Sign in to follow this  
Cacoethesic Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

You must have missed some earlier posts Rockdog, I have no intention to return, been there got the T-shirt. NEXT!

Oh, good. You recovered from your injuries then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly died there, thanks for asking.

Watch your p's & Q's and don't look'em in the eye and they won't shoot you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder just how much longer it'll be before JokeAwf's gun forces him to go violent and start shooting people?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to. His gun will go violent itself and start shooting people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that happens every frickin day here in America....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We spend a lot of time together here. To aid our mutual understanding, and for the benefit of our guns in the USA, please give this post a careful read.

For the benefit of an important discussion, let's avoid personal attacks and spurious comments.

 

 

Gun Ownership Is Declining...So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

 

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

...

 

Intelligent discussion from the SA Gun Club, if possible, is welcome.

 

Hmmm... following that link and links on the page, I got here.

 

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

 

 

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

 

 

 

 

Oooo another post pointing out how bad black Americans are.

 

 

Oooh, another post that won't address whether the gun ownership rates causes the difference in behavior. What a shocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

 

 

No, you continue to misunderstand.

 

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

 

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

 

 

No, you continue to misunderstand.

 

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

 

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

 

 

More race baiting. One gent to another, you were asked you to knock it off.

 

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

 

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

 

 

Six Baltimore officers were just indicted for conduct that would have passed before George Zimmerman came along.

Thanks, George. Thanks SYG.

You see, Tom, gun behavior and race are getting sorted, in fits and starts.

 

"If you don't agree with my pro-gun policy, you are a racist."

Your argument is hollow, elementary, and promotes misunderstanding. For guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

 

 

No, you continue to misunderstand.

 

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

 

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

 

 

 

 

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

 

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

 

 

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

 

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

 

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority and no reason to explain his decisions, there's no way to "sort" them, is there?

 

I think a fair examination of "character" would have objective standards for success or failure. The complete lack of standards and utter faith in the good character and judgement of those with badges of a "may issue" scheme is not for me.

 

But you've jumped from permission to carry to permission to purchase like we have in North Carolina. Like "may issue" carry laws, "may issue" purchase permit laws have a racist history.

 

You didn't answer the questions asked above about that history:

 

Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by "etc." which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of "good moral character" would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer.

 

 

Do you think things have changed so much? I don't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...

In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

 

 

No, you continue to misunderstand.

 

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me. Forty days of this? You're sort of an idiot, I take it.

 

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

 

 

 

 

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

The gun permit process in not necessarily LE; magistrates or court clerks or gun clubs could do it.

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

????

 

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination. No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?

 

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area. Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

 

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way.Bullshit. If a sheriff has unlimited authority WHAT??? and no reason to explain his decisions, risk assessment for firearms is already wide-open; permit denial could encourage stability, since further training or counselling could improve or offset one's risk assessment there's no way to "sort" them, is there? Double straw man noted, but you have given this little thought. (Too busy with race-baiting?)

 

I think a fair examination of "character" would have objective standards for success or failure. Yes, they would be any evidence-based "high risk" quantifications set by the social sciences. The complete lack of standards and utter faith in the good character and judgement of those with badges ???? The Badgeless One fears badges. of a "may issue" scheme is not for me. Well, carefulness applied to gun carriers is not for you.

 

But you've jumped from permission to carry to permission to purchase like we have in North Carolina. Like "may issue" carry laws, "may issue" purchase permit laws have a racist history. Therefore, just cancel "may issue" laws in their entirety, for guns, and to fight racism.

 

You didn't answer the questions asked above about that history: Get used to that.

 

 

Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by "etc." which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of "good moral character" would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer. Zzzzzz...To demonstrate racism in X spot in 1919 is unremarkable. It does not prove that 1919 racial bias In NC makes "may issue" impossible today, or tomorrow, or in other places in 1919.

 

Federal monitors can sort such racism by court mandate. But such monitors don't come in and cancel laws just because individuals (ahem, not "the government") abuse them.

 

 

Do you think things have changed so much? I don't.

 

 

 

Things will never change if folks cling to racial misunderstandings, to employ race-baiting endlessly.

Tom, in the life of this thread, uniquely your own, your progression is disappointing.

You've dropped like a dud in my estimation. Often, a messenger reflects the message he carries.

NIce to have met you.

 

 

 

Why did you introduce us to Rev. Mosteller...twice? What is your takeaway with his situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you finally admit that you hate black people. Thanx for that, you just made our lives that much simpler....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

 

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority

...No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?...

 

Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

 

Bullshit.

 

WHAT???

 

A better question would be: what clause do you think prevents them? A sheriff can deny a permit for any reason at all and all he has to say is "no" with no explanation required, no recourse for the citizen.

 

After he says "no" there is no further role for court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs. They have no authority and the sheriff doesn't have to explain himself to them or anyone else.

 

That's why it's not "bullshit" to say these can't be sorted. Just like when MLK had his permit denied for racist reasons, there's no appeal, no provision in the law to "sort" a denial, and no reason to "sort" a denial since there are no limits on the authority of a sheriff in a "may issue" situation.

 

You seem surprised and disbelieving, but you also seem unable to find for me any limits on the power of a sheriff. Have you got any examples of denials being sorted? Ever? Feel free to go back to the last century if you want, but you will find none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you finally admit that you hate black people. Thanx for that, you just made our lives that much simpler....

 

Not gonna bite on this today. We'll toss it around later, maybe.

But this is getting good. The conversation is just starting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal, again I know I'm wasting my time on you, but I think this whole may issue thing has gotten lost in all of Tom's race stuff. What he is saying 100% valid, sometimes tho he can be a bit pedantic in continuing to hammer a theme.

 

So let's distill this down to simple facts. I believe from your rantings postings that you believe that "shall issue" means there are no disqualifying grounds to deny a permit and that anyone who shows up at the po-leece station will be allowed to have a gun. I think you are overly getting hung up on the word "SHALL". I think what you're missing is it really means "shall issue AS LONG AS there are no already pre-defined reasons to deny one, such as a felony conviction, drug use, domestic abuse, mental instability, etc. Those and many more will disqualify you from buying and carrying a gun in SHALL ISSUE States. But the point is its not an arbitrary process where the po-leece chief can look at you and say "nope" just because he doesn't like you or how you look. I don't want some gov't functionary making those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions when it comes to a constitutional right. I know you are ok with that, but we are not.

 

Contrast that with "MAY ISSUE" states:

 

May-Issue[edit]

A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some May-Issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some May-Issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other May-Issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires.

How do you "sort" out these issues if you don't even know why you're being denied? As Tom rightly said, race is one of the arbitrary reasons people are denied permits. Looks is another. The wrong political bent is another. The size of your wallet is another. And so on.

So your continued accusation that "SHALL ISSUE" states proliferate guns and put guns in the hands of bad guys is a BIG FAT LIE! That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Even shall issue states deny permits to people who don't qualify under the pre-defined guidelines. If you don't like the disqualifying items in your state and want to make them tougher - then lobby your congress critter to change it. But allowing a single individual gov't official at the po-leece station the power to decide your constitutional rights based on a whim or on how he or she feels that day is no way to run a nation.

 

jocal, again I know I'm wasting my time on you, but I think this whole may issue thing has gotten lost in all of Tom's race stuff. What he is saying 100% valid, sometimes tho he can be a bit pedantic in continuing to hammer a theme.

 

So let's distill this down to simple facts. I believe from your rantings postings that you believe that "shall issue" means there are no disqualifying grounds to deny a permit and that anyone who shows up at the po-leece station will be allowed to have a gun. I think you are overly getting hung up on the word "SHALL". I think what you're missing is it really means "shall issue AS LONG AS there are no already pre-defined reasons to deny one, such as a felony conviction, drug use, domestic abuse, mental instability, etc. Those and many more will disqualify you from buying and carrying a gun in SHALL ISSUE States. But the point is its not an arbitrary process where the po-leece chief can look at you and say "nope" just because he doesn't like you or how you look. I don't want some gov't functionary making those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions when it comes to a constitutional right. I know you are ok with that, but we are not.

 

Contrast that with "MAY ISSUE" states:

 

May-Issue[edit]

A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some May-Issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some May-Issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other May-Issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires.

How do you "sort" out these issues if you don't even know why you're being denied? As Tom rightly said, race is one of the arbitrary reasons people are denied permits. Looks is another. The wrong political bent is another. The size of your wallet is another. And so on.

So your continued accusation that "SHALL ISSUE" states proliferate guns and put guns in the hands of bad guys is a BIG FAT LIE! That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Even shall issue states deny permits to people who don't qualify under the pre-defined guidelines. If you don't like the disqualifying items in your state and want to make them tougher - then lobby your congress critter to change it. But allowing a single individual gov't official at the po-leece station the power to decide your constitutional rights based on a whim or on how he or she feels that day is no way to run a nation.

Jeff

Pretty thoughtful post. It has the kind of tone that induces thoughtful response, too.

I come here hoping to read stuff like that.

But the content shows you gave no thought to, and have not absorbed, my red ink suggestions to Tom.

To make our conversation worthwhile, give these grounded ideas the consideration they deserve.

 

A few particulars you mention are quite valid. They are the valuable basis for valid improvements (as are most of Tom's pet bitches). They are fine tuning. They merely focus on the sorting we need.

 

 

 

Look, friend, "shall issue" killed a bluegrass associate of mine. Tom posted the typical, minimal, shall issue restrictions, called it evidence of discretion, and the bastard then added a fucking smiley face!

 

The law which killed Drew (and several others) was pushed through by Alan Gottlieb's local SAF crowd. The heart of the law which killed Drew, which I posted twice, basically said SHALL NOT BE DENIED without evidence of two weeks of involuntary incarceration. Ian Stawicki, who had terrorized his grown siblings for five years in three cities (including several violent episodes, permanent injury to a brother, and the trashing of a girlfriends' house) had never been involuntarily incarcerated. His father (a former firearms instructor by one account) went to authorities, who suggested waiting for the behavior to get worse. It did.

 

I am discussing gun-collection options which could be fairly applied. MANY other problems are inherent in the status quo. Shall issue," state-by-state, is a litany of dangerous weaknesses: I read them yesterday, and it's so bad it will take me a few hours to organize the horror. Jeff, the laws are a chain of dangerous gun lobby snow-jobs.

 

The problem: gun culture encourages minimal restrictions, and rewards wild gun justification philosophy. The profile itself is reckless, and dangerous. This stuff erodes the credibility, image, and stature of the second, of course.

 

IMO, for your own sakes gun clubs and gun publications need to apply pressure for stable, positive behavior. Certain failures to meet gun purchase standards, or gun permit standards, should be reversible, IMO. (If the stats on that effort show a public health failure, address that for what it is.)

 

Let's say that upon examination brought by the SA Gun Club, accredited authorities find that jocal505 is not fit to have a weapon. They should define the terms of my failure. Since my legal record lacks violent misdemeanors, and such, counselling could be applied, or specified weapons training could be applied, in the hopes that I could meet the standards. If violent misdemeanants can be demonstrated to have been rehabilitated with gun club group counseling (or anything else), they should be re-considered for a permit or a purchase, IMO.

If social science says counseling, or public service, or the Flying Spaghetti Factory, will re-constitute certain felons, also fine.

 

FFS hit the nail on the head. Since international gun damage figures show the US has a gun problem, benchmarks could be set to guide gun restrictions, and thus offset (de-tune) the effects of present gun lobby legislation. Consider what worked with auto safety (then with mandated gas mileage goals). If deaths and injuries were not diminished at an acceptable rate, more onerous restrictions were applied. If gun owners and the gun industry could get ahead of the damage control, then less restrictive applications could apply. Win-win: loose cannons would have to clean it up.

 

The net effect would reverse the present irresponsibility of the gun culture. The gun culture would begin to self-police, to encourage mental stability, thorough gun safety education, responsibility, and culturally positive behaviors. (Sadly, where this breaks down is that the last item is being shouted down by anti-authority elements.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

 

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority

...No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?...

 

Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

 

Bullshit.

 

WHAT???

 

A better question would be: what clause do you think prevents them? A sheriff can deny a permit for any reason at all and all he has to say is "no" with no explanation required, no recourse for the citizen.

 

After he says "no" there is no further role for court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs. They have no authority and the sheriff doesn't have to explain himself to them or anyone else.

 

That's why it's not "bullshit" to say these can't be sorted. Just like when MLK had his permit denied for racist reasons, there's no appeal, no provision in the law to "sort" a denial, and no reason to "sort" a denial since there are no limits on the authority of a sheriff in a "may issue" situation.

 

You seem surprised and disbelieving, but you also seem unable to find for me any limits on the power of a sheriff. Have you got any examples of denials being sorted? Ever? Feel free to go back to the last century if you want, but you will find none.

 

 

You are ranting half-truths. And I have no foundation to define the authority of sheriffs, but sheriffs around here deal with formidible exposure from newspapers. Our sheriff gets her wings clipped all da time.

 

Ahem, the research others are asking for could, and would, generate evidence-based particulars for an individual's gun suitability, or lack of suitability.

 

It seems you see a need for appeals, specifics, and recourse after gun permit denials, and for gun purchase denials. Got it.

I got it long ago. I think you are right, Tom. You should propose some specifics, and flesh out your idea.

You say that sorting is not possible...as we sort these problems.

 

 

 

 

I see what you did.

 

With a not-very-sharp combo of no background checks and no gun permit checks, you are being quite careless about who gets guns.

No wonder we have a gun problem. (It doesn't have to be like this.)

Why grant criminals & whack jobs a pipeline of guns within the unregulated secondary market, then give them a permit without a proper examination?

Both seem to contribute to the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 'gun problem' we have-----is that there's not enough people owning them. 'Cuz for the last fuking time, as the number of guns in American's hands go up, the crime rate has been proven to drop. Jfc but even Stevie Wonder can see that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ignore all of randumbs BS trolls. Why don't you bite on this one for a while - I took the time to actually try to appeal to that kernal of common sense you have buried somewhere deep down inside you that has been begging to get out.

 

And while you're at it. Maybe you can answer the question about whether a woman who shoots her rapist is a vigilante? What is her mindset when leaving the house with a pistol that day?

 

 

Actually, LenP already asked this pretty intelligent question. He framed Gandhi against ISIS, basically.

Gandhi would fail. I agree. In the act of forcible rape, sure, a gun would be convenient...but statistically it would get used on a member of one's social circle. Especially in college.

 

But this goes to another poster's recent comment that pinheads only see in black and white, and in good-and-bad absolutes.

It's like Tom, who likes to find an exception, then claim that it disproves a broad body of scientific conclusion.

 

This non-violent stuff is a mixed bag. I warned all of you that this would get subtle. Three years ago I hit that, twice.

It took a long time to get here, but we can finally discuss it.

 

Pay attention.

Non violence is not going to work as an absolute. Correct.

But neither is violence, mate.

Violence begets violence, however. (Your self-defense beliefs demonstrate that, actually.)

But non-violence does not beget violence...yet it can rule over the violent (e.g. civilized societies).

Thus the irony and power of "the meek shall inherit the earth."

 

The idea is to be a living, dynamic application of non-violence, to break the chain, the cycle, of violence.

And to be the best you can be. YOU rise above the orbit of violence.

YOU are the difference.

 

I did ghetto work and have found that this bit works far more often than it doesn't work.

I would not have survived one day with a gun doing the social work I did. That whole vibe, that dynamic, is just wrong.

The gun triggers an animal-like instinct, all around.

And that's a wrong-ass, violence-based way to develop a society, IMO.

 

The direction of society should be mapped around our better instincts, IMO.

If you've had children, you are familiar with those very admirable, finer, qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, valid self-defense uses certainly occur. I've had a few.

I had a boning knife poking an indent into my abs one day in SF. Lost my wallet and Timex that day.

 

In a past lifetime, I confronted guns in ghettos, for YEARS. Three years ago I told you guys a bit about it.

 

Jocal 505 on 30 Jan. 2012 at 9:51AM said
EM, there is a difference between a pacifist and a dreamer/weenie. Yes, I am the former. (...)

And for those who want to address me as out of touch with violence or the black communities, read the details below. I will fight if I have to but have no skills or interest inhand-to-hand. I am not a big guy, just fit.


You seem to think I'm sheltered because I am against the proliferation of firearms? Think I've had no encounters with bad guys?
Olgatrooper, here's my (street victimization) score: A couple muggings, two attempted muggings by three men, one robbery at knife point (two assailants), two attempted strongarm robberies (each with three assailants), one beat-down of a companion, one set of slashed tires (Albq. NM) . Let's add one pickpocket on the Green Line, Boston, and six house break-and-enters, methadone types, Philly.

Was I supposed to shoot them all? Read on if you think you smell a Swan 69 type fibber here.

 

It turns out that Chinabald's Mom paid me a visit in Detroit.

She was connected, and hooked us up with several available social services.

Bullet holes dotted the stucco, it was near MoTown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More guns, More deaths. The rest of this discussion is just noise, interspersed with some white guys pointing out that black guys are the problem. While you are masturbating over the finer points of words like 'shall issue', the country is on track to have more than another 11 thousand people killed by guns this year. Bang fucking BANG!

 

YAWn.

I agree YAWN. Worry about your own environment destroying country for a whole. Your coal is killing us all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you see a need for appeals, specifics, and recourse after gun permit denials, and for gun purchase denials. Got it.

I got it long ago. I think you are right, Tom. You should propose some specifics, and flesh out your idea.

You say that sorting is not possible...as we sort these problems.

 

 

 

Glad to see you finally agreeing that specific reasons would be a good thing before allowing a government official to infringe on individual rights.

 

It's strange, though, because any such specifics will violate your "may issue" religion. The whole point of may issue is to avoid specific reasons for denials.

 

If specific reasons must be given, or else a permit SHALL be issued, then we call that "shall issue" permitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More guns, less crime. I'm fucking LOVING it!.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems you see a need for appeals, specifics, and recourse after gun permit denials, and for gun purchase denials. Got it.

I got it long ago. I think you are right, Tom. You should propose some specifics, and flesh out your idea.

You say that sorting is not possible...as we sort these problems.

 

 

 

Glad to see you finally ???? agreeing that specific reasons would be a good thing before allowing a government official to infringe on individual rights. Hyperbole. Except for Justice Scullin's ruling, the "rights" exist for home and hearth, per Heller.

 

It's strange, though, because any such specifics will violate your "may issue" religion. The whole point of may issue is to avoid specific reasons for denials.

 

If specific reasons must be given, or else a permit SHALL be issued, then we call that "shall issue" permitting.

 

 

Not so fast (and don't twist this around). The "specific reasons" in play in present state law are careless, and devastating--they don't examine well. They fall short, and it's not working. At this point, too many idiots can get (and carry) guns legally.

 

"The whole point of may issue is to avoid specific reasons for denials."

Cite, pls. That's quite the fib. The whole point of may issue is to screen gun possession sensibly, for reasons of public safety.

 

Let's agree that may issue needs improvement. To be improved towards real fairness, evidence-based standards need to be established. Sorry, but that research (to establish and define suitability for firearms use) and the standards established need to be supported by the gun culture.

The fact that this research is being blocked is quite incriminating.

 

 

 

You kinda used this trick to justify Drew's demise by CCP. The "specific reasons" for refusal which you listed, wink wink, cough cough,(such as can be found in Jeff's post...concluded with a vague "etc."), excluded Genghis Khan, but few others.

 

As it stands, I'm pretty sure nearly all "must issue" standards, and their sources of behavior info, and their enforcement, are not ship-shape.

 

The gun damage numbers reflect this, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there's less than 6,000 intentional homicides a year in this country....what's your fuking problem? Why don't you jump on a more helpful and worty social cause....like booze, or drugs, or cars that kill millions of more people in America than do murderers with guns?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem: gun culture encourages minimal restrictions, and rewards wild gun justification philosophy. The profile itself is reckless, and dangerous. This stuff erodes the credibility, image, and stature of the second, of course.

 

 

 

Conversation over.

 

If this is your position, then there is and never will be any reasonable discussion. Try harder not to be such a fucking douche next time.

 

 

Jeff. I'm reasonable enough...and I heard you out. Once I informed myself, the SA Gun Club fell silent.

The choir stopped singing, too.

 

You see, my common sense opinions of 2012 have been supported by social scientists, pretty much across the board.

 

I will wear your new signature line with dignity, hopefully. They say a man has to stand for something.

Your new chart, and all your charts, need to be sourced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there's less than 6,000 intentional homicides a year in this country....what's your fuking problem? Why don't you jump on a more helpful and worty social cause....like booze, or drugs, or cars that kill millions of more people in America than do murderers with guns?....

 

Where's your math, Rick? In our last mathematical communication, you needed to show 7,500 LE shootings per year.

In today's figure, you need to show 5,550 LE perp killings.

But the FBI's figure for justifiable homicides by police is now around 400/yr. It's highest rate was 1983, around 500/yr.

 

Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 14 and 15.)

Pasted from <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain>

 

You are a bit like an aggressive chijuajua yapper dog. Please present your math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to be exact, I just need to show you that your 11,500 'homicides' stat is wrong.

 

(...)

 

Since there's less than 6,000 intentional homicides a year in this country...

 

(...)

 

Seems I'm off a bit....but here ya go. Enjoy.....

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

 

From your link, Goofus.

In 2010, there were... 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loftiest Choir chanting comes from Tom Ray. Very hi-tone, at times.

Whenever he's not using race-baiting tricks, or peddling gun suicides, or twisting stats, or cherry-picking anomalies, he's introducing Rev. Mosteller I. and Rev. Mosteller II.

 

 

 

Since you seem to have something to say about my posts in this thread, why not reply to them and say it to me in this thread instead of talking about it to someone else in another thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The loftiest Choir chanting comes from Tom Ray. Very hi-tone, at times.

Whenever he's not using race-baiting tricks, or peddling gun suicides, or twisting stats, or cherry-picking anomalies, he's introducing Rev. Mosteller I. and Rev. Mosteller II.

 

 

Since you seem to have something to say about my posts in this thread, why not reply to them and say it to me in this thread instead of talking about it to someone else in another thread?

 

 

 

You ever see a dozen eggs tossed into a cement mixer while it's spinning? That's exactly like what goes on between JokeAwfs' ears.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The loftiest Choir chanting comes from Tom Ray. Very hi-tone, at times.

Whenever he's not using race-baiting tricks, or peddling gun suicides, or twisting stats, or cherry-picking anomalies, he's introducing Rev. Mosteller I. and Rev. Mosteller II.

 

 

Since you seem to have something to say about my posts in this thread, why not reply to them and say it to me in this thread instead of talking about it to someone else in another thread?

 

 

I pretty much comment as I wish, to whomever, on whatever thread I am reading.

Tell us about your interest in our Rev. Mosteller, on the thread of your choice.

This is my fourth request of The Badgeless Dodger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Darren X makes more sense.

 

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation


...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....


It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did the trailer trash mentality begin with you?

Was it your environment? Was it instilled by your mother?

If I understand it correctly, was she not an attorney, and a prosecutor?

Let's go sailing someday, just the three of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did the trailer trash mentality begin with you?

Was it your environment? Was it instilled by your mother?

If I understand it correctly, was she not an attorney, and a prosecutor?

Let's go sailing someday, just the three of us.

 

The trailer trash mentality that blacks shouldn't have guns is way older than I am. I pointed it out before. Not sure where or when you got it.

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

 

Your repeated requests to sail with my mother are creepy. There's no way I'd introduce you. If I did, you might learn that she doesn't like sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes.

 

 

When did the trailer trash mentality begin with you?

Was it your environment? Was it instilled by your mother?

If I understand it correctly, was she not an attorney, and a prosecutor?

Let's go sailing someday, just the three of us.

 

The trailer trash mentality that blacks shouldn't have guns is way older than I am. I pointed it out before. Not sure where or when you got it.

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

 

Your repeated requests to sail with my mother are creepy. There's no way I'd introduce you. If I did, you might learn that she doesn't like sailing.

 

 

 

Sorry to hear that your mother doesn't care for sailing. That's a bad break.

But she may enjoy good conversation. Let's just get some coffee, the three of us.

I can say what IU need to say in front of you, Tom.

 

Do your a-moral beliefs originate with her?

Would she approve of your dangerous, heartless policies, as outlined over the years on our Political Anarchy?

Is she a southern redneck dressed up as a lofty intellectual too?

I would settle for her e-mail address. It is amazing to have met you, Pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes.

 

 

Yups. 'Cuz he feels self defense is just sooooo un-fuking civilized....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes.

 

Infantile stuff. Follow your own meme.Go to the cause of the rape, the behavior. The problem actually rests within average males, who let their sex drive take them places they are not welcome.

 

The morals and values which you present are sorted by parents about age eight, in third grade. (When reason emerges in young humans.)

Your violence-based ethics are a lie. If guns brought safety to women in the USA, scientists would propose guns for women in many situations.

 

They don't. Because evidence-based facts show (quite consistently) that the gun a woman may choose for her protection will actually be used by males (whom she knows) against her.

 

Guns prey upon the weak elements of society, women, children, and the dis-enfranchised:

FBI report on Women and Self Defense

In 2009…1,818 females were murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide Report. Examination of that data dispels many of the myths regarding the nature of lethal violence against females.

  • For homicides in which victim-to-offender relationship could be identified, 93% of female victim (1,579 out of 1,693) were murdered by a male they knew.
  • Nearly fourteen times as may females were murdered by a male they knew (1,579 victims) as were killed by male strangers (114 victims).
  • For victims who knew their offenders, 63% (989) of female homicide victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers.
  • There were 296 women shot and killed by either their husbands or acquaintances during the course of an argument.
  • Nationwide, for homicides in which the weapon could be determined (1,654), more female homicides were committed with firearms (53%) than any other weapon.

 

Jeffie. You are peddling another Cuntfinder Cliche. You could enlighten yourself here, any year now:

 

When Men Murder Women:

An Analysis of 2001 to 2011 Homicide Data

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.

 

On the whole, guns DO NOT work for the betterment of women.

The guns you propose kill women at the hands of men. Each of these men is somewhat human, like you and me. You have no case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'But if we can save just one life'......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When Men Murder Women:

An Analysis of 2001 to 2011 Homicide Data

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.

 

On the whole, guns DO NOT work for the betterment of women.

The guns you propose kill women at the hands of men. Each of these men is somewhat human, like you and me. You have no case.

 

 

The value of a firearm cannot be determined in this way, from counting up gun use such as to kill an assailant. A firearm's real value is in preventing violence, i.e.. deterrence. As usual, you confuse defensive uses with deterrent value. That 101 women murdered figure would be a whole lot lower without a doubt had the majority been armed.

 

More importantly, it's not up to you to decide for others whether they have the right of self-defense. That is a natural right, which in this country anyway, 'shall not be infringed'.

 

Q: How many rounds should she get to protect herself from a Jokeauf?

partisan_girl_4306web.jpg

A: As many as she needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

When Men Murder Women:

An Analysis of 2001 to 2011 Homicide Data

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.

 

On the whole, guns DO NOT work for the betterment of women.

The guns you propose kill women at the hands of men. Each of these men is somewhat human, like you and me. You have no case.

 

 

The value of a firearm cannot be determined in this way, from counting up gun use such as to kill an assailant. A firearm's real value is in preventing violence, i.e.. deterrence. As usual, you confuse defensive uses with deterrent value. Well, that's the problem. They don't deter violence, they create a primal reaction to danger: the "Weapons Effect". Guns are violence-based; their intended use, or a reliance upon them, participates in the chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. That 101 women murdered figure would be a whole lot lower without a doubt had the majority been armed. Gain a clue. The scientific evidence, much-presented here, says that 101 women murdered figure happened because too many guns were all about.

 

More importantly, it's not up to you to decide for others whether they have the right of self-defense. Self defense per se is fine. Self defense itself will excel alongside the responsible regulation of firearms.Further developments in inner resources, and our chosen emotional responses is already happening. Yoga develops the compassionate/understanding part of the brain, for example, while training for physical violence develops the aggression part of the brain. That is a natural right, which in this country anyway, 'shall not be infringed'. That's hyperbole, mate. Heller says, in very strong terms, these very rights can be regulated. State courts and federal appeals courts have sustained that.

 

Q: How many rounds should she get to protect herself from a Jokeauf? Where do you get this bit? Since I have zero history as a sexual predator, you must be suggesting she shoot me for stating my pro-regulation view of guns. WTF?

 

Your mentality seems both unfair and unhealthy. Combined with guns, that mentality shows a bad mix, NGS.

partisan_girl_4306web.jpg

A: As many as she needs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The value of a firearm cannot be determined in this way, from counting up gun use such as to kill an assailant. A firearm's real value is in preventing violence, i.e.. deterrence. As usual, you confuse defensive uses with deterrent value.

 

"Well, that's the problem. Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course.

Ergo, to prevent such violence, you will surrender your firearms to der Jokeawf."

 

HANDBIL3.gif

 

hol-1.gif

 

 

partisan_girl_4306web.jpg

 

 

"Ummm... No thanks, der Jokeawuf."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. [/color]

Guns "participate"??? Wow, so the inanimate objects participate now of their own free will.

 

Hahaha, and the unraveling of joke-awf continues.....

 

 

The Cuntfinder changed the words of my quote. I didn't say those words. I spoke of the human motivation behind the gun.

Here is what I wrote (see Post 574).

 

 

. Guns are violence-based; their intended use, or a reliance upon them, participates in the chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, dts.

 

Goodbye fuck-apple.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. [/color]

Guns "participate"??? Wow, so the inanimate objects participate now of their own free will.

 

Hahaha, and the unraveling of joke-awf continues.....

The Cuntfinder changed the words of my quote. I didn't say those words. I spoke of the human motivation behind the gun.

Here is what I wrote (see Post 574).

 

. Guns are violence-based; their intended use, or a reliance upon them, participates in the chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course.

No I didn't change anything at all. I quoted you verbatim. Are you resorting to lying now, you POS?

 

Edit: I want and rechecked your post and you DID CHANGE IT!! You motherfucking coward POS cunt. You are not a man if you can't even own your words. You could have easily said that's wasn't what you meant and given your contorted writing style, no one would have questioned that. But to go back and change it after you'd been caught and then lie about it??? WTFF????

 

 

I didn't even notice your post for a day or so. Anything I edit is for clarity, or to better express my understanding of these things.

I edit stuff (pretty frequently, too) to be as clear as possible, and to express my genuine POV.

 

But now that you mention it, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine agree with the idea that guns participate in violence. They define the gun as an AGENT in each act of gun violence. And the AMA has recently stated guns have brought an epidemic of gun violence.

 

No offense, but mosquitoes once came into the attention of science, as agents of epidemic malaria. Many mosquitoes got sprayed with deadly chemicals, and their swamps got drained. That malaria was contained through science. Damage control can be brought to the gun violence situation through similar science. That's how civilized nations roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

And this is what is so alarming about Tom's forty days and forty nights of extended race-baiting: guns actually have a history of the suppression of civil rights.

 

 

Sorry Folks, But Gun Rights And Civil Rights Don’t Mean The Same Thing.

I’m happy that the NRA has decided to create greater awareness about the struggle for civil rights and the value that black Americans placed on arming and defending themselves during that time. But when the NRA uses the history of armed resistance to racism to justify arming the average American as a response to everyday crime, they are moving from past history to present-day advocacy, two positions that have nothing to do with each other at all.

The Klan wasn’t just someone who would break into your house or mug you in the street. It was, in many areas of the South, an organized vigilante movement whose mission was to recreate the racist political and social structure that existed before the Civil War. That blacks chose to arm themselves in the face of political terrorism directed only at them should never be confused with decisions that people make today about whether personal ownership of guns will protect them from crime.

The NRA now refers to itself as America’s “longest-standing civil rights organization” and by that I guess they mean that somehow the 2nd Amendment ranks above all other Constitutional rights. But the truth is that the NRA paid lip service at best to concerns about threats to the 2nd Amendment until Harlon Carter took over the leadership in 1977 and began to play the political advocacy game in a much more aggressive way.

By the time the NRA discovered that gun ownership was not just a Constitutional but also a civil right, black Americans had been fighting and winning their civil rights for over twenty years.

Pasted from <http://mikethegunguy.com/>

 

 

 

If you want to discuss the racist roots of gun control, or even the current application of racist policies like stop and frisk in gun control, this is a better thread for it.

 

It has the evidence you want to ignore about our ugly history of disarming minorities to better control them.

 

Just because self-defense is a basic civil right does not mean it ranks above all other constitutional rights. I think the first is our most important amendment, but wouldn't want to be without others. Including the second.

 

They got the dates wrong in your excerpt above. The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

 

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

And this is what is so alarming about Tom's forty days and forty nights of extended race-baiting: guns actually have a history of the suppression of civil rights.

 

 

Sorry Folks, But Gun Rights And Civil Rights Don’t Mean The Same Thing.

I’m happy that the NRA has decided to create greater awareness about the struggle for civil rights and the value that black Americans placed on arming and defending themselves during that time. But when the NRA uses the history of armed resistance to racism to justify arming the average American as a response to everyday crime, they are moving from past history to present-day advocacy, two positions that have nothing to do with each other at all.

The Klan wasn’t just someone who would break into your house or mug you in the street. It was, in many areas of the South, an organized vigilante movement whose mission was to recreate the racist political and social structure that existed before the Civil War. That blacks chose to arm themselves in the face of political terrorism directed only at them should never be confused with decisions that people make today about whether personal ownership of guns will protect them from crime.

The NRA now refers to itself as America’s “longest-standing civil rights organization” and by that I guess they mean that somehow the 2nd Amendment ranks above all other Constitutional rights. But the truth is that the NRA paid lip service at best to concerns about threats to the 2nd Amendment until Harlon Carter took over the leadership in 1977 and began to play the political advocacy game in a much more aggressive way.

By the time the NRA discovered that gun ownership was not just a Constitutional but also a civil right, black Americans had been fighting and winning their civil rights for over twenty years.

Pasted from <http://mikethegunguy.com/>

 

 

If you want to discuss the racist roots of gun control, or even the current application of racist policies like stop and frisk in gun control, this is a better thread for it.

 

It has the evidence you want to ignore Why would I care to ignore it? It is one of the more fucked attributes about guns in the USA, and what they stand for. But your idea of "discussion" is to point the finger of racism at those who don't support your own policies. (The behavior does not flatter you.) It's a distasteful topic if handled intelligently...which you never do, Tom.

about our ugly history of disarming minorities to better control them.

 

Just because self-defense is a basic civil right does not mean it ranks above all other constitutional rights. I think the first is our most important amendment, but wouldn't want to be without others. Including the second.

 

They got the dates wrong in your excerpt above. The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, WRONG WRONG WRONG. SEE BOLDED DATES BELOW: This was a conspiracy, which was well along by the time of the FOPA of '86. when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not. They LOVED it.

 

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. You are a liar. I'll document your lies in the bolded timeframe in the next post. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

 

 

I de-bunked this before. Thanks for the chance to do it again.

During the time you mention, some of the NRA were playing cagey, counting SC justices waiting for better timing. The others were chomping at the bit to take their changes with the Supreme court. ALL were up for the challenge.

 

What happened was FOPA (which was a huge effort), then Ashcroft. When he came on board in 2001, the DOJ and challenged the Emerson decision by appeal. Instead of following the law as written at the time, Ashcroft let the Emerson appeal drop. The year was around 2002, as noted by the correspondence below..

 

Ashcroft's opinion trumps DOJ's appeal of Emerson,

Shot Full of Holes

Deconstructing John Ashcroft's Second Amendment

 

Conclusion

Not only has the source material in Attorney General Ashcroft's letter been manipulated and taken out of context, ironically, much of it appears to have been lifted wholesale from the historical discussion in the very Emerson decision that the Justice Department has appealed.76

 

Most of the historical quotes that Ashcroft uses in his letter are identical to those that the judge in Emerson relied on to craft his expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Attorney General of the United States is laying out what he describes as his own personal understanding of the Second Amendment, and he does this through an appeal to materials used in a court decision which rules against the Department of Justice's official position on the Second Amendment, and which the Department has appealed.

 

In other words, Attorney General Ashcroft is presenting in an official letter his personal point of view, which directly conflicts with the duties of his official capacity as Attorney General, by borrowing liberally from a decision he is supposed to be working to have overturned.

 

It says a great deal about both the trial court's decision in Emerson and the Ashcroft letter that both misrepresent the historical evidence and either omit or mischaracterize existing precedents. Such a situation is, at best, confusing and, at worst, destructive to the Department's litigating position. His letter has served as a rallying cry for the National Rifle Association and a warning sign for gun control advocates. In the meantime, the Justice Department's reputation is being tarnished. Most importantly, if brought to their natural conclusion, Attorney General Ashcroft's efforts to change the Department's position on the Second Amendment will have dangerous real-world implications that will be measured in increased death and injury from firearms.

Go to Appendix A

Back to Table of Contents

 

 

Pasted from <http://www.vpc.org/studies/ashconc.htm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a complete list, by any means. But these significant developments in the gun culture show that Tom's history is lies.

This "message" is shameless bullshit.

 

Quote

Tom Ray, Posted Today, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

1965 The official position of the DOJ on the Second Amendment:

Statement of Attorney General Katzenbach:

"With respect to the second amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States long ago made it clear that the amendment did not guarantee to any individuals the right to bear arms."

1973

DOJ Letter to George Bush,

Chairman, Republican National Committee (July 19, 1973)

The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved, not the rights of an individual to own a gun" [and] [there is no indication that Congress altered its purpose to protect state militias, not individual gun ownership [upon consideration of the Amendment] . . . . Courts "have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun . . . . In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun.

Letter from Mary C. Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,

Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ

1974 A 23-year-old Ohio State graduate from AZ, David Hardy, wrote the first thesis suggesting historic claims to individual gun rights.

1977Harlon Carter, with Charlton Heston and SAF figures, hijacked the NRA at their annual convention in Cincinatti. Their acceptance speeches vowed to roll back, and defeat, the Gun Control Act of 1968.

1986 The Firearm Owners Protection Act (McLure Volkmer) weakened the GCA of '68, and limited ATF abilities.

Summary, by David Hardy: The 1986 Amendments to the Gun Control Act were the result of a nearly-unparalleled legislative battle. A thorough understanding of the amendments is critical to a comprehension of Federal firearms laws as they now exist, since they effectively overruled decades of caselaw which construed the 1968 Act. Among the changes were elevations of the intent which must be proven to establish a violation (pp. 646 ff.), a narrowed definition of who must obtain a dealer's license (pp. 628 ff.), restrictions on unreasonable search, seizure, and forfeiture (pp. 653 ff.), and provisions for recovery of attorney's fees in civil and even criminal cases (pp. 662 ff.)

.http://www.guncite.c.../hardfopa.html>

1995 Republicans and NRA Try to Revive Felons' “Relief” Program

1996 NRA Launches Second Attempt to Resuscitate Criminal “Relief” Program

2000 The official position of DOJ on the Second Amendment:

Text of Solicitor General Waxman's letter, U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Solicitor General

Solicitor General

Washington, D.C. 20530

August 22, 2000 (Edit. This timeframe is just before Bush's election)

Dear Mr. (Name Deleted):

Thank you for your letter dated August 11, 2000, in which you question certain statements you understand to have been made by an attorney for the United States during oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson. Your letter states that the attorney indicated that the United States believes that it could "take guns away from the public," and "restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people." You ask whether the response of the attorney for the United States accurately reflects the position of the Department of Justice and whether it is indeed the government's position "that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not extend to the people as an individual right."

I was not present at the oral argument you reference, and I have been informed that the court of appeals will not make the transcript or tape of the argument available to the public (or to the Department of Justice). I am informed, however, that counsel for the United States in United States v. Emerson, Assistant United States Attorney William Mateja, did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and successive Administrations. More specifically, the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia.

(Snipped: ten court cases, beginning with Miller)

2001

(Note: Ashcroft became Bush's AG in Jan. 2001. The Emerson Decision had been appealed by the DOJ as he took sworn office to uphold existing laws.)

Text of Ashcroft letter to Jon Baker, May 17,2001

(...) "While some have argued the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise.

(…)Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view comports with all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. (Fed. 46 and 29) Note: neither touches on individual gun rights, as claimed

(…)As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the FOPA.

2003

Tiahart Amendments restricted valuable ATF trace information.

  • The Tiahrt Amendment restricts access of state and local law enforcement authority to gun trace data, hindering municipal police departments' ability to track down sellers of illegal guns, to investigate gun trafficking patterns, and to make connections between individual gun-related crimes.[14] Mayor Bloomberg has called the Amendment "an insult to the thousands of police officers that face the threat of illegal guns."[15][16]
  • The Tiahrt Amendment requires that NICS background check records be destroyed within 24 hours, and this makes it harder for law enforcement authorities to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records. It also makes it more difficult to identify and track down straw purchasers who buy guns on behalf of criminals who wouldn't be able to pass a background check, or prohibited purchasers who buy firearms themselves due to errors in the background check process.[16]
  • The Tiahrt Amendment denies the ATF the authority to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns. Under current rules, the ATF can conduct a warrantless search of any licensed gun dealer once per year.[17]

2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

In historic legislation, the gun lobby was exempted from broad product liability. The NRA had lobbied heavily for the bill, after two previous failures to get it passed.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified at the Senate hearing…

Tom tells us the NRA was indifferent towards the second amendment until Heller? I detect a huge credibility problem in any such story. Heller was the natural culmination of the forty- year effort of the GOA's Larry Pratt, basically. The recorded words of Harlon Carter on the night of the NRA's 1977 Cincinatti Revolution called for the decimation of the GCA '68.

Heller was the achievement of that mid-seventies conspiracy, not some new NRA courtship with the second amendment.

I'm not sure what the angle is, but Tom's history is quite dishonest, coming from someone who knows this topic well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody cares what you think about our rights, Jerkofff.

 

Here's why:

 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

 

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

 

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

 

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

 

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

 

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

 

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

 

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

 

The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasnt Jeffersons proposal of No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755

 

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

 

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

 

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselvesand include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

 

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

 

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."

- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

 

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

 

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

 

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

 

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

 

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

 

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you don't because what Australia did would not work for Americans. Come up with something that would. I bet you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only two types of countries on this planet;

 

1). Those that use the metric system.

 

2). And those that have gone to the Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is not a complete list, by any means. But these significant developments in the gun culture show that Tom's history is lies.

This "message" is shameless bullshit.

 

Quote

Tom Ray, Posted Today, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

...

 

 

I suppose I should have provided a citation. American Bar Association

 

...Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.

 

“They recognized this was a good case and D.C. was the perfect place,” says plaintiffs lawyer Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute. “That’s what concerned them.”

 

Levy, who is bankrolling and pushing Heller to the Supreme Court out of his own pocket and on his own time, says the NRA first sent two lawyers to try to dissuade him from filing the case. After that failed, Levy says the NRA tried to hijack the case by filing a competing case, then trying to consolidate the two.

 

To boot, Levy says, the NRA supports congressional legislation to repeal the gun ban, which could render Heller moot. He also wonders why the NRA waited more than 25 years to challenge the 1976 D.C. ordinance.

...

How in the heck did Justice Taney get this idea years before there was an evil, racist NRA to spread it?

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1965 The official position of the DOJ on the Second Amendment:

2001

(Note: Ashcroft became Bush's AG in Jan. 2001. The Emerson Decision had been appealed by the DOJ as he took sworn office to uphold existing laws.)

Text of Ashcroft letter to Jon Baker, May 17,2001

(...) "While some have argued the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise.

(…)Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view comports with all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. (Fed. 46 and 29) Note: neither touches on individual gun rights, as claimed

 

First of all jo-fuck-all, the "offical position of the DOJ doesn't count for diddly squat.

 

Secondly you are lying again. Federalist 46 and 29 specifically state it is an individual rights. Do you not even know how to fucking read? have you actually read either of those papers or just what some Liberal wrote about them in some anti-gun talking point???

 

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

 

 

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” – A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Chapter Third: Marchamont Nedham, Errors of Government and Rules of Policy, 1787; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) 10 volumes, Volume 6

 

 

Jocal. You are no gentleman. That you continue to lie, either by omission or commission - says all I need to know about your character.

 

 

Note: you are pretty big on using the "liar" word.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164031&p=4874708

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=156707&p=4563058

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164031&p=4876329

 

Come on. Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

 

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Note: Madison's descriptions in the previous paragraph speak of state militias, following state-appointed officers. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46>

 

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Tom Ray, Posted Today, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

 

...Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.

 

“They recognized this was a good case and D.C. was the perfect place,” says plaintiffs lawyer Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute. “That’s what concerned them.”

 

Levy, who is bankrolling and pushing Heller to the Supreme Court out of his own pocket and on his own time, says the NRA first sent two lawyers to try to dissuade him from filing the case. After that failed, Levy says the NRA tried to hijack the case by filing a competing case, then trying to consolidate the two.

 

To boot, Levy says, the NRA supports congressional legislation to repeal the gun ban, which could render Heller moot. He also wonders why the NRA waited more than 25 years to challenge the 1976 D.C. ordinance.

...

 

In this post, Tom is confirming the CATO institute's financing of Heller.

Levy was way ahead of the NRA. They bickered for a while.

 

Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller

In 2002, Levy began recruiting plaintiffs for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit against the District of Columbia. Although Levy has never owned a gun himself, he was interested in the issue as a constitutional scholar and believer in individual rights. He teamed up with Clark M. Neily III of the Institute for Justice and began finding and vetting District residents who had a legitimate and appealing reason for wanting a gun for self defense at home. They eventually settled on six residents: Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller. They tried to select a diverse group, and ended with men and women, black and white, and a variety of income levels. Levy only knew Palmer, a colleague at Cato, and none of the six knew each other before the case.

 

I can source the rift between Levy and Gura better than Tom can.

One faction of the NRA was opposed to Levy's timing...but not his bottom line on distorting the Second Amendment.

 

Whatever. Look at the legislative body of work the NRA was simultaneously employing.

It relied on constitutional basis. That basis was found by hi-jacking the Second Amendment.

They got the DOJ on their side (via Ashcroft), and then Heller was the result...six years later.

Levy used those six years to manufacture non-peer reviewed constitutional scholarship.

The constitutional cites quoted by Ashcroft (and organized by David Hardy for FOPA) are shoddy.Levy's work isn't much better.

 

But the NRA trumpeted Second Amendment claims, and paid money to twist its history, through the seventies, eighties, and nineties.

Long before Heller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

 

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

 

 

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

 

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

 

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

 

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

 

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

 

 

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

 

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

 

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

 

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful? Straw man alert.

 

 

YOUR POSITION IS A SHAM.

 

Tom, these much-quoted Federalist papers forced you to expose that neither Madison nor Hamilton had spoken up for individual rights, as such. And Madison's view suggested private guns were inadequate: he openly doubted that privately owned guns were enough, but combined with state authority, both could challenge a standing army.

 

I am not a scholar of the Federalist papers by any means---but I can read. Look at both. Those pieces are not about any thrust for individual gun rights. On the contrary. One (Federalist 46) stresses state authority over militia, the other (Federalist 29) begs for national authority. It questions the motives of the Tom Rays of his day, too.

 

To ask which weapon (of two) would be "more useful" in a militia fracas is to visualize an inspection, by state authority, of your armed (tee hee) POSSE COMITATUS. In making such an argument, you just flip-flopped on individual gun rights, as such.

 

But to answer your strawman question, your preferred militia weapon would be something powerful, like an RPG, or a tank with a trained crew. Jeffie could show up in a joint strike fighter. See where this is going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

 

You mean Democrats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

 

You mean Democrats?

 

 

Cmon now - don't be like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

 

1.Please don't mis-state my focus, since you are a cut above many on this board.

2.The SA Gun Club is perpetuating gun violence.

 

First off, I don't find you guys responsible, whatsoever. "Responsible" is when you follow through on your own (meaning AGIC's) adamant insistence on efficacious action.

You want evidence-based, proven policy, you claim, but have not ante'd up to make it possible.

You're not strong enough, or bold enough (or responsible enough), to support public gun research on these boards.

Under the circumstances, to let Tom Ray's lies (repeated claims about "no research blockage") persist is damning.

It's just not responsible, considering.

 

Same for the entire SA Gun Club, and Gun Club Choir. Meanwhile, catastrophic gun carnage, a global aberration among developed countries, continues.

You can't be "responsible" and let gun extremists steer this boat onto the reefs, too.

 

I am a once-proud gunowner. My focus has been to point out to irresponsible gun owners that they are feeding, and supporting, a deadly gun problem. For guns.

 

Tomadvocacyandabignose_zps1252a248.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm moving my guess on when JokeAwf self-murderates himself. I doubt he's gonna make it to Thanksgiving....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - with this reply, you have proven once and for all that you are simply beyond reason. You rant/rave about "the culture of the gun", and support looking for a solution everywhere EXCEPT at the source of the problem. Your perspective is that of an insular, myopic, willfully obtuse individual, and I'm simply finished trying to afford you the modicum of respect that intelligent, differing opinions deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - with this reply, you have proven once and for all that you are simply beyond reason. You rant/rave about "the culture of the gun", and support looking for a solution everywhere EXCEPT at the source of the problem. Your perspective is that of an insular, myopic, willfully obtuse individual, and I'm simply finished trying to afford you the modicum of respect that intelligent, differing opinions deserve.

 

The "source of the gun violence problem":

15% is criminal activity. 85% is made up of everyday homeowners who turn to a nearby gun during a conflict.

 

Guy, step it up. You are dodging like TR.

For about the tenth time in our exchanges, you have avoided the crux of the matter: is it not irresponsible to block open, scientific solution?

 

The real issue, IMO, will be any changes in the gun culture after public acceptance of the data. We aren't there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pulled those numbers out of your fuking ass, didn't you? Or do have a legit cite for your 15/85 ratio of shooters that we can see?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly the response I knew you had----nothing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pulled those numbers out of your fuking ass, didn't you? Or do have a legit cite for your 15/85 ratio of shooters that we can see?...

 

You are a tedious sort. Like a little yapper dog, barking away, with no reading skills.

I had an epic go-round with Jeffie about this. He fell kinda silent.

The sources were re-developed, and posted a few more times, too.

 

 

The figures in any variety of sources will range, but all will show that stranger danger is a minority of the problem.

Read the material, Senor Mariachi. I am getting tired of posting this.

Source 1.

You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time.

(see large graph in pic file under "murder by stranger".

Pasted from <http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=1177>

Source 2.

Supplementary Homicide Reports

Based on data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), among homicides in which the victim-offender relationship could be determined, strangers committed between 21 percent and 27 percent of homicides from 1993 to 2008, compared to between 73 percent and 79 percent of homicides committed by offenders known to the victims.

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vvcs9310pr.cfm>

Source 3. Violent Victimization Committed By Strangers, 1993-2010

Erika Harrell, Ph.D.

December 11, 2012 NCJ 239424

Presents findings on the rates and levels of violent victimization committed by offenders who were strangers to the victims, including homicide, rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The report presents annual trends and compares changes across three 6-year periods in the incidence and type of violence committed by strangers from 1993 through 2010. It describes the characteristics of victims and circumstances of the violent crime. The nonfatal violent victimization estimates were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The homicide data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1993 through 2008.

Highlights:

  • In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
  • In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
  • From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.

About the Source Data

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4557>

Source 4. The Top 5 Murders by Relationship to the Victim in the United States

Note: strangers and criminals fail to make the FBI's top five:

Relationship (victim)/Number of Murders(2011)/Percentage of Total Murders:

1 Acquaintence

2,700

21.3%

2 Wife

552

4.3%

3 Girlfriend

474

3.7%

4 Friend

377

2.97%

5 Other family

279

2.2%

Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2011.

List Notes: Data is relationship of victim to offender (according to the data killers kill acquaintances far more than they kill fellow co-workers for example). Data is latest available data for the year 2012. Figures are based on 12,664 murders in the United States in 2011 for whom supplemental homicide data was received. Murder as defined here includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. The relationship categories of husband and wife include both common-law and ex-spouses.

i

  1. Out of 13,636 murders studied in the United States, 30.2% of the victims were murdered by persons known to them (4,119 victims), 13.6% were murdered by family members (1,855 victims), 12.3% were murdered by strangers (1,676 victims) and 43.9% of the relationships were unknown (investigators were not able to establish any relationship).
  2. Murders were the least frequent violent victimization of all categories -- about 5 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 2009.
  3. The number of homicides where the victim/offender relationship was undetermined has been increasing since 1999 but has not reached the levels experienced in the early 1990s. Between the years 1976 and 2005 the following facts were found: about one-third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant, 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers, and spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims.

Source 5. WHEN MURDERS ARE NOT COMMITTED BY STRANGERS

Which is most of the time March 27, 2011

(NATIONAL) -- It might surprise many of us to know that only 15% of all murders are committed at random by a stranger; someone who does not know the victim.

And even then, the two people usually have mutual friends and acquaintances, which explains why the killer and the victim are in the same place at the same time.

Yet many assume that most murders are committed by strangers and view the discovery that a murder is not random as news.

And why would that be?

Well, it turns out, writes Christopher Beam in a new piece on Slate about the recent killing of Jayna Murray at the Lululemon Athletica store in Bethesda, Md., the FBI is partly to blame. In the early 1990s, the bureau released a report claiming that half of all homicides were committed by strangers.

But unfortunately that report was flawed.

The media is partly to blame as well. Murders don't typically make big news unless there's something unusual about them. And by covering random crime, in an often sensational way, news outfits help to create the impression that most crime is random.

Beam’s piece can be read HERE

Pasted from <http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/WHEN-MURDERS-ARE-NOT-COMMITTED-BY-STRANGERS-br-Which-is-most-of-the-time-625525>

Source 6. The FBI Uniform Crime Report will give you an answer of a sort, but only two out of three homicides are ‘solved by arrest.’

If you click on the link immediately above you will find there were 12,996 murder victims but the relationship between the murderer and victim were “unknown” in 4,656 of those. That does not mean that the victim was killed by a stranger, only that the killer is “unknown to the police.” So there is really not enough data to provide a defensible answer to the question.

That said, statistical analysis pegs the most likely number between 1800 (14%) to 2200 (17%) a year.

Stranger

Pasted from <http://extranosalley.com/?p=25008>

Source 7. Percentage of murders are convicted by a stranger?

In probably upwards of 80 or 90-percent of homicides, there is some sort of relationship.

Pasted from <http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-murders-are-convicted-by-a-stranger>

Source 8. appendix Table 16

Percents for victim/offender relationship in homicides,

1993–2008

Total Offenders

known /Unknown relationships /Strangers

1993 100% 45.8% 39.7% 14.5%

1994 100% 46.3 40.1 13.6

1995 100% 44.4 40.0 15.7

1996 100% 47.2 38.1 14.7

1997 100% 45.9 40.3 13.8

1998 100% 47.5 38.7 13.8

1999 100% 46.7 40.9 12.4

2000 100% 43.2 43.0 13.8

2001 100% 40.8 45.5 13.7

2002 100% 41.6 43.8 14.6

2003 100% 41.5 45.6 13.0

2004 100% 41.3 45.2 13.5

2005 100% 39.2 46.3 14.5

2006 100% 40.8 46.0 13.2

2007 100% 39.3 47.2 13.5

2008 100% 41.7 45.4 12.8

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicides Reports,

Uniform Crime Reports, 1993–2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

Source 9: Wolfgang Abstract, shootings by familiar people

In 1958, Wolfgang published his seminal work examining criminal homicide cases that occured in Philadelphia between 1948 and 1952. This work was the beginning of an extensive body of literature focusing on the victim-offender relationship in homicides. Wolfgang and subsequent researchers consistently found that homicides tended to be intra-racial, intra-gender, and occurring overwhelmingly between relatives and friends.

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047235288900335>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

 

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

 

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

 

 

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

 

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

 

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

 

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful? Straw man alert.

 

 

YOUR POSITION IS A SHAM.

 

Tom, these much-quoted Federalist papers forced you to expose that neither Madison nor Hamilton had spoken up for individual rights, as such. And Madison's view suggested private guns were inadequate: he openly doubted that privately owned guns were enough, but combined with state authority, both could challenge a standing army.

 

I am not a scholar of the Federalist papers by any means---but I can read. Look at both. Those pieces are not about any thrust for individual gun rights. On the contrary. One (Federalist 46) stresses state authority over militia, the other (Federalist 29) begs for national authority. It questions the motives of the Tom Rays of his day, too.

 

To ask which weapon (of two) would be "more useful" in a militia fracas is to visualize an inspection, by state authority, of your armed (tee hee) POSSE COMITATUS. In making such an argument, you just flip-flopped on individual gun rights, as such.

 

But to answer your strawman question, your preferred militia weapon would be something powerful, like an RPG, or a tank with a trained crew. Jeffie could show up in a joint strike fighter. See where this is going?

 

 

 

Its like jocal is having a conversation with himself. You point out something so obviously like the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" and he will turn around and argue that those same people who wrote that didn't want people to own their own guns. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Up is down, black is white, etc. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. And its more than a little

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

 

KREEEEEEE---------PEEEEEEE..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these gun threads that JokeAwf joins in on eventually just turn into really bad psychotic versions of Alice In Wonderland.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its like jocal is having a conversation with himself. You point out something so obviously like the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" and he will turn around and argue that those same people who wrote that didn't want people to own their own guns. I hold no such view. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Up is down, black is white, etc. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. And its more than a little

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

Q. In objective context, is this phrase the thrust of either Federalist 46 or Federalist 29?

 

 

the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves"

 

A. No, the source of the arms is not the thrust of either. The two essays, Federalists 46 and 29, laid out (and justified) state and federal authority over militia resources.

 

You are merely cherry picking a phrase.

I repeat: neither piece forms an individual rights interpretation of the second amendment.

Far from it. You and Tom and Ashcroft are bulshitters.

 

You once broadly tossed out the authority of "the Federalist Papers". But so far you can't quote individual self defense rights within them. Or the independent confrontation of tyrants, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federalist 29:

 

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

 

Boiled down:

 

The militia, meaning the "great body of yeomanry and other classes of citizens" will not be well-regulated, but we should at least make sure that they possess appropriate weapons.

 

Which is more appropriate, Jocal, an AR-15 or a 9 round .22 revolver?

 

My favorite type of question: one you won't answer and one to which the answer is obvious to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just a roving band of thugs.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is more appropriate, Jocal, an AR-15 or a 9 round .22 revolver?

My favorite type of question: one you won't answer and one to which the answer is obvious to all.

 

Have you stopped beating your wife lately?

Tom, grow up. The Badgeless Pedant is droning a trick, either/or question, framed by a fallacy within its own format.

Either answer, I suppose (in your unfair parameter of either/or), could be taken on one of your off-road excursions.

 

Please remember that gun violence is a complex problem, and will require complex approaches and solutions.

And please consider that your enemy prefers weapons escalation, too.

 

Lastly, I answered your unimpressive third grader question.

--My superior form of patriotism cannot be contained by just huffing the swamp gas, or by your either/or weapon choices.

--Besides, why the whoosh to militia focus? What happened to your phony, post-fabricated "core purpose" and self defense and individual rights, blah blah ALEC blah?

--The self-puffery in your imaginary militia is quite repulsive to me, but aye, the most powerful weapon would be the best choice.

--ANNOUNCEMENT: I have decided to ride with Jeffie, in a Modern Sporting Joint Strike Fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites