citizens who believe firmly in the U.S. Constitution are planning on creating their own community in western Idaho called ′The Citadel′. Upwards of 7,000 families of like mind may relocate there to find shelter in our evermore disturbing world.”
Oh yeah, this is a plan that can’t fail.
I would love to see it happen and then watch the inevitable documentary a few years later on where it all went wrong.
Let’s see, what would it be like and what can possibly go wrong?
Power struggle? Check.
Secession? Oh, yeah.
Religious infighting? A given.
Sexual abuse charges? Inevitable.
Splinter groups within the “splinter” group? Yup.
A border fence? Yes, but unclear whether it is to keep people in or out.
Diversity? Sure, well, maybe not.
Weapons? Oh, yeah, lots of ‘em.
Confederate flags? Well, OK, but only under our “New Nation” flag with one or more slogans like “Don’t Tread on Me” or “Takin’ our Country Back”, or some other nonsense?
Prayer in school? Mandatory, but must honor the first real “leader” of the Citadel, who will certainly designate himself as a deity (it always happens, see James Jones, Joseph Smith, etc.). Perhaps everyone can call him, oh, I don’t know, “Father”, “Your Eminence” or just plain “Glenn”?
Defense? Well, since everyone is packing heat (preferably a Bushmaster), they are all considered part of the new Citadel Armed Services, but they will shoot anyone that tries to “breach the perimeter”. Everyone will have to train like the Michigan Militia, which requires everyone to get into “costume”, put black stuff all over their face and roll around in the woods. General Nugent will be in charge.
Following the Constitution? Oh yeah, to the letter. Even though the constitution was written 212 years ago, it will be followed as if it was written yesterday. Kinda like the Koran.
Crime and punishment? Well, there probably won’t be any crime because it will populated by the “right” people. If, however, there are crimes, they will be dealt with harshly and there won’t be any of that getting off on a technicality or any Miranda nonsense.
Lawyers? Who needs them? Not with this group.
Music? Anything you want as long as it is not rap. Oh, and not too loud.
Money? Separate currency backed up by gold.
Taxes? Only a minimal flat tax.
Education? Sure, but not that liberal elitist kind they teach at those Pinko schools in the Northeast.
Science? It will be a hybrid, you know, people riding around on dinosaurs like how it was in Bedrock.
Communication with the outside world? Do we have to?
Documentation? Must be kept on your person at all times. “Can I see your papers please?”
Health care? Private and real expensive (but, you know, competitive), but there will be a pre-admittance physical, no pre-existing conditions here in the Citadel.
Patriotism? Well everyone here at the Citadel is “more” patriotic than regular people. Why? Because we said so.
Television shows. Lots of documentaries, like Leave it to Beaver or the Andy Griffith Show (those are accurate descriptions of what life was really like, right?). The Citadel will aspire to get back to that way of life (even though it really never existed).
Economy? Umm…, well….? Maybe we can grow potatoes?
Energy? Fossil fuels baby, preferably coal and crude oil. No silly wind farms or solar in the Citadel. “Drill baby, drill”.
EPA? You’re kidding right? Just throw your stuff in the moat.
Media? Any and all Internet, radio and television that is “approved”. No “lamestream” media. (Saw a great comment on that the other day about the time Sarah Palin said it on Fox for the 1000th time, while she was ripping Megyn Kelly for a perceived slight when Megyn Kelly said Palin was at the “bottom of the polls”. It was a clever take-off on Pulp Fiction, “Go ahead, say Lamestream again, say lamestream again, I dare you, I double dare you, M…. F…” Perhaps Palin should have retired that line some years ago, especially when every time she says it she gets that smirk like she just said it for the first time and it is the funniest, most innovative and important thing ever uttered. Of course she will be invited to be one of the leading intellectuals here in the Citadel.
Dissenting opinions? These people will be banned, first for a month and than forever.
Isn’t Tom Monaghan trying something like this in Florida except it has an adherence to his version of fundamentalist Catholicism?
Oh yeah, this will be great, like many that went before it. Jonestown, Waco, etc.
“Next on A and E, the Citadel…What Went Wrong?”
January 13th, 2013 at 6:27 pm
How many people have been killed with guns since Newtown?
812.
How many teens?
27.
How many children?
8.
January 13th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
“Following the Constitution? Oh yeah, to the letter. Even though the constitution was written 212 years ago, it will be followed as if it was written yesterday. Kinda like the Koran.”
How stupid is that ?
Theres not nearly half as much room for interpretation between a document written by a consensus of numerous individuals in an effort to keep man free and a religious theory that holds more potential for mans oppression than any other scripture.
If I’m correct, it seemed to be “the thing” for moonbats in the 60s to create their own communes.
The difference is that those communes failed because they were based on socialist philosophies that gave us winners like Haight/Ashbury.
So please, spare us the smug disdain for people who are tired of the status quo.
At least they’re not bending over and pulling their cheeks apart for some fcked up government.
January 13th, 2013 at 7:00 pm
“How many people have been killed with guns since Newtown?
812.”
Is there a point to this ?
January 13th, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Buzz;
““How many people have been killed with guns since Newtown?
812.”
In 2009, the highest number of reported abortions occurred in New York (119,996), Florida (81,918) and Texas (77,630); the fewest occurred in Wyoming (≤20), South Dakota (769) and North Dakota (1,290) (CDC).
January 13th, 2013 at 7:46 pm
“How stupid is that ?
Theres not nearly half as much room for interpretation between a document written by a consensus of numerous individuals in an effort to keep man free and a religious theory that holds more potential for mans oppression than any other scripture.”
It is more about the strict interpretation of a document.
Well except for “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”.
“Well regulated militia”, Well, no.
“Security of a free state?” Umm…no.
No, instead it means that people can buy countless weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition because they may be robbed by the Huns and will have to shoot two or three hundred people that are trying to break in and steal the new flat screen television you just bought. Yup, 300 rounds ought to do it.
Well, either that or they may be hungry and kill 200 deer. It turns out they were really hungry (and poor shots).
How stupid is that?
January 13th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Buzz;
““How many people have been killed with guns since Newtown?
812.”
In 2009, the highest number of reported abortions occurred in New York (119,996), Florida (81,918) and Texas (77,630); the fewest occurred in Wyoming (≤20), South Dakota (769) and North Dakota (1,290) (CDC).”
Oh, am I on the wrong post? I must be since the title had something to do with guns or something and that was what the comments were referring to.
I didn’t know the subject changed.
What should we do next, deaths associated with drunk driving? People dying due to our inadequate health insurance system? The oncoming epidemic of post traumatic stress disorder?
I simply need to know when the main subject changes so I don’t appear to be introducing some red herring or intentionally trying to apply misdirection as that could be construed as being less than sincere or genuine.
By the way, is it true that there are fewer abortions in the less populous states? Say it isn’t so.
January 13th, 2013 at 9:37 pm
Poor buzzboo
He sounds exhausted. Prolly bin gobblin’ Truck Driver ‘Green Beans’.
He senses that the Hope & Change never got off the ground and never will. All Is Lost.
Bitter Bitter buzzboo.
Snap out of it, Boy ! Go buy yourself a Bushmaster. Gotta Gitta Gun, Son.
See if you can find some idiot to buy that stupid Solar Array on your roof. Git a Case of Ammo.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A_7pTrTCQAMDOqP.jpg
January 13th, 2013 at 10:02 pm
“By the way, is it true that there are fewer abortions in the less populous states? Say it isn’t so.”
If your point is that guns kill more people than people do…
you’re wrong.
You’re in the business if selling drugs.
So, whos fckin fault is it when people OD on the prescription drugs you bring to market ?
Your fault ?
No more your fault than its a guns fault for a shooting death.
“n a period of nine months, a tiny Kentucky county of fewer than 12,000 people sees a 53-year-old mother, her 35-year-old son, and seven others die by overdosing on pain medications obtained from pain clinics in Florida.1 In Utah, a 13-year-old fatally overdoses on oxycodone pills taken from a friend’s grandmother.2 A 20-year-old Boston man dies from an overdose of methadone, only a year after his friend also died from a prescription drug overdose.3
These are not isolated events. Drug overdose death rates in the United States have more than tripled since 1990 and have never been higher. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs.
The role of prescription painkillers
Although many types of prescription drugs are abused, there is currently a growing, deadly epidemic of prescription painkiller abuse. Nearly three out of four prescription drug overdoses are caused by prescription painkillers—also called opioid pain relievers. The unprecedented rise in overdose deaths in the US parallels a 300% increase since 1999 in the sale of these strong painkillers.4 These drugs were involved in 14,800 overdose deaths in 2008, more than cocaine and heroin combined.4
The misuse and abuse of prescription painkillers was responsible for more than 475,000 emergency department visits in 2009, a number that nearly doubled in just five years.
More than 12 million people reported using prescription painkillers nonmedically in 2010, that is, using them without a prescription or for the feeling they cause.
Now, what was your point ?
January 13th, 2013 at 10:14 pm
Oh, and Buzz…
Lets not forget all the poor souls who’ve had their brains blown out over a handful of the drugs you sell.
January 13th, 2013 at 11:45 pm
So now we are on to the subject of prescription pain killers?
No correlation there either.
What’s next, people die in car accidents so we should stop making cars?
These examples are simply not analogous. Well, other than you getting in another cheap shot about my business. Why is that by the way?
Also, since really don’t know the particulars of my business you are making comments based on very little information.
Hmmm…I am concerned that neither of you will be accepted into the Citadel. Of course, since it is inevitable that it ends up either with a Kool-Aid party or a Waco episode, this is probably good news.
While “the Citadel” will never happen (beyond 20 families camping for six months) I would love to see how it played out (without the horrific ending of course).
A bunch of uber-Patriots (who have all, no doubt, uttered something along the lines of “taking our country back” at some point) taking their self-righteousness to Idaho and attempting to govern a bunch of other individuals that also think they are somehow “special”.
By the way, what makes these people Patriots? Is there a test? Certification? What is it about the right that makes them think they are “more patriotic”? Is it the flag pins on their lapels?
I swear I read comments on this site that except for a little minor updating, are nothing but bumper stickers from the late sixties.
I really did read comments that were a lot like “you don’t like it here, why not leave?” Isn’t that the same as the late 60’s bumper sticker, “If you don’t like it, leave it”.
As an aside, where do they think people would go? It isn’t easy to emigrate to another country. I have a friend that is a nurse and she married a Canadian and the amount of paperwork and obstacles she has been confronted with is mind-boggling. Even as a nurse (which they also need in Canada), her chances of being able to work in the next year are minimal.
The whole “leave it” is also odd considering it usually emanates from a group of people that employs a rhetoric that borders on anarchy. I have never heard more complaining in my life.
“Taking the country back”, “Seceding from the country”, “Impeachment” over, well, anything.
Isn’t it more a case of “like it the say I like it, or leave it”?
January 14th, 2013 at 4:21 am
‘ . . . you are making comments based on very little information. ‘
Geezus !
Coming from You, buzz, that IS a Hoot.
January 14th, 2013 at 5:31 am
@ Ronald,
Wow, I have a lot to catch up on! As for your post #12, Ronald, you failed to mention that I addressed your points, and defeated them soundly with sources, in my posts of #5 and #6. My post #7 was to point out the hypocrisy of the entire Liberal-Progressive argument about how all of this gun control talk is solely for the purposes of saving the lives of children. The very same children that you folks have no problem snuffing out via abortion for life-style reasons and the very rare medical condition.
January 14th, 2013 at 5:35 am
@ buzzbee,
In regards to your post #20, which trend would you want to follow? The UK where violent murders have increased by a factor of 4 since their gun ban laws or our decrease in violent murders by 49% thanks to more citizens being able to purchase and carry firearms?
January 14th, 2013 at 5:40 am
@ buzzbee,
As for your scoffing at The Citadel, I suppose you also are opposed to gated communities in general, even those inhabited by wealthy Liberals? Or maybe you prefer the urban decay of Duh-troit, a wonderful example of decades of Liberal-Progressive politics? Ever seen that ‘Then-and-Now’ photo comparison of Hiroshima and Detroit? How both cities looked just after WW2 and how each looks today? I’m sure you have. Somebody emails me the photo-set at least once every 3 or 4 months.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:22 am
Patrick @ your off topic post # 25, you once again present some binary conclusion that anyone that doesn’t kowtow to every wish of Big Corporate is obviously uneducated or economically inept. “People believe things without understanding why” as you say. And accordingly, by your binary conclusion, well over half of the U.S. population must be Marxist (even though the mere existence of a Marxist philosophy is arguable), as they failed to elect a Big Corp advocate?
January 14th, 2013 at 6:39 am
“So now we are on to the subject of prescription pain killers?
No correlation there either.”
Yeah thereis.
Whos to blame for deaths due to guns or drugs ?
The drugs ? The guns ?
Pretty simple moron.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:45 am
Andy, I’m amused that you feel that an admission in post 5 & 6 that the arms industry is enjoying record sales “soundly defeats” my point. Did you just wake up or something? Can you not follow a simple conversation?
Your argument is that “the Obama White House is getting its marching orders from Soros and his C.A.P. Organization”. My argument is that the NRA has huge influence and huge financial gain in this fight. As mentioned, the NRA has bragged of a 100K member increase and n expectation of another 800K as a direct result of of this debate. And you’re telling me that can’t be true and my argument is “soundly defeated” because gun sales are through the roof?
To be honest, we’re past the “shooting fish in a barrel” game. It’s become less enjoyable mopping the floor with you and Patrick. It’s almost to the point that I’m starting to feel sorry for you two.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:45 am
” as they failed to elect a Big Corp advocate?”
Of course Obama is a big corp advocate.
Like all presidents, he picks and chooses.
In his case, its usually union and green affiliations that depend on wealth redistribution.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:51 am
I think Buzz is doin stimulants.
More like hot plate meth.
Lotta lengthy pointless posts where he seems to be answering his own questions,ramblin to himself and no one else.
January 14th, 2013 at 7:17 am
Ronald,
In your original post, #1, you claim that I just made up stats out of thin air. So I provided two sources, the NY Times and the FBI. That is why I soundly defeated your statement!
As for the NRA, according to reports on the news over the weekend, I saw that in the 2012 elections, the NRA spent only about $4 Million dollars nationwide on political campaigns. Given the massive amounts spent by both parties and their confederates, the NRA’s funds were a paltry sum.
Oh, and it seems that the Democrats are now reversing since they are not all that anxious to make gun control a political issue. Why? Because the vast majority of Americans want their Second Amendment rights protected.
January 14th, 2013 at 7:20 am
Micky, can you believe these guys? Next thing you know is that Ronald will accuse us of being Buzzbee, too, just so we can fake arguments here!
January 14th, 2013 at 7:25 am
You could tell Ronald that water is wet and he’d counter with a dry Martini.
January 14th, 2013 at 7:35 am
Yeah Andy, its getting kind of rudimentary with these guys.
I’m in the process of getting full implants and looking more forward to that than arguing with these dolts.
The Citadel is a right to assemble. Period.
Guns arent going anywhere and kill less people than disease, drugs, and abortion. Period
Obama is a self admitted re-distributor of wealth.
We have him on tape advocating spreading wealth.
Who cares if he ever invokes Karl Marx.
I’m gonna go get my jaw drilled and smile the whole time.
ass holes
January 14th, 2013 at 7:39 am
“To be honest, we’re past the “shooting fish in a barrel” game. It’s become less enjoyable mopping the floor with you and Patrick. It’s almost to the point that I’m starting to feel sorry for you two.”
Good grief ass hole.
I’m the child of a lesser God and you cant even handle my ass !
How many times a day do you look in the mirror and whack off ?
January 14th, 2013 at 8:38 am
Andy, if you want to declare victory by cherry picking one aspect of the argument and presenting a week tea argument, go ahead and amuse yourself. We’ll just go ahead and ignore that transactions at gun shows and online are exempt from the back ground check requirement. We’ll just assume those 6 million guns went strictly to “law abiding citizens”. You win so gloat to your heart’s content. And to further humor you, well pretend that the actual screening is flawless and no one slips through the cracks. If you state on the form that you’re not crazy, it just has to be true. And I’ll even concede that there has never been anyone with a clean record that buys a gun with less than honorable intentions. So you got me!
As explained to Sue in post #9, you cry foul as “the Obama White House is getting its marching orders from Soros and his C.A.P. Organization” yet you totally ignore the power of the “marching orders” of the NRA who by the way, are profiting quite handsomely from this.
Do you seriously expect any credibility when you dummy down the NRA’s political influence? Really? That argument should insult even your intelligence. It doesn’t even deserve a response as even Fox, WSJ, and most every right wing political hack in the country respects the NRA’s power. Do you seriously dispute their influence? They are very likely why “Democrats are now reversing since they are not all that anxious to make gun control a political issue”. Of course they’re not. What politician in their right mind wants a fight with the NRA?
And in your moment of basking in your “statistical” win on registration, I’ll even agree with you that the vast majority of Americans want their Second Amendment rights protected. And so do I. And I really don’t want “the Obama White House getting its marching orders from Soros and his C.A.P. Organization”. But likewise, I don’t want our legislators getting their marching orders to silence reasonable discussion from the NRA. When you support one but not the other, it only exposes what an abject hypocrite you are.
January 14th, 2013 at 8:39 am
Ronald, once again your use of terminology like “Big Corporate” with the amusing caps gives you away. Nobody talks like that except for Marxists, certainly not half the population.
Buzz, we have 300 million people. What is the probability of getting killed by guns? And what is the probability if you are not a gang member? We could ask the Marxist but science is not their strong point.
January 14th, 2013 at 9:02 am
” We’ll just go ahead and ignore that transactions at gun shows and online are exempt from the back ground check requirement”
Thats bullsht.
January 14th, 2013 at 9:07 am
” What politician in their right mind wants a fight with the NRA?”
Well Ronald, its a statistically solid fact that the left has repeatedly tried to take on the NRA, a “fight” if you will, which then by your own admission makes them not in their right minds.
You’re so stupid
January 14th, 2013 at 10:05 am
Major Garret slams Obama!
January 15th, 2013 at 6:23 am
Ronald,
Nobody is “dummy down” the influence of the NRA in politics. Although a good deal of effort is made by the Far-Left to dummy down the influence of unions every election.
As Micky pointed out, the Democrats have tried to go after the NRA in the past and guess what? THEY LOST!!! My guess is that the NRA was successful in promoting their view as to the meaning of the Second Amendment whereas the Democrats showed themselves to care less about our fundamental, Creator-given rights.
January 15th, 2013 at 7:06 am
Here we go again Andy, you post about the small NRA influence in post 47 and when called out on it, you deny it with “uh, but the unions, the unions, those damn unions”. “Look over there, the UNNNIOOONSS!!!”
I read very little of what Micky points out as he is as much of a joke as you’ve come to be. You have no argument, no rebuttal, no nothing,,much like Micky.
Just glance up at Micky’s post #54:
The same troll that demands links from me provides nothing, just a simple denial of reality as if his word has credence. Recent Post/ABC polls show 85% and Pew show 88% want to close the “gun show” loophole which allows the private sale of guns without a background check. You seem to nod in agreement that that’s a fabricated argument, it isn’t real or I just made it up, even giving your troll accolades for his credibility.
But hey, how bout them unions?
January 15th, 2013 at 7:41 am
Ronald,
As usual you are practicing intellectual dishonesty. The point I made in my post #47 was that as far as the 2012 election cycle goes, the NRA had very little influence. They spent only $4 Million dollars for all of their political campaigns last year. Gun control was not a national issue. It was hardly mentioned by any of the presidential candidates.
In regards to closing loopholes for private sales of firearms, I do not see how you can do that unless there is open access to the background check process. Then we cross into privacy issues as well as those of personal property.
We already have plenty of laws on the books today. Maybe enforcing them more thoroughly instead of writing new laws is the better way to go?
January 15th, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Ron;
“I read very little of what Micky points out as he is as much of a joke as you’ve come to be. You have no argument, no rebuttal, no nothing,,much like Micky.
Just glance up at Micky’s post #54:”
54
micky Says:
January 14th, 2013 at 9:02 am
Ron;
” We’ll just go ahead and ignore that transactions at gun shows and online are exempt from the back ground check requirement”
Thats bullsht.”
Ronald, it is in fact bullsht that gun shows are exempt from doing background checks.
To be more precise, most gunshow sales do in fact require background checks previous to sales.
Some states in the United States have numerous gun shows, such as Texas, and other states rarely have gun shows, such as New Jersey. In New Jersey, only one small gun show (fewer than 200 people) takes place monthly, and absolutely no transfers of modern firearms are allowed at the show, which is run by an antique gun collectors club. New Jersey, by U.S. standards, has very strict firearms regulations and laws. In Texas, over 150 gun shows take place every year, most shows attracting thousands of patrons. There is very little state or federal regulation of private transfers of firearms at these shows. Other states, such as Colorado, take more of a middle ground. In Colorado, about 50 gun shows take place each year, and private sales of any firearms are prohibited at all gun shows. All firearms sales at Colorado gun shows must be made by a federally licensed firearms dealer, and include a criminal background check. Private sales/transfers of firearms in the state of Colorado outside of gun shows are still legal. In contrast, in many other states, private sales/transfers of firearms between private citizens of the same state are entirely legal, regardless of whether within or outside of gunshows.”
No joke here ass hole, just the facts.
The more” precise facts” that is.
Besides, the reality behind illegal guns is…
1)Tour focus on guns shows presents a very narrow and limited narrative.
2) If I want to buy a gun with no traceable documentation of any kind I would not make a purchase that involves thousands of witnesses or even a receipt of transaction.
I could simply go to China Town right here in downtown Honolulu and get me a .44 or a.38 for 500 bucks in 1/2 an hour.
No joke at all, I simply made the point that your vaguely simplistic blame on gun shows “as a whole” was and is bullsht.
January 15th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
“The same troll that demands links from me provides nothing, just a simple denial of reality as if his word has credence. Recent Post/ABC polls show 85% and Pew show 88% want to close the “gun show” loophole which allows the private sale of guns without a background check. You seem to nod in agreement that that’s a fabricated argument, it isn’t real or I just made it up, even giving your troll accolades for his credibility.”
Ronald, Ronald, Ronald…
These polls in no way make the connection to illegal guns or the crimes committed with them.
January 15th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
So Andy, from your own admission, I was correct in post #1
So you admit there’s a loop hole that keeps us from knowing if the buyers are “law abiding citizens” but the reality is that you don’t want to change that despite the fact that “gun sales are going thru the roof” while claiming you “soundly defeated” my argument in post #47 while endorsing Micky’s rebuttal in post #10 of “Shut up Ronald”, #54 “Thats bullsht”, #55 “you’re so stupid”, etc , etc. And I’m “practicing intellectual dishonesty”???
You state in post #47 that “the vast majority of Americans want their Second Amendment rights protected” while ignoring the overwhelming polls of people wanting a conversation. For some strange reason you invoke the NRA’s “paltry sum” of 2012 contributions while claiming “Nobody is “dummy down” the influence of the NRA in politics”. Soros and the Center for American Progress should be banned because of their political influence while the NRA is welcome as they have great political influence??
But hey, how bout them unions?
January 15th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
“So you admit there’s a loop hole that keeps us from knowing if the buyers are “law abiding citizens” but the reality is that you don’t want to change that despite the fact that “gun sales are going thru the roof”
All gun sale transactions that are legally documented reflect “law abiding citizens” until that gun is used in a criminal manner.
Theres tons of documentation confirming law abiding purchases while any idiot knows illegally purchased guns leave much less of a trail.
So your argument, again, is fckin retarded.
“And I’m “practicing intellectual dishonesty”???”
Yes, you’re incredibly wordy and say nothing, or voice complete idiocy.
I on the other hand are much more concise and to the point.
By now I cant even remember what your fckin point is, what remedy you suggest will curb or rid us of these public shootings, and I’m not about to read your crap all over again.
So far, it seems your only argument is that simple truths are non-existent,Andy and I are twins, I’m a troll, were plutocratic Darwin bots when actually its Obama that represents Plutocratic Darwinism more than anyone whos ever held the presidency, guns shows for some obscure reason are the link to crimes committed with guns, you say you dont want anyone to have their guns taken away, you respect the 2nd amendment,Andy has no links, I have no links, 85-88% want gun show loopholes closed, (yeah, so ? I’d like them closed and so does Andy) ….
WTF Ronald ?
What I come up with is this.
You’re a hatefully obtuse and shifty b@stard who wants to fault the NRA and Republicans for something thats more a mental health issue than anything you’re claiming.
January 15th, 2013 at 1:33 pm
“Soros and the Center for American Progress should be banned because of their political influence while the NRA is welcome as they have great political influence??”
You idiot.
Our 2nd amendment has been in place long before that Marxist socialist idiot Soros came along with the intent of fundamentally changing our country and government to a communist state.
Soros and his intentions are behind his desire for a world government replacing ours and headed by the UN.
The NRAs only political agenda is to make sure we keep the rights that protect us from idiots like Soros.
Soros has his grubby little paws invested in every conceivable means of anti American propaganda while the NRAs main focus is on promotion of gun ownership, gun safety, competition etc.
Once again, you make a retarded comparison and claim
January 15th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
I see where you got that bit of information about specific states, Micky, but you must have missed this part:
“In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the “Following the Gun” report. The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. “Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations.”
These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: “A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons.
The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations.”
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun%202000.pdf
January 15th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Just to be clear, are you guys saying that guns are not being bought at gun shows without background checks or that they are, but it does not matter.
I am simply not sure what the disagreement is about.
Should people be able to buy guns without background checks?
If so, why?
January 15th, 2013 at 3:11 pm
I think that was one of my points Buzzbee albeit I may not have articulated it well. Andy states or implies that the explosion in sales of guns and high-capacity magazines have been by “law abiding citizens”. He then gives a silent nod to Micky only to come back in post 59 that “We already have plenty of laws on the books today”.
January 15th, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Yeah Buzz, that post quoted from Wkipedia was only to show how Ronald often fails to include vital components of stats.
My point, as I’ve said many times, but should of reiterated more often, is that gun shows, background checks, clip regulations, etc are not issues if approached will do one damn thing to protect our kids.
The largest majority of gun violence is directly connected to the stupid war on drugs, gangs, and in these psycho acts of terror where we lose 20 1st graders is a mental health issue.
==========
Ron;
“He then gives a silent nod to Micky only to come back in post 59 that “We already have plenty of laws on the books today”.”
Goodgrief man !
Where’d this “silent nod” come from ?
WTF are you talking about ?
And where did you get a quote of me saying “We already have plenty of laws on the books today”.??????????
This is a point I’ve made many times concerning you Ronald.
You fabricate bullsht out of thin air, whole cloth, and then back peddle in some bullsht intellectually dishonest manner.
All I’m saying is this…
The laws we have or dont have in relation to those subjected to gun show sales, aversion regulation, ammo limits,background checks , etc, etc…
will not stop these monsters from getting guns and shoot up our kids and young adults in colleges.
Guns are simply another substance that can be abused in the wrong hands.
Gun owners should be held to a standard of securing their weapons.
The public needs to be more educated as to what the signs and behaviors would be of rage, depression, internal unrest etc.
We need to get to the bottom of what no doubt is a very scary trend in violence and the dynamics that feed it.
All this back n forth sht about the NRA,the left, the right, more gun laws, gun shows etc..
aint gonna solve a fckin thing gentlemen !!
As I’m typing this the second campus shooting today is being reported !!
January 15th, 2013 at 4:43 pm
” “We already have plenty of laws on the books today”.”
Okay, my mistake, that was Andy you quoted, not me.
Sure looked like you said I said it.
January 16th, 2013 at 5:37 am
@ Ronald:
“So Andy, from your own admission, I was correct in post #1.”
Umm, no, Ronald, you were NOT correct! How you came to that conclusion is beyond my grasp?
Look, it is all very simple. A) I gave stats, and later sources, that yes indeed, the was a surge in gun purchases by “law abiding citizens.” B) The mere fact that the 4.9 million people who submitted to FBI background checks to purchase a gun tells us that they are “law abiding citizens”, at least as far as following the laws to purchase firearms go.
Now, IF you had bothered to read the FBI report linked on the page I provided concerning gun background checks, you would see that in 2011, along with some 6+ Million FBI background checks being done, there were also some 14+ Million background checks performed by State governments. The report does not, however, indicate how many of these state checks were in addition to the federal ones. So let us assume that they were which means about 6 Million went through both levels of checks and 8 Million just went through their local state checks.
Overall, about 7% of those seeking to purchase firearms were rejected for some reason as a result of the federal background checks. Thus proving that the current system does work to some degree. Could it be improved? Of course!
On the subject of polls and people wanting to have a “conversation”, you conveniently ignore the same polls when the question of having a “conversation” about mental health and violent entertainment issues. The same polls that show people want so-called ‘assault weapons’ banned also show that they want more regulation and restrictions concerning these other aspects of the culture of violence.
January 16th, 2013 at 5:48 am
@ Buzzbee,
Should people be able to buy guns without a background check? I would have to say in some cases, yes. If I, myself as a non-dealer, am selling a gun to somebody that I know, I should be able to do so. If the local law allows such a sale without a permit to buy, then there is no reason for me to do a background check on somebody whom I already know, such as a family member or personal friend. Here in Michigan, one needs a permit to purchase a pistol, so obviously I should only be able to sell a pistol to someone who has such a permit.
Here is a question I have for you…
If we are to require a background check to exercise a fundamental right, should such be limited only to purchasing firearms? Perhaps we should also require background checks in order to vote? After all, voting as an act of using force. Perhaps the most powerful force an individual can levy.
January 16th, 2013 at 7:05 am
Andy, it’s funny that you put so much emphasis on such a minute aspect of the argument. It’s as if your blatantly failed attempt somehow vindicates you from the abject hypocrisy you present on every front. You whine about the CAP influence while kowtowing to the NRA, who has much greater influence. You ignore that 40% can buy online or gun shows without a background check (according to Chris Wallace on Sun morning Fox). So how can you claim claim they’re all law abiding citizens while admitting “Could it (back ground checks) be improved? Of course!” and then flipping to “We already have plenty of laws on the books today”? And in your confusing incoherent attempt to justify your nonsense, it’s all good because, well, bad guys can’t buy guns because no gun dealer would sell them unchecked lest they be his friend. WTF? But hey glance up the thread at your rationales. How bout them abortions? Hey, look over there at them unions! And you wonder why I compare you to Micky!
And we can forget about those upper 80% wanting a discussion about this (which is being silenced at all cost by the powerful NRA)because, hey, look over there , how “about mental health and violent entertainment issues”, them people wanta talk too so take that!
January 16th, 2013 at 7:54 am
@ Ronald,
Good grief! The fact that millions of law abiding citizens are exercising their Constitutional rights is hardly a minute point. As for who has more influence in Washington, I would have to say that the NRA would love to enjoy the power the Center for American Progress enjoys currently. Most of the 2009 Stimulus bill that cost us taxpayers some $900 BILLION dollars was drafted by the CAP. As powerful as the NRA is, they lag far behind the CAP.
Concerning the 40% of gun transactions that take place without background checks, I would like to see more data on those. How many of them were inherited firearms? I personally know a woman who inherited a rather substantial collection of rifles from her late father and she did not go through any background check, nor should she had to.
If local governments enforced existing laws at gun shows, which one would think they would do, then there should not be any problems there. But they do not, so does that mean we need new laws that won’t be enforced either? The fact remains that Connecticut already had gun laws that were far and above tougher than those of the federal government, and it did not prevent the video-game-crazed moron who murdered his own mother by stealing her guns and then go off and shoot up a school.
Maybe what we need are background checks before women have babies who are destined to become insane murderers? Or just having any baby should require a background check? One would think that in California you need to pass some standard of tests to drive an automobile. Yet, in Los Angeles, 50% of all traffic accidents are hit and runs. The national average is about 10%. Does LA just have a unique problem with insane drivers mowing people down? Or could this be part of a larger problem concerning illegal immigrants who want to avoid being arrested and deported?
So, if you are a rational person, you would see that the problem with violence, or ultra-violence if you prefer, is not just limited to the ability to purchase firearms. The shootings at Columbine, Aurora and Sandy Hook all point to people with generally the same M-O. In all cases you had young men with mental issues, some with prescribed medications, who spent a good deal of their time playing violent video/computer games or watching violent movies. The Columbine shooters thought they were part of The Matrix and played DOOM a lot. The Aurora shooter thought he was The Joker from the Dark Knight movies and enjoyed violent computer games. While we do not yet know what movies the Sandy Hook shooter watched, we do know he was very heavily into these ‘first-person’ shoot’em-up games. HELLOOOOO!?!?!
January 16th, 2013 at 8:23 am
So you acknowledge that there are gun sales without background checks, but that it is a non-issue?
Well, at least I know where you stand. In that case why don’t we simply allow for the sale of semi-automatic weapons at the local Wal-Mart? Oh, wait a minute, we already do (and by the way, Wal-Mart and the gun manufacturers also have formidable lobbies that are separate from the NRA).
So if you don’t see gun sales with no background checks as a problem, then why have any checks at all?
Wow, you guys are sure intractable
This thread has led us to abortion, video games, movies, bad drivers and a proposed background check for voters (you’re kidding on that one, right?), but the actual instrument used is a complete non-issue. Well, with that in mind any further discussion is a waste of time
To be perfectly honest, even on this site, I am surprised by the stance taken by many of you.
Instead it appears you are going to “fix society”. Well, “good luck with all that”.
January 16th, 2013 at 11:46 am
You guys should be comforted by this. While Micky pointed out the “rare” occasions where states have restrictions, they are, indeed, minimal
A look at some current gun control laws for all states.
States differ on many regulation issues, including background checks at gun shows, concealment permits, the number of rounds allowed in high-capacity magazines and the definition of assault weapons.
Here is the link with maps. You will find that the states with stringent (or more correctly, perfunctory) checks are in the vast minority.
You guys should love this map as it demonstrates a lack of regulatory control (the only problem is they use the color blue to illustrate this point and we know you many of you feel about “blue”)
http://news.msn.com/us/know-your-states-gun-regulations
7 Number of states that require a background check at gun shows
1 Check for handgun sales at gun shows: 1
2 States that don’t allow firearm transactions:
I guess that leaves 40 states with no requirements
7 Mandatory checks for assault weapons:
No checks for assault weapons: all the rest
6 (plus D.C.) Mandatory checks for high capacity magazines: .
No checks: Again, the rest of the states
I guess to circumvent these minimal state restrictions one would have to either drive, get a ride from their Mom, or take a bus. Is that unreasonable?
January 16th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
I see where the NRA now has an ad that highlights that the President’s children have armed guards. Of course they do. The “armed guards are otherwise known as the Secret Service.
Is the NRA the most tone deaf of all organizations?
Of course they did just recently change the age suggestion on their phone app. It simulated shooting AK-47’s, M9 handguns and pump-action shotguns at bull’s-eyes and human-shaped targets.
They deemed it appropriate for any child from ages 4 and up, but recently changed it to 12 and up.
Yup! Stay classy.
And let’s not bring up video games in this context as those are for-profit businesses, while the NRA portrays itself as something else entirely. By the way the average age of video game players is 37 (I have to admit I was surprised by that figure, I didn’t know that many people still lived in their parent’s basement).
January 16th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
This discussion will seem less disengenuous to me when the lofty liberals among us will stipulate that the criminals will get their guns regardless, just as they do now, by stealing them or buying them on the black market. As long as gun purchasing by anyone is legal, they will get them. Where our friends are dreaming to go is criminalize gun ownership eventually, which would be highly effective at reducing crime. Right?
January 16th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
I posted this earlier from a report from the ATF. Do all guns used by criminals emanate from there? No, but closing this glaring loophole would be a start, but even in this grevious example most of you are saying, “Oh no you don’t”
This is the quote from the report of the ATF:
“The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations.””
Of course, since we have over 300 million guns in this country even if we ceased production now (oh, perish the thought) it isn’t likely we run out.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Even thought the CDC was strong-armed out of further research regarding gun safety for the last 17 years by the NRA, this little detail is awfully illuminating.
From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)
Due to the study moratorium the results are dated, but do all of you think the current outcomes are radically different?
January 16th, 2013 at 3:15 pm
You guys really do surprise me.
What is that fantasy world mentioned the other day?
The Citadel?
Hmmm…I could see some of you there, you know running the world like it should be.
I can only imagine that the sheriff’s name will have to be Andy (as in Taylor).
January 16th, 2013 at 3:42 pm
It’s a rather disturbing philosophy Patrick, to say that any discussion to resolve mass murders of innocent school kids should be stifled as “the criminals will get their guns regardless”. Granted the NRA, who have openly bragged of their huge profits and expectations of this debate, has allowed us to entertain notions of arming teachers, restricting rights of playing video games, using President Obama’s daughters as political pawns, and so on but we are held to what discussions the NRA allows lest we be of a Marxist dogma (post 25) with a misunderstanding of market economics or talk like Marxist because we reference the NRA as “Big Corporate” (post 53).
January 17th, 2013 at 4:42 am
@ Buzzbee,
I had to chuckle on your post #80. Many years ago, a buddy and me had ordered a pizza from Little Caesar’s. When we went to pick it up, I told the clerk my name was Andy and what I had ordered. As he went to fetch our lunch, two others working behind the counter started whistling the theme song to the “Andy Griffin Show”. It was pretty funny, especially since my buddy and I were both quite stoned!
January 17th, 2013 at 4:48 am
@ Buzz and Ronald,
The NRA commercial about Obama being an “Elitist Hypocrite” may be a tad over the top but it is essentially accurate. Politicians, movie stars, and the very wealthy usually have armed security protecting them and their families. Yet many of these same folks are the first to deny us ordinary citizens the same ability to protect ourselves.
I guess this is the same line of thinking as to why Obama does not think we are still in a recession or even a depression, since he still has a job. Too bad 24 million other Americans do not.
January 17th, 2013 at 6:53 am
Are we in a recession? While I know there are hard and fast rules to define a recession, I would also want to consider if there will ever be a return to “normal”.
I contend that this is the new normal and we may look back fondly on these days at some point.
For too many reasons to list (mostly demographic) there will never be a return to our not-too-long-ago past economy of the 90’s and our pretend affluence of the early 2000’s.
This is it.
Two working adults per household that can possibly afford one child. The new working poor.
Of course on the flip side, if you have, or are, making good money, services and luxury goods may be “on sale” for some time.
I live in an area in the northern suburbs of Detroit that is comprised of nothing but marinas.
Want a 40 foot cabin cruiser that cost $200,000 just a few years ago?
Grab $20,000 and start making offers. You will have a boat by the end of the day.
January 17th, 2013 at 6:56 am
Andy, based on the wide range and variations of your inconsistent and incoherent arguments, it’s within reason to ask if getting stoned was an experimental era for you or has it simply become a lifestyle?
The Secret Service is paid by tax payers and I really don’t expect that you’d question their rationale. And you’re right that “movie stars, and the very wealthy usually have armed security protecting them and their families” however they or their employer usually picks up that tab. Obviously, most working parents don’t have the resources for such protection, kinda like health care you might say.
Based on your previous writings, it’s obvious you’re not an advocate of increased spending on police. And based on your previous writings, you’re not at all interested in sharing resources with the less fortunate as that would inconvenience the wealthy. As you’ve stated, allowing the poor medical access or insurance would create long lines, “rationing” as you said. As you’ve insinuated, it’s best to just let them go home and die lest the rich man do without.
And somewhere in your quest of having your cake and eating it too, I guess you assume you make some sense or something by saying politicians and movie stars want to deny ordinary citizens the same ability to protect themselves because, uh, well, because they don’t believe we’re in a depression. Take another toke.
January 17th, 2013 at 8:08 am
Hey Buzz,
You don’t have to tell me how bad the boat biz is. I used to be a marine broker. The whole industry went into the toilet in 2008.
The economy is anemic at best. Job growth is pathetic. The overall atmosphere for business and consumers alike is uncertain and dismal. So it may not be a recession or a depression according to Hoyle, but with 24 million Americans still unemployed, most for more than 40 months, things are pretty bad.
January 17th, 2013 at 8:12 am
Ronald,
What I am advocating is individual freedom and responsibility. If I cannot afford my own personal bodyguard, then I at least want to be able to buy myself a gun to protect myself. Naturally, a gun is only protection when I have it with me, so I also want to be able to carry said gun where ever I may go. No need to burden taxpayers on my account.
Is that simple enough for your brain to comprehend?
January 17th, 2013 at 8:29 am
Andy, liberals aren’t exactly self-reliant creatures, and Marxists don’t believe in the concept. You won’t get anywhere.
Ronald, nice try but we all know this has nothing to do with resolving mass murders. Tell me really, why do Marxists want to take away the guns?
January 17th, 2013 at 8:43 am
Well, yeah I understand that just fine Andy. And I also want to be able to buy myself a gun to protect myself at no burden to tax payers. The thing is, I can do that and I don’t see that option being compromised. With that said, what the hell does that have to do with your post # 83 of movie stars having their own guards so they and Obama “want to deny us ordinary citizens the same ability to protect ourselves” because you “guess this is the same line of thinking as to why Obama does not think we are still in a recession or even a depression”?
And how does this factor into your cheer-leading for the admitted powerful NRA to run the show while wanting to silence opposing lobbyist?
You make less sense with each post.
January 17th, 2013 at 10:23 am
Right now I only see an initiative to limit magazine size, specific semi-automatics that have no purpose in hunting (unless you are a really, really, bad shot) and consistency regarding background checks.
Not too dramatic or invasive.
While the NRA and gun advocates will try to say this is the first domino, whcih is rather disingenuous as even these less than dramatic initiatives will have trouble becoming law due to resistance on both sides of the aisle.
The background check probably has the best chance considering this recent poll:
“About 9 in 10 gun owners favor background checks as do people with no firearms in their home. Independents (95 percent), Democrats (93 percent) and Republicans (89 percent) all support a background check for those trying to buy firearms. No matter where people live: in the South, the Northeast, in big cities, in small towns. Even members of the National Rifle Association favor background checks. Only 7 percent of all adults in the survey, conducted Friday though Tuesday, oppose background checks for prospective gun customers.”
January 17th, 2013 at 8:08 pm
@Andy,
I know I’m coming in late, but I’m curious as to what your response is to this graph. This is in response to the last paragraph in post 73.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/video-game-chart-no-trendline.jpg
January 17th, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Well, Snow Crash, that sure seems to take the wind out of that particular sail.
January 17th, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Liberals, stop faking. Other than the U.S. all the countries on that graph have strict gun control laws so you have two moving variables rather than an isolated variable that would make a correlation valid. Is there an honest liberal left in the world?
The relationship between video game consumption and violent personalities is well documented in psychological literature.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-03/health/healthmag.violent.video.kids_1_violent-video-video-games-game-genres?_s=PM:HEALTH
January 18th, 2013 at 4:43 am
Very true, Patrick. The graph from the WashPo that Snow provided also does not stipulate the types of video games purchased. So, no, Buzz, the graph does not take the wind out of our sails.
January 18th, 2013 at 4:53 am
Ronald,
The big differences between the type of protection the elites have versus us common folk are the following:
1) Their security is armed and goes with them everywhere. In most cities, especially in the Northeast, an average citizen cannot carry a gun, even if they went through the legal process of acquiring a purchase permit for a handgun.
2) Professional security is well armed. The big thing in Hollywood these days is hiring ex-Israeli or US military for protection. A whole lot of them are packing some serious heat, including small machine-pistols which are fully automatic.
January 18th, 2013 at 5:00 am
Buzz, I do not have a problem with a background check provided that it is rational and provides for privacy issues. I would have one that would cross check data bases for those who have committed violent crimes and specific mental conditions. The gun seller would not be given any details as to why the sale should be prohibited and there should be a system for a purchaser to contest the data base directly with the FBI or their state police.