With the recent attack at that Florida high school, we are once again inundated with all manner of tired and useless suggestions about how to prevent the next one, all dealing with denying law-abiding citizens their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. While these tragic events also compel facts and truths gun-grabbing, gun control advocates continue to ignore...if they ever take the time to actually research them in the first place...it is incumbent upon rational, honest people to re-iterate those truths and facts every time. With that in mind, I intend to post as many arguments for reason as is necessary in order to have them all aired in one place. I will endeavor to support each one with links to evidence and facts that justify the positions I will put forth.
To begin, I wish to state my personal opinion on the issue of gun rights. It begins with the United States Constitution. This document is a restriction on government...specifically the federal government...and it acknowledges rights we already possess by virtue of the fact that we exist at all. So, we don't possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because the federal government bestows those rights upon us. We were born with those rights already a part of us in the same way we were born with two arms. Government is obliged to respect those rights and the Constitution is the law that imposes that obligation by restricting the government from infringing upon those rights.
The 2nd Amendment, then, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose, primarily, of defending ourselves against the government, as well as for personal defense against all else. Hunting and sport shooting was of no concern when crafting the 2nd Amendment. With that in mind, where's the sense in allowing the government (federal, state or municipal) to dictate whether or not I own a firearm, when and where I can carry one and what type f firearm I choose for the purpose? The Constitution considers government the threat...the "bad guy" in this equation...and yet we decide that the potential oppressor gets to dictate to those it seeks to oppress how to deal with the oppression to be inflicted. It's really insanity.
Thus, my position is that it is absolutely none of the government's business if I own a gun, what kind of gun it is, how many I own and whether or not I can carry it openly or concealed on my person. They have no Constitutional authority to regulate any of that so long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and that includes actual "military grade" weaponry, such as fully automatic weapons.
Oh, my! He didn't just say that, did he? Is he nuts?
No. I'm quite sane so far as anyone honestly can say. Back in the day, when our nation was still pulling up its Pampers, all "military grade" weapons were produced privately, not by the government. This was true well into the 19th century. Even the Gatling gun was invented and produced privately and sold first to railroads (along with some others) to control striking workers. The Army got them later.
More importantly, the founders recognized that the able-bodied, law-abiding citizens...also known as "the militia"...needed to have weapons capable of fending off a rogue government. This means that were Thompson Sub-machine Guns available at that time, the people would likely have had them first, and the founders would have been totally cool with it. The concept is a simple one: how does one keep the bully (despotic governments) at bay while giving the bully all the superior firepower?
(Before going any further, I wish to insist that I can provide links with supporting evidence for all I say and believe, and will do so in later posts on this subject as needed. Right now, I'm merely laying down a premise.)
Even the founders can be noted supporting these concepts. They were inspired by an Italian guy named Cesare Beccaria, from his Essay on Crimes and Punishments, whence comes the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
"A Principle source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility. For example, that legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of know means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages rather than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons."
This moral has been manifested repeatedly with regard to self-protection...or the lack thereof, and we've seen it with all of these school shootings where the unarmed are at the mercy of the armed. But the poor thinkers believe that new laws can make a difference, as if the many laws already on the books on any number of behaviors has ever prevented someone from engaging in those behaviors.
No, the laws that people are seeking...those people who want the government to "do something"...are definitively, distinctly and by definition those that are examples of our inherent right to own and bear arms.
The problem is not now, nor has it ever been guns. It is the character of people. It is the absolutely insane idea of posting for all to see the message that those within are totally and absolutely unprotected because they inhabit a "gun free zone". It is the unwillingness to accept the reality of the existence of evil in the world (unless they want to apply the word to Republicans or Christians) and the ongoing struggle between it and goodness. It is the rejection of the notion that a God exists and is waiting to judge us for our sins. But it is not guns.
That's all for now. More to come in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
357 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 357 of 357"Non reproductive sex: queer sex, being what I had in mind."
Why would you have this in mind. I guess Craig is right about your obsession. Or, you're trying to change the subject again since you're "schooling" is found wanting.
"I’m sure you’re fine with various straight non reproductive sex"
Sex for pleasure between husband and wife within a one man/one woman marital relationship is the only context in which sex for pleasure is not immoral or prohibited by God. So you're going to have to give up queer sex. That's how it works in the adult world.
Are you getting this yet, or will I have to repeat myself yet again?
As to your response to the AmericanThinker link, you fail yet again because you rely upon strongly anti-gun sources that all rehash the same hash. And as I said, the "studies" you provided, particularly the Standford link, doesn't have the value you desperately want to believe it has. Indeed, whilst looking up other things related to this topic, I came across a couple of pieces that address that very study and exposes it's flaws...and that's not counting Lott's own rebuttal (yes, false priest, he gets to rebut his critics, and he does so very well).
BTW, as to the author, he doesn't just rely on Lott's group as you need to believe. He compiles his own data and you'd know that if you didn't just skim until you found the first link to CPRC.
Anyway, the accusation that Lott's methodology is bad ignores the shortcomings of the anti-gun work. For example, one piece I read referred to the "more guns in the home" issue. The problem with this "study" is that it didn't account for deaths/injuries committed with someone else's gun. That is, while the "victim" had a gun in his home, it wasn't necessarily his gun that caused the death/injury. Yet, the "researchers" counted this victim in the same way as if it was his gun. The point being that the gun in the home had no part in the injury and should not have been counted as if it did.
The following is from CPRC defending itself against a Mother Jones piece that references much of what you think indicts Lott, so don't wet your diaper because Lott's outfit chooses to defend him. Again, they get to, just as you'd get to defend your lies if you could:
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/08/a-response-to-mother-jones-mistake-filled-effort-to-discredit-john-lott/
Knock off the name calling, feo, and act like the Christian you aren't man enough to be.
I'll be out of town for a few days and don't know if I'll be able to check in or how often. Should you continue to act like a petulant child who likes to talk dirty, I'll make great effort to find a way to delete your comments again. I know you don't have the class to act like a mature adult, but pretend you are one for the next few days at least.
You say the CPRC group and outfit like there's a whole team. Like a whole team is defending him. Do you know the staffing for CPRC?
John Lott.
And two research assistants. One being his son.
The Board of Directors?
Sheriff David Clarke — Sheriff for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
Ted Nugent, Secretary — Musician, author, and outdoorsman
Brad Thor — the author of numerous New York Times bestsellers
Tracey Wyatt, Treasurer — a graduate of the Tuck Business School
Your Americandrinker has been blown up. ������
Feo, is going to have to keep coming up with excuses for his inability to provide some basic definitions and details.
As for this obsession with queer sex and dudes pleasuring themselves, that’s nothing I can help you with.
You forget Lott's impressive advisory board. Worse than that, you forget that the number of people that works for his non-profit, doesn't take money from activists affiliated with any group on either side of the gun debate (except for private donations from ordinary people who support his great work) organization means absolutely nothing with regards the quality and accuracy of his work. But as is your way, you attack the messenger when you continually fail to find true fault in his message. It's how you roll in your role as false priest. You've blown up nothing.
Keep you comments civil as if you're the mature adult you expect everyone to believe you are, but have long proven you're not.
I’ll take the 1st paragraph since it’s for me and let Craig take his paragraph. He’ll just keep refusing to teach us how to surf pornstar. (Which he brought up, Marshall, you hypocrite.)
Do you know what an advisory board does for almost all organizations, Marshall?
Squat. Or nearly so. They often get paid for the use of their name as an endorsement. There is no direct involvement in any work - that would be a separate role and separately paid. Most of them do show up once a year for the fund raising banquet. Other than that they are welcome to reach out and criticize or nuance whatever they may have paid attention to; and will take calls if needed.
But no fingers in the lie. They cannot be held responsible.
Lott is bad business. Except for generating headlines. And I did address his staff.
And the concept of defining terms and detailing "plans" is still foreign to Feo.
Still to wrapped up in "queer sex" and self pleasure to do much else.
Although he is willing to continue increasing the number of people he feels qualified to speak for, so there's that.
Craig, Marshall, and I all have more wits that Feodor. His primary argument is name-calling and bald-faced lies.
Feo doesn’t have the wits to simply define his terms and detail his plan. The plan that he’s so confident will transform the very character of the nation. I guess in his world, throwing out a vague “plan” with no definitions and no details is enough to buttress the fantasy that you’ve “done something”. Then, it’s just a matter of avoiding providing any information and diverting the conversation to “queer sex”.
Wits definitely aren’t required.
I can only assume that Feo is unable to define the terms he uses and has no details of his magical miracle plan, or that he lacks the wit and industry to scroll up and figure out for himself what’s being asked for.
I guess it’s also possible that he never intended to provide specifics and is just relying of name calling, subject changing, and the rest of his tactics in order to divert attention from his failures.
Maybe that’s why he’s obsessed with “queer sex”.
Certainly not obsessed with details of his miracle plan.
The ever expanding list of excuses not to define your terms and detail your magical plan to end gun violence is becoming tiresome. Just admit you can’t do these two simple things and move on.
I do apologize that my comments about your obsession with “queer sex” have pointed out something about yourself that makes you uncomfortable.
It's amazing, and incredibly sad, how often feo needs to reassure himself that he’s intellectually superior. He clearly can't convince himself of that anymore than he's been able to convince us. What a sad and pathetic person he is.
If all I needed to do was throw out some random, undefined, general, talking points, announce that it was a real thing plan then predict unrealistically positive results I’d be a genius too.
If only Feo would do what he claims he’s done.
Yes, you’ve offered propaganda that confirms your existing biases, no surprise.
What you haven’t offered is defenitions of the terms in your magical panacea gun plan, nor have you offered any details regarding the magical wonders of said plan.
You’ve just offered more and more obfuscation and excuses.
Oh, you’ve offered “queer sex” as well. But I think I’ll leave that to you, maybe when you’re done, you’ll get around to the other stuff.
feo,
I fully understand what advisory boards are all about. It's interesting that you decide that those on the board for Lott's group are not to be trusted and only adding their names to get paid. I wonder if you feel the same about all other advisory boards for even leftist organizations. No...I really don't wonder at all... I'm quite sure you regard those boards as comprised of only the most honest and altruistic people...because you're a lefty.
More likely is that those on Lott's advisory board lend their names because some of them participate in one way or another, while others are impressed with his work and how he does it.
Furthermore, to disparage his staff is typical as you disparaged other people for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of work put forth. The first example was your cheap attempt to rip on Oliff and Hodges' presentation for why certain laws of Leviticus still apply while others don't. Due to your inability to find fault with their work (Dan didn't even try either), you chose instead to pretend that Hodge can't be taken seriously because of his day job...as if being an aircraft engineer is somehow prohibitive of scholarly study and achievement in other areas of interest. More than likely, feo was embarrassed by how flawless their presentation was and how feo lacked the intelligence to find fault, just as he has now with Lott's work. So what does he do? He pretends there's something about Lott's staff that is worthy of his unjustified condescension and thus by making negative assertions about them, he believes that's enough to discount what feo hasn't the wit, integrity or intellect to dispute.
As far as disputes, feo refers to the National Research Council and suggests that they have repudiated Lott's work. They have not (reference to this "repudiation" is in the first point of Lott's response). This is not the only source for this information I've seen. But feo's only interested in that which supports his position, while those who seek to be honest people of integrity allow the data to inform one's opinion.
"Gave Marshall a grownups lesson on his childish understanding of non-reproductive sex: queer sex."
No. You gave your typical false priest style lesson that has no value in the adult world. Worse, you provided nothing that suggests my understanding is flawed in any way, much less childish. But assertion is about as deep as you ever get, because you have nothing more than that. Talk about "punk ass"! That's you in a nut shell, though you try to project that onto John Lott, who is a far better person (I was gonna say "better man", but you're no man.
You haven't painted me into any corner, boy. You couldn't if your sorry life depended upon it. Got any more stupid for us, false priest? We love to laugh.
Has anyone else noticed how feo beats his chest in a manner very similar to Donald Trump?
Nope.
Fed you all data from over a dozen serious sources that proves two things choking your world view. 1) the more guns the more violence and states with more restrictions have much lower gun violence rates. BIG CLUE to people who truly want to save lives. You three, determined to be stupid, provided nothing to alter a decade of findings. 2) access to affordable healthcare and reproductive education and long term contraception is currently THE BEST pathway to reduce abortion and protect women rightly. BIG CLUE to people who really care about lives. Marshall, determined to be stupid, provides bogus data from a proven bogus researcher which I shot full of holes.
Craig has reduced himself to sub-Glenn levels of perseverative [look it up yourself, Glenn] babbling of his visions of queer life and pornhub, whatever that is. Off he goes, still riding in his pursuit of that alternative life that calls.
Marshall offered one punk ass failure of a faker and his son who sell headlines to FOX and Breitbart and his favorite wallpaper, American Drinker. Painted into a corner, determined to be stupid, his only option is to defend the indefensible.
Glenn scrammed, but, like a mole, pops his head up when named.
You three have been an embarrassment for almost a week. A numbing embarrassment. Just clowns. Nothing more; nothing less.
Almost lost all powers. Well... lost all powers. Sold them all away. Like so many. Too many. Sad. Pathetic. Sliding down, decaying history.
Not only is Feo too lazy to define and detail his magic gun proposal, he’s too lazy to do anything but recycle old comments.
But he does like to puff himself up. Like animals do when they’re scared.
I’m not insinuating that he is scared, just using that as an example, if he wasn’t scared he’d define and detail his magic plan to make all bad gun things stop.
feo,
You can re-post your baseless assertions all you like, but they're not truer for having done so. I've already explained why your "more guns, more violence" meme is idiotic as well as unsupported. But here's yet another consideration. "More violence"? or really more gun violence. Here's the deal: violence is violence and if we're speaking of criminal violence, again the tool used in committing violence is irrelevant. Remove one tool, another will be used and if we're talking about mass killings, guns aren't required to get that job done as Timothy McVeigh and 19 islamists have proven. Others will be just as creative.
What you can't grasp is the amount of gun violence perpetrated in isolated areas that inflate the numbers. These would be inner city gangs, many amongst those who, like you, spew BLM type nonsense that never addresses the real issues plaguing the very people you claim to champion. But that, too, is another topic for another day. The point is you haven't at all proven a damned thing with regard to "more guns equal more gun violence". It's an insipid and intellectually lazy assertion, so typical of someone who only thinks he's intellectually superior to the rest of us. A laughable proposition to be sure.
The funniest and most idiotic claim is that states with most gun restrictions have the lowest gun violence rate. As someone from the Chicago area, I can attest to the level of stupidity required to make such a claim. Again, same inner city examples that prove just how stupid you are.
Your abortion positions are equally stupid and proof of your determination to protect sexual immorality. Worse is your determination to protect the legal extermination of human beings with all manner of lame and evil rationalizations. But, again, you're lame and evil with a great lack of regard for human life, be they the unborn, the innocent by-stander or kids trapped in "gun free zones".
Your attempts to "prove" Lott is lacking in his research has also fallen far short of doing so, as I've provided responses to such attack from both Lott and other sources, as well as my own humble rebukes of your experts' clearly obvious failings.
So the only thing embarrassing about anything the three of us have done is to dignify your lies and stupidity with any response at all.
But then, I love to laugh and your bringing the stupid is indeed entertaining. You're so good at it.
That's what we're saying, feo. No substance, you're the "enemy" in much the same way the "father of all lies" ( YOUR father) is considered the enemy in Scripture, AND...you're a total zero. Maybe the truth manages to penetrate your corrupt mind after all...or you just witlessly stumbled over it.
Less than zero on the magic gun plan also. It’s kind of cute when people pretend like they’ve done something when they haven’t.
As you can see, feo, you don't get to insult people here if you can't at least man up and provide some substance once in a while. My rules are not unknown to you with regard to insults, but I waive them for all else but you (and Dan) given how you have never, since your first visit to this blog, sought to act like the Christian you claim to be, but clearly prove you are not. For everyone, my number one rule is that no visitor gets to insult other visitors. I don't care what you say about me, because I consider the source and as that source in this instance, feo, you are beneath consideration. When you decide to act like a man, and actually begin to do so, you will see a parallel drop in personal attacks to you, but everyone is pretty fed up with your unjustified posturing as an intellectual superior and your poor example of Christianity (though I understand that it's hard to be a good example when you have no understanding of it).
Craig's been asking for some substance on your plan to reduce violence. You don't get to withhold that until he does first, as if you're some school kid. I get that you don't actually have a plan that isn't merely taking away guns from those who will never use them to murder, but I'm giving you a chance to prove you have more than shit for brains. Are you man enough to step up to the challenge? I'm quite sure you're not man enough for anything. But it you wish to attempt it...if you wish to risk being exposed for the dimwit I'm satisfied you've already proven yourself to be, do so now and do so without the rancor, condescension and hatefulness for which you are so well known.
Here's a helpful hint: copy and file your response so that after I delete it for failing to act respectfully, you can edit it for snark and childishness and re-post it. This is a warning that I won't care how good your plan is (assuming it possibly could be). I will delete it if I'm not happy with the tone.
Good luck posting to this thread until that happens. I will delete everything and anything that fails to meet these easy to follow (for mature men, Christian or in your case, otherwise) standards.
Just to make a point to Feobore,
I didn't "scram," I just don't have time to waste responding to every ignorant comment you post. You are an unteachable fool.
It’s clear that Feo can’t even define what he wants to restrict, let alone demonstrate that he has specifics or show us what those are. It seems reasonable that if your going to make claims about what this “plan” will accomplish, that you’d have and be eager to share those details. I guess that’s just too much to ask.
"I have a great idea to reduce gun violence!!! But I'm keeping it to myself!"
I have a better idea, let’s make it illegal to use guns for violent purposes! That’d be amazing.
Or I could just throw out vague platitudes and make claims about the results.
If only wishing would make it so. The only relevant fact remaining is the fact that you won’t define the terms used in your “plan”, and you won’t go beyond vague platitudes.
But other than that, it’s a great magical plan.
feo claimed (before I deleted it...which I'll be doing soon) "Anytime one of you ever finally raises a fact that isn't already considered, I'll take it on."
"Considered"? How about successfully debunked or proven wrong? Assertions don't mean jack. Claims that a fact was repudiated (as you think you've proven with Lott) is no better when such has been answered by clarification, explanation and more. You simply dismiss it all and default to attacking the person. Indeed, you've done no more than to present irrelevance and worse simply because it aligns with your superficial and impotent positions. Then you dare pretend you've taught us something. You're a joke. A pathetic joke.
I guess raising the fact that he hasn’t defined his terms and detailed the specifics of his plan is just a coincidence.
I am eager - even after all this time - to read any plan, any plan at all, from either of you. What’s your plan, Craig?
Anytime one of you ever finally raises a fact that isn’t already considered, I’ll take it on. In the meantime, my plan is spread out above, available to the most casual reader. Denial, diversion, and lies doesn’t accomplish anything... except corrupting your characters further.
I knew Glenn would mole up out of the dirt if he heard his name.
I posted my thoughts about what should/could be done quite some time ago, not that it matters. I guess it’s just beyond the realm of possibility that you’d actually provide the definitions and details to flesh out the random platitudes you’ve trotted out so far. Thanks for popping in from fantasy land.
I would prefer that rather than argue over what has or hasn't been done, simply re-state or copy/paste one's position, proposal or argument. I insist feo goes first since I agree that he was lacking in the manner Craig has been insisting. Of course, feo hasn't the spine or integrity to do so and will instead post more nastiness and stupidity. It's how he rolls.
Admit nothing. Blame everyone. Be bitter.
That’s not a plan, Craig. Even if Marshall adopts it and Glenn follows like a puppy dog.
And as if I needed to, feo responds exactly as I predicted.
Oh there’s no question, Marshall, that you have a black belt in blaming everyone.
Isn’t sloth one of the seven deadly sins?
And Craig’s belt is in Admit Nothing.
What does "blame" have to do with anything? Just bringing more stupid, feo? The challenge was a simple one, even for one so simple as yourself: if you have a plan, explain it...if you insist you already did, copy/paste it... as your next comment.
I have a plan. Let’s make it illegal to leave boxes full of explosives on people’s doorsteps. Then we can engage in some common sense box control. We can license boxes and their owners, maybe pass a law that makes it illegal to produce opaque boxes. While we’re at it we can highly regulate explosive materials and the component parts of explosives. Because no one actually needs a box full of explosives. Maybe we should ban anything that can be used to detonate the explosive also. Alarm clocks, garage door openers, cell phones, all need to go. Kitchen timers too.
By implementing these simple, common sense box reform ideas we should be able to virtually eliminate box violence and get rid of assault boxes for good.
So Feo’s response is to pretend he’s done something he hasn’t, then stall, divert, blame others, and tell lies to cover that up.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just provide the definitions and details of his plan?
Craig cannot admit the realities.
Exploding boxes have been used to kill ten to twenty people over two decades. Damn good for a free society. Because we enforce good laws.
Terrorists kill 3,500. Only 120, 130 over the last sixteen years. Damn good for a free society. Because we enforce good laws.
Assault weapons and semi-automatic guns have been used to kill 550,000 over the last sixteen years.
Because we don’t do shit about it.
And you three don’t care.
Do the Christian thing. Gather and buy back all assault weapons and semi-automatic guns, melt them down and make blades for Deere tractors.
And make ownership of such killing machines as costly as the ownership and making of explosives. As costly as planning a terrorist attack. Because that’s they’re only use.
Just like I’ve been waiting for the definitions and details of your alleged plan.
I freely admit that nothing you’ve done has involved defining the terms you’ve used or has involved actual details of your magical plan. So yes, I admit your plan equals nothing, and that your either to lazy, scared, or stubborn to simply flesh out your plan with specifics.
I love how Feo throws out the 550,000 figure as if one solution would solve all of those. Especially when he attributes it specifically to “assault weapons” and “semi automatic guns”, even though I’ve seen nothing that backs up that breakdown.
Gun deaths average 32,000 per year (512,000 in 16 years), 63% of that number is suicide or accident. Even the most hoplophobic among us, should be able to acknowledge that these deaths require a different solution than others.
That leaves roughly 189,000 deaths from all types of firearms over 16 years (roughly 11,900 per year).
Of those approximately 80% are gang related, which would most likely require a specific solution.
Which leaves roughly 2,400 non gang related presumably criminal deaths or (roughly 38,000) over the magical 16 year period.
So while of these deaths are tragic, this simplistic “ban assault weapons” (undefined) and “semi automatic guns” (also undefined) doesn’t readily translate into the miraculous results Feo predicts.
Seems to me, that it’s foolish to focus on the margins just to make people feel good, instead of focusing where the most lives would potentially be saved.
What I find interesting, is that one of my searches regarding violence in schools turned up the information that apparently the biggest violence issue in schools of late is sexual assault. And this makes me wonder why we are put Vocal effort into school shootings which are statistically fairly rare. And yet silent about the issue of sexual assault.
feo cannot admit to realities, such as:
Removing all firearms completely will have no effect on the all too widespread willingness to do harm...even lethal harm...to others.
Removing all firearms completely will have no effect on the ability of the violent to find other ways to do harm.
Removing all firearms would raise the possibility of boxes full of explosive material will be used to massacre as many people as possible (see Timothy McVeigh).
Removing all firearms completely will only eliminate harm perpetrated by the use of firearms and will restore the imbalance of power between the weak and the strong...the law abiding and the criminal.
Let’s go with lethal knives and bats, Marshall.
Seat belts don’t save everyone either. Just hundreds of thousands over the years.
You’re using idiocy to avoid saving lives.
And Craig diddles while they die. He had zero plan to change the killings.people who kill themselves are people. People birn in poverty with no jobs are people, too. Craig thinks God only loves the wealthy. He’s anti-Christ.
“Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before—that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.
So, who is buying all these guns—and why?
The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male—but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.
These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated. For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious—and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives. Taken together, these studies describe a population that is struggling to find a new story—one in which they are once again the heroes.“
In other words, scared little childish white men.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/#
“And it’s not just white men who are poor and angry at the economy. It’s also those who harbor racial resentments. A British study looked at gun owners using a test to determine racism and found that just a one-point jump in the scale collated to a 50 percent increase in the likelihood of owning a gun. A study by the University of Illinois at Chicago also found that racial resentment among whites fueled opposition to gun control also found that racial resentment drove white people’s opposition to gun control...
According to science, the average gun owner is a white man without much education who is worried about providing for his family and who is afraid of black people.
These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated. For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious—and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives...
A 2013 paper by a team of United Kingdom researchers found that a one-point jump in the scale they used to measure racism increased the odds of owning a gun by 50 percent. A 2016 study from the University of Illinois at Chicago found that racial resentment among whites fueled opposition to gun control. This drives political affiliations: A 2017 study in the Social Studies Quarterly found that gun owners had become 50 percent more likely to vote Republican since 1972—and that gun culture had become strongly associated with explicit racism.
That wasn’t true for women and non-whites. In other words, they may have suffered setbacks—but women and people of color weren’t turning to guns to make themselves feel better. “This suggests that these owners have other sources of meaning and coping when facing hard times,” notes Froese—often, religion. Indeed, Froese and Mencken found that religious faith seemed to put the brakes on white men’s attachment to guns.
For these economically insecure, irreligious white men, “the gun is a ubiquitous symbol of power and independence, two things white males are worried about,” says Froese. “Guns, therefore, provide a way to regain their masculinity, which they perceive has been eroded by increasing economic impotency.”
A gun in the home makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed by her husband. Every week in America, 136 children and teenagers are shot—and more often than not, it’s a sibling, friend, parent, or relative who holds the gun. For every homicide deemed justified by the police, guns are used in 78 suicides. As a new study published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine once again shows us, restrictive gun laws don’t prevent white men from defending themselves and their families. Instead, those laws stop them from shooting themselves and each other.“
And Feo continues to throw up smoke screens because he apparently is so unable to provide what he’s been asked to provide. Once again, I posted the first steps of a plan weeks ago, but you can pretend otherwise.
Let’s also not pretend that the school district, the FBI, and the sheriff’s department don’t bear some responsibility for this most recent tragedy. But, let’s make sure to give more responsibility to those who failed so spectacularly in this case.
While we’re at it, let’s restrict or deprive the 99.9% of gun owners who never have and never will of their legally purchased private property because of what a minuscule percentage of people might do.
Can’t make a plan with out defining what you mean and providing details. Must be why you don’t have one. Of course, if you can’t define what you’re talking about and have no details you can just make up the alleged effects.
I posted my first steps of a plan quite some time ago, I guess that bit of reality hasn’t quite sunk in yet. Maybe if I used a BFH it would help pound it into your skull.
Working off my phone during brief periods my job allows me to do so, I find links to studies provided in feo's latest offering will require cash to peruse seriously. Summaries and abstracts provide nothing of value with regard to how each came to their conclusions. I fully doubt feo went beyond those conclusions as they surely aroused his self-loathing white guilt triggers, and that's enough for him. I prefer to go deeper to find, for example, how were questions worded that led to the notion that racism plays a significant role in gun ownership by whites. How many blacks were asked the same question? feo is so eager to tie so many societal ills to racism, one would think he's really Al Sharpton posing as a really stupid white guy.
I don't know a ton gun owners, and fewer that own more than two, but of that tiny group, not a one is less than a strong believer in Christ, confident in their abilities regardless of proximity to their weapons. Only a feo would pretend a man's duty to defend his family is made unnecessary by devotion to God.
I am eager to spend cash on at least one of the studies, unless I find I can access one without doing so, as at this point it seems the real causes of violence are ignored and I doubt they'll even be mentioned.
In the meantime, I can say with full confidence that my wife is in no danger from me regardless of how many weapons are in our home or what kind they might be. There's simply no way to back up that "5 times more likely" claim.
Notice how Feo finds the accidental death of a dog to be more heinous than murdering a child in the womb.
I just was trying to decide what’s less appealing. Feo, is afraid to have his own blog because he wants to hide behind anonymity so people he knows won’t learn too much about his true character.
Dan, on the other hand, has descended into mostly hiding at his blog where he can exert control and shut things down when they get uncomfortable or difficult. Even when he does venture out, it’s more hit and run, and disappearing when pressed on questions and other things.
Either way, neither of them represents their side particularly well.
I don't know about that, Craig. They each seem to reflect the kind of goofiness so common today in the leftist universe, just in different ways. Representation is the inability to sufficiently defend the positions they've taken. In that way they are absolutely typical.
feo does have a blog. He just doesn't do anything there, likely because no one would visit to see just how brilliant he is (sarcasm). He has no problem proving it here. I find it amazing he doesn't join in the fun at Dan's, seeing as how they are so alike in their...beliefs. But as far as his blog, I'm surprised he doesn't use it to spew his unique pseudo-intellectualism. Even if no one visits, we know how impressed he is with himself.
Then I guess you’ve just described yourself as gutless.
The terms I’ve asked you to define are here in this thread. The fact that you were too stubborn to define them when I originally asked, and too lazy to find them yourself just puts the lie to your last comment.
If your plan is so vague and bereft of details that you can’t provide them, while defining the terms you use, then it’s teally more of a fantasy than a plan. If you were truly interested in doing what you’ve been avoiding for days, you would have put forth the effort to do so, instead you chose otherwise.
Art, I seem to remember Feo saying he needed to hide behind the fake name and empty blog to keep people who knew him from discovering his secret internet life, or something like that.
I know the pseudo intellectual facade is off putting and a disguise, as is Dan’s self centered theology.
They still both suck at presenting a winsome, compelling face for their side of things.
Feo, just to be nice I’ll give you a hint. The information you “seek” can be found in comments dated earlier than March 13.
Handgun only, no assault rifle. Two injured. Shooter dead.
This should be as bad as it ever gets. Fits my plan above. (Craig, see my remarks after Feb 23.)
But you guys love blood. And won’t be moved to make a rational plan to stop so much killing.
Feo
There has never been an "assault rifle" used in any school shooting. Only stupid people keep using that term made up by the anti-gunners who first came up with it because they thought that is what the "AR" stood for with the "AR-15". It's just a semi-automatic rifle which can't do any more damage than a semi-automatic pistol.
You stop the killing by enforcing to present laws, not making more laws disarming the good guys, you FOOL!
Glenn. Bird is a general category. There is no specific bird. Each species of bird is different from another. Even within species, differences exist.
Insipid idiot is another. No one exhaustively defines insipid idiot in and of him/herself. Look at you and Marshall and Craig. Different among yourselves, all insipid idiots.
At the moment you’re being an insipid idiot by playing word games with weapons that only serve to kill lots of people in assault fashion. The AR-15 was built by Armalite for military assault actin. Sold it to Colt. From 1994 to 2004 it was restricted under Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
Christians are working hard to get it banned again, as is only right. To stop so many killings.
No victim was killed today. 17 victims were killed in Florida.
Ignoring this horrific truth is what makes you a monster.
Feobore
Military "assault" rifles are capable of fully automatic fire. The AR-15 and clones are not. The military never labeled the AR-15 as an assault weapon. Colt developed the AR-15 into the M-16, which CAN be called an assault rifle.
The weapons ban against "assault rifles" was just another LEFTIST gun-grabbing ploy demonstration ignorance of weapons - just like you do.
I know of NO real Christians seeking any gun bans, only LEFTIST fake Christians who are more interested in liberal ideology than Christian theology.
It was a good guy with a gun which kept killings from happening today. The good guys with guns in Florida just stood around with their thumbs up their 4th point of contact allowing the shooting to go on. It wasn't the fault of the gun. And the laws were in place to keep that gun out of that man's hand but they weren't enforced -- so let's just add more laws against guns so more killings can be done by the bad guys.
And that ideology makes YOU the monster.
Still scared of details. Yet even your feeble attempt fails. The AR15 is not fully automatic in the military, because the military doesn’t use the AR15, it never has. “Civilian assault weapon” is an oxymoron.
Still no definition, still no details, still to lazy to look, still to unaware to know that two school shootings have been thwarted by armed recourse officers. All without banning anything or restricting law abiding citizens.
The rough plan I put forth quite some time ago could have stopped the FL shooting, but please keep ignoring that bit of reality.
Feo continues to prove what an ignorant fool he is. No civilian has an assault weapon, but he keeps parroting the LEFTIST LIE
You can play your word games. 17 children were assaulted to death by an assault rifle in Florida. 2 were injured by a pistol today in Maryland.
You’re a monster if you cannot call for the ban of assault weapons and demand enforcement.
And let’s be clear, Glenn: you’re a moral monster.
First, to both Craig and the village idiot feo: I'd like both of you to go back to wherever you believe your original comments are and cut/paste them now. I know feo won't because he has no real plan or honest explanation for the use of terms he won't define. But if Craig re-posts his, at least feo will have no excuse or ability to level false charges against Craig. Best of all, I won't have to wade through this crap.
As to moral monsters, one must understand what morality is before daring to label Glenn or anyone else with such a term as "moral monsters". Disarming the populace and leaving them defenseless against criminals, the insane, despots and the stupid---like feol---is immoral. Lying about the prevalence of guns as the reason so many people are murdered in this country is immoral. Pretending banning any weapon from the law-abiding will eliminate criminal behavior and the leftist, "progressive" policies that enable it is immoral.
The bottom line is that feo has no plan that isn't just a variation on the theme of taking away weapons from the law-abiding, which is no plan at all as it accomplishes nothing beyond leaving the law-abiding defenseless. I haven't seen the details on these latest school shootings where an armed security person stopped the shooter. As such, I have no idea if the intention of either of these shooters was to kill as many as possible or simply to kill a specific person or persons. But the plan worked. Armed security stopped the shooters and somehow, that factor means nothing to the feo's of the world.
We're seeing bombings in Texas right now. I haven't followed this story, either, in order to tally any death toll. But imagine one bomb in a classroom, or just outside the wall of a classroom, ala Tim McVeigh. End result? Mass murder without the use of firearms. Just as with people of character, the same is true of those lacking it...where there's a will, there's a way.
I think it's sad and shameful that we must think in terms of security at schools. The left...that is, people like feo...have brought our culture to this place and now moral monsters like feo falsely put the blame at those who have never rejected traditional standards of behavior, right/wrong and Biblical/Constitutional understanding. feo is the cause of our nation's ills. Remove the feo's (that is, their destructive, immoral ideologies) and we remove the ills of the nation.
Feo,
Let's be clear. You are unteachable and as ignorant and stupid as they come.
I can't call for a ban of something civilians don't have.
The reason for only two hits today isn't because of pistol vs rifle, rather it was because a good guy with a gun took action. That is the only difference.
The only moral monster here is you, who thinks nothing of murdering millions of innocent children in the womb.
I never said the military used it, Craig. You can’t read with a detailed attention, so why do you ask for what you cannot follow
Armalite was asked to rush new models for the Army in the 50s because the Army was dissatisfied with their options. Armalite made an automatic AR-15 for the military that was superior in many ways but was vetoed. Armalite then sold its design to Colt who simply changed it to semi-ailuromatic, lengthened the barrel and sold it as a civilian versions. If you’re going to ask for details, Craig, you really should pay attention. And not lie.
But that you want to wade into weeds on assault weapons rather than demand a ban and enforcement while our children and another 35,000 Americans are killed, makes you a moral monster, too.
Being blood thirsty anti-Christs, there is zero surprise that when you ask for facts you deny them; when you ask for details you deny them. You both just lied; you both lie every time. And Marsgall lives the duplicitousness as your godmother who cannot live though God asks him too.
You all love the killing. Not one of you has a rational plan to stop any of it, the mass shootings, the massive numbers of homicieds, the even more massive suicides, or the preventable abortions. You all have swallowed a olutics of revenge and choke on true, loving faith that gives of itself for your neighbor.
You three sicken reason, love, and Christ.
“AR15’s are fully automatic for the military”
Sorry, you did say it.
To correct the false impression you chose, what Colt did was to modify the AR 15 so that it complied with the existing gun laws, which it still does.
“Civilian assault rifle” is still an oxymoron.
Art, I’ll think about it. It’s clear that this is Feo filibustering and being too lazy to do what he’s been asked. I’m pretty sure that nothing that either of us do will convince him to man up. Vitriol and pejorative are his currency, not definition and detail.
They were automatic. They were made for the military. You’re a gutless denier and a moral monster.
Feo's main argument is name-calling. Typical of the totally ignorant leftists.
When you lied, Glenn, you make yourself a liar. I can only recognize the truth of what you’ve done.
Can’t deal with facts.
Handgun only, no assault rifle. Two injured. Shooter dead.
This should be as bad as it ever gets. Fits my plan above. (Craig, see my remarks after Feb 23.)
But you guys love blood. And won’t be moved to make a rational plan to stop so much killing.
It was only as bad as that because there was an immediate armed response called for by our position. It will only be as bad as it could get if more schools were also prepared in a similar fashion. It isn't the only aspect of our proposals, but it's nice to see you recognize it's effectiveness, proving that even the morally bankrupt like feo stumbles upon the truth now and then.
Copy and paste, feo you coward. Define your terms. Pretend you're anything that resembles what you expect us to believe you are, but your comments, behavior and "facts" say otherwise. Your appeals to Christ are worthless while you continually insist on behaving in less than a Christian manner.
Self contradiction doesn’t hold as much fear as defining and detailing your fantasy plan.
“civilian assault rifle” is still an oxymoron.
Columbine.
Sandy Hook.
Parkland.
A dozen others.
Ban it. Buy them back. Melt them down. Make a plow.
Speak like a Christian not like someone into human sacrifice.
We do try to speak as Christians and NOT like someone into human sacrifice, like you who supports abortion on demand as well as the high priests of human sacrifice...Planned Parenthood. You offer up our school-aged kids for slaughter by your failed "gun free zone" target rich environments, even after these latest examples of how immediate armed response limits victims of murderers. There was no such immediate response at Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland or a dozen others.
Guns continue to be NOT the problem. They never were or will be the problem.
You deny facts: the more guns, the more gun violence; ready access to healthcare, sex education and contraception prevents abortions.
You’re either cruel and blood thirsty. Or you’re stupid. Or both.
The more automobiles, the more automobile fatalities. The more paper, the more paper cuts. The more unarmed, defenseless citizens, the more unarmed, defenseless citizens murdered by evil people with any manner of weapon. The more contraception use, the more "unwanted" pregnancies due to contraception failure which leads to more abortions.
You're either an idiot, or...no...you're just an idiot failing to prove you're more.
Exactly. That’s why automobiles are fairly heavily regulated: inspection, registration, license plates fees, title fees, driving test, vision test, license, re-licensing, insurance. Drinking while driving has been heavily punished ever since moms (MADD) made us change our laws to be safer, more humane. Seat belt laws, texting laws, car seats for kids laws, etc. No civilian tanks, no civilian armored vehicles.
LOTS of laws for a dangerous tool.
You just made yet another case for why we need to act now - with major plans.
Think of the millions of lives saved since these laws have been made enforceable and MADD made the morally clear case.
We can save just as many with a rational and loving approach to maturely managing our 2nd amendment.
Notice that the laws about drunk driving are addressed at the perpetrators and not the instrument. Yet Feo wants to address the instrument rather than the perpetrator when it comes to guns. Another example of just how stupid he is.
It’s nice of you, Mother Superior, to protect the imbecile. A rare display of humanity.
And of course traffic fatalities have risen over the last two or three years despite laws and regs intended to reduce them. So yeah, we need more laws because they work so well.
What's more, as owning and driving a car isn't an enumerated right in the U.S. Constitution, infringing on one's ability to own or drive isn't prohibited therein.
BTW, thanks to CAFE standards, we'd all be less likely to die in a crash if we could drive tanks or armored vehicles, so regs have really helped in that area so nicely.
There are ten times as many cars as guns in this country. Your *infringement diversion is fake. Strict regulations of driving has saved millions of lives since MADD started. But you don’t want to save lives. You want to make idiotic irrational patter that covers killings.
Roughly the same number of Americans are killed every year by vehicles as by guns. But every day there are 100,000 TIMES more vehicles active than guns. Every day.
Guns are 100,000 times more deadly but you can’t THINK of enacting serious laws and strictly enforcing them in the level of cars.
You’re pathetic. And an anti-christian accomplice with brutality.
Feo just keeps spewing stupidity as if that is an argument
I’ve given reams of facts and repeated extended reasoning. Craig acts like he can’t find anything that’s over an hour old.
And you have squat for brains, Glenn. ALL you are is a playground name caller. Lucky for you Marshall spends so much time protecting your insipid stupidity.
Feo, if you look at the comment string, YOU are the one who is the premier caller of nasty names. I call you the name you are -- FOOL. I've got plenty of brains, I just choose not to waste a whole lot of time on you abject ignorance.
"Strict regulations of driving has saved millions of lives since MADD started."
Again, there's no Constitutionally protected right to drive. You can't compare weaponry citizens have the right to own for self-protection to driving.
At the same time, we know without any studious research that no regulation has eliminated drunk driving, distracted driving or even driving without a license. No one has moved to eliminate cars most often involved in accidents:
Make Model % of Reported Accidents % of Unreported Accidents % of Accidents
BMW 4 Series 11.5% 7.0% 18.5%
BMW X1 12.7% 5.3% 18.0%
Range Rover Evoque 10.9% 5.6% 16.5%
Jaguar XJ 8.2% 7.5% 15.7%
Infiniti JX 9.3% 5.4% 14.6%
Lexus RX 350 10.5% 3.8% 14.4%
Audi A5 9.5% 4.7% 14.2%
Cadillac ATS 8.5% 5.6% 14.1%
Lexus CT 200h 8.7% 5.0% 13.6%
Infiniti QX60 8.0% 5.5% 13.5%
---OR---
Here's the list of models with the highest death rates. Numbers represent driver deaths per 1 million over the years studied, from 2009 to 2012:
1. Kia Rio four-door, 149
2. Nissan Versa, 130
3. Hyundai Accent four-door, 120
4. Chevrolet Aveo, 99
5. Hyundai Accent two-door, 86
6. Chevrolet Camaro, 80
7. Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew, 79
8. Honda Civic two-door, 76
9. Nissan Versa hatchback, 71
10. Ford Focus, 70
---OR---
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae5a/d331a4043ea33ff7e8528714259f6c9bb435.pdf
By your lame argument, we MUST do away with all vehicles most "responsible" for the bulk of traffic fatalities, just as you want to do away with AR-15s despite their NOT being responsible for the bulk of firearm deaths.
Thus, your "facts" are inconsequential for dealing with the causes of shootings (mass or otherwise), or how to protect people from the occurrence. You've got nothing, especially any "earned right" to insult anyone here simply because they're better people than you.
Your "more guns means more gun violence" argument (more dogs means more people bitten by dogs) is an absurd argument for its irrelevance in impotence in resolving the issue. Then you dare pretend you've brought forth compelling "facts" that support your demand to take away from law-abiding citizens one of the most popular, easy to use, versatile means of self-defense on the market today.
The fact that Feo lumps all gun deaths together is for one reader only, to try to manipulate the discussion. It’s clear that his “civilian assault weapon” ban would “save” less than 500 people per year. (not to minimize these deaths, but it’s a tiny percentage of overall gun deaths) It’s even more clear that he just wants a simplistic, one size fits all approach which doesn’t necessarily deal with the root causes of gun deaths.
His lack of precision, definition, and detailed suggestions mean that he can make outlandish claims about his “plan”, with abandon.
It seems clear that his concern isn’t with the individual victims and their safety as much as his ability to aggregate the number and use it as a weapon.
Marshall: "The more automobiles, the more automobile fatalities."
Marshall: "You can't compare weaponry citizens have the right to own for self-protection to driving."
Marshall: "... we know without any studious research that no regulation has eliminated drunk driving, distracted driving or even driving without a license."
Make up your mind, Marshall, or that little brown box that stands in for your mind.
______
From within your closed box you don't understand that the clear findings that the more guns the more gun violence destroys the brutality loving argument to make targets, like schools, hard by having more guns around. More guns, more violence. So simple and you can't get the clear message.
The number relationship is that a 1% increase in guns means a 0.8% increase in gun violence.
As I noted, guns are 100,000 more deadly than cars. The number relationship for cars, then, is that for every 1% increase in cars there is a 0.000008% increase in car fatalities.... a hundred thousand times less lethal.
THIS is what freedom can afford. A hundred thousand percent decrease in killings.
Reduce deaths, preserve freedom, no infringement in the 2nd amendment. We preserve the rights to bear arms, just not killing tools. We cannot buy shoulder-fired missiles - an armament. We cannot buy rocket propelled grenades - an armament. We cannot own functioning tanks - an armament. We cannot own functioning assault vehicles - an armament. We can buy weapons of self-defense - shotguns, rifles, and pistols - just not killing machines or killing augmentations.
______
You and your co-conspirators believe arming more people helps. Facts have told you it doesn't. Just the opposite. But you all keep lying.
You and your co-conspiratiors claim to want to reduce deaths. None of you has produced a plan and all of you cannot deal with the simple fact that seat car ownership regulations, seat belt laws, car seats, MADD influenced laws, etc. have all saved millions of lives. This destroys the lie that you want to reduce deaths. But you all keep lying.
You and your co-conspirators claim the 2nd amendment is harmed. But you cannot say it is harmed by keeping machine guns out of civilian hands. You cannot say it is harmed by keeping rocket propelled grenades out of people's hands. And if you did, you would twice as laughable as you are now. The Federal Weapons Assault Ban of 1994-2004 covers much of the ground necessary. Enforcement, mandatory jail time for owning assault weapons, a national buy back program, regulating all other guns like we do cars will save hundreds of thousands of lives. The 2nd amendment obviously not harmed. But you all keep lying.
17 children we gunned down several days ago. Craig is fine with that and fine with the gunning down of 20 six and seven year olds. Fine with Columbine. Fine with Orlando. Fine with Las Vegas, twice. Fine with a dozen other mass killings. This is just the quality of a morally empty civilization that Craig is fine with. He's a moral monster.
You yourself paint Maryland as a fine day, a good day. A 19 year old bagged a pistol, backpacked in to school, and fired it at two kids. May have shot himself. The girl remains critical. And you think that's a good outcome. A right kind of occurrence. You ignore the trauma, the psychological consequences, the long term affects on hundreds. You ignore the trauma and deep mental influence of millions of American kids practicing for live shooter events. This is just the quality of a morally empty civilization that you are fine with. You are a moral monster.
Glenn is an insipid idiot who cannot think himself out of paper bag. Enough said.
Wow. We've ignored nothing including how vapid, disingenuous and downright nonsensical your "argument" is. You begin by listing several quotes from me and asserting they denite some perceived (by you only) inconsistency you make no effort to explain.
You then continue to lie about some fictitious love of brutality with, again, no attempt to draw a legitimate and intelligent connection between our positions and this ludicrous, hateful charge.
You continue to cite meaningless platitudes (more guns=more gun violence) as if it has any real merit in the debate...which it absolutely does not.
You suggest that laws you claim have reduced traffic fatalities, while such have increased in recent years, is an argument for infringing upon a Constitutionally protected right, yet are too stupid to acknowledge the true parallel requires you ban specific vehicles that are involved in a far greater percentage of traffic fatalities, then semi-automatic weapons are involved with gun related deaths. And uou dare suggest that it's me who ain't gettin' it. (Truly amazing)
The 2nd WAS harmed by banning fully automatic weapons. You ignore or are ignorant of the history of that amendment or are just too stupid to understand why and how. Only a feo would suggest that "to bear arms" includes weapons not particularly easy to bear whilst going about one's daily business, and instead thinks bringing up rocket launchers and tanks harms our position.
You ignore that the Federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994-2004 was shown to gave no effect and as such teying to pass it again is as worthless as you've proven yourself to be time and time again.
And you continue to lie outright and knowingly by saying we're fine with ANYONE dying or being murdered or that we think the Maryland case represents "a good day" in any sense of the trrm. You do this because you're an inveterate liar, devoid of Christian character and honor and absent a real argument that justifies your position.
The weakness of the Ban is due to blood thirsty Republicans.
"Back in 1994, Congress passed a federal assault-weapons ban that lasted 10 years. Experts who have studied the law tend to agree that it was rife with loopholes and generally ineffective at curbing gun violence — though it might well have reduced mass shootings...
Congress [Republicans] didn't want to ban all semiautomatic weapons — that would ban most guns, period. So, in crafting the 1994 ban, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complicated flow charts laid it all out. Certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s were banned. Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an "assault weapon." But a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip might be okay. It was complicated. And its complexity made it easy to evade...
Would it be possible to tighten the law? In theory, yes. Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners.
As Wonkblog's Sarah Kliff pointed out, Australia's law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journal write that the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”
Australia, Marshall. Facts. Face it.
feo,
I wouldn't have deleted your last if not for the typical cheap, childish and dishonest jab at Craig. Grow up.
As to the point, it's too bad that anyone would be reduced to posting their info on a porn site simply because of YouTube's leftist policies. But that's what life has come to thanks to people like you.
https://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/gun-city/day1.html
https://churchandstate.com.au/3-reasons-australian-gun-control-is-a-failure/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/21884/should-us-adopt-australias-gun-laws-heres-why-james-barrett
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/21/australia-admits-gun-buyback-failure-amnesty/
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/report-australia-gun-control-fail/
...and of course I could have provided so much more, but the point here is that the Australian plan hasn't been all the gun-grabbers stupidly believe. Sure, the removal of over 600K firearms will have an effect, but that hadn't done much to alter the attitudes and character of those who were using them for ill, nor had it done anything for the law-abiding except to make them victims of the criminal class and in some cases, made them criminal as well for choosing to turn in their weapons. Australia does not regard the right to defend one's self as an unalienable right. Move to Australia, feo.
I’d say it was stupidly on display, but it’s too calculated and intentional to be stupid. The contradictions are so stunning, yet they pale in comparison to the intentional mis-characterization of others words.
Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 311, states that the militia consists of all able-bodied males 17 to 45 years old. It also specifies two classes of militias exist, the organized (i.e. National Guard) and unorganized.
In U.S. vs Miller, 1939, the U.S Supreme Court said that when militia members were called to service, they were “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use” at the time.
So how can governments restrict ownership of pistols or rifles to those who are 21 years old? That leaves militia members from 17 20 years old the inability to adhere to the Federal laws!!!
This SCOTUS decision also PROVES that civilians should be permitted any semi-automatic rifle they want, because it is of a type "in common use."
First, I don't listen to Laura Ingraham.
Second, The facts I posted are from research I did in 1990 with a complete list of information about who and what the militia is. Prove me wrong, fool.
“Homicide in Australia has declined over the last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on record in the past 25 years... a 20 percent decline in homicides from 1996 to 2007....
The most recent report, “Australian crime: facts and figures 2014,” which was released last year, shows that homicides remained low through 2013.
The previous low in 2007 was surpassed in 2010, when the number of homicides dropped to 261. The numbers have varied since then, but there were 23 percent fewer homicides in 2013 than there were in 1996 — a slight improvement from our last report, which covered a 12-year period ending in 2007.
While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.
In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).
In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33). The drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”
The summary comes from fact-check.org. The numbers from the Australian government. Not, in other words, from Marshall’s lying blow hard screeds.
Now doubtless you and Craig will say it’s not enough, the lives saved. All while neither of you has a plan, or an apparent desire to really save any lives at all.
Only a truly loose insipid idiot would insist that ANY court opinion trumps the original intent of the Constitution and the understanding of those who ratified it. So nice of you despots to remove an infringement of our God-given right to defend ourselves when it suits YOU. Only an idiot, AKA a feo, is cool with the notion of the very entity against whom the 2nd protects our right to defend ourselves having the power to decide when and how we can do so.
Only an idiot would again attack those who provide information rather than address the info itself while at the same time not providing a link for his sources so as to judge the info the idiot (feo) presents. Had the idiot (feo) taken the time to actually read the links, he would have learned that much of the info in the links was also derived from Australian government sources as well as are insights of Australians also. feo thinks mocking the messenger equates to rebutting the message.
Feo,
You are the insipid idiot. First, I never lied. IF the information I copied from another source is in error, it isn't me lying. But you are too stupid to understand what lying is because you are liar with about everything you say.
"When called to service," um that is the implication of what I stated. But the point was that it is EXPECTED that they would have the arms, not that they would be given them upon reporting.
I did indeed cite the appropriate Code:
http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-311.html
No. You didn't. But I'll let you off because you were indeed led astray by a bad site or an old code.
10 U.S. Code § 246
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2016-title10/html/USCODE-2016-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap12-sec246.htm
Notice it said 311 was renumbered in 2016. When it comes to the government it is difficult to keep up with their changes.
But the point is, the definition of what the militia is by federal law. And if you don't allow those 17-20 to purchase a weapon as on common use, then you are indeed violating the law because you can't have an unarmed militia.
"Under original Constitutional understanding, Marshall, you’d be too poor to vote. And Mississippi would still have slavery."
Wow. So you don't understand the concept of "original intent". I even provided an elementary example. All that education. All those books. So incredibly and pathetically sad that you couldn't attain intelligence and wisdom.
You don't understand the concept of amendments. 17 of them changed or altered the Constitution. One of them struck down a previous one. Slavery was original intent. Not after 1865: the 13 amendment, counter to original intent. The denial of the vote on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" was struck down by the 14th, counter to original intent. But the Supreme Court understood "original intent" narrowly and allows poll taxes and test before people of color could vote - letting white men off the hook. So another amendment was needed: the 25th, counter original intent. Before that women were allowed to vote by the 19th amendment in 1919, counter to original intent.
Another changed the date national elections were to be held, counter to original intent. The 22nd limits terms of the President, counter to original intent. Another gave DC electoral votes, counter to original intent.
Etc., etc. Amendments are the original knowledge and intention by the founding fathers that original intent itself would not suffice. Time moves on. Society changes. New issues to be dealt with. Not the least of which is that there is no knowing what the original framers would think about so many things of today. And, for a democracy, it doesn't matter. WE are the government. Not dead people.
Your idea of original intent is a white man's sorry excuse for living in the past, unable to live with changes and still love his neighbor.
__________
God given right to wield an assault weapon? Wow. You don't understand God at all. You think Jesus would carry a gun? You gospel ignorant hypocrite. When they came for him in the garden of Gethsemane, what did he tell Peter when Peter cut the ear off of Malchus?
Glenn, your three failures are no reduced to two. You can't answer for you two lies: the misquote and the straight up lie.
No lies at all Feo, You're just stupid.
Thanks for being like leftist lawyers and judges and reinterpreting everything to fit your agenda. Too bad you don't understand reality.
feo,
Your idiocy is in fine form today.
Original intent does not refer to slavery references, but what was meant by the term slavery (as an example). That is to say, what did the framers mean by the term "slavery". Honest people know that the Biblical references to slavery were not absolute parallels to the slavery of the antebellum south. This might be a surprise to you given you're not an honest person.
Another example is Dan Trabue's disingenuous argument of Biblical support for same-sex marriage. He looks at Biblical references to marriage and insists that marriage is a good thing and thus "marriage" of two of the same sex is a good thing. But again, honest people understand that there is no possibility that any reference to marriage in Scripture by the authors could include such a possibility as a same-sex union...that marriage can only refer to a man/woman union only. The intent of the author...what the author meant when using a term or expression...not what a word means two hundred or two thousand years later.
Your abuse of the concept of Constitutional amendments doesn't begin to address the concept of "original intent". Original intent would look at any of the amendments you've cited and considered what was meant by those who composed those amendments and how the wording of those amendments were understood by those who ratified them.
Indeed, in order to amend anything in the Constitution, it must first be determined what was meant by that which is intended to be amended. What was the intent in that which is hoped will be amended. If you don't even understand what was being said, how can you think you can amend it?
So, what did the framers mean when they said things like "well-regulated", "militia", "bear arms" etc. What did those terms mean to the people who wrote them and what did they mean to the people who read them? THAT is "original intent". k
Here's another example since you're so stupid you need one: In our American English, we say "apartment", while the Brits say "flat". We say "truck", they say "lorry". We say "elevator", they say "lift". We say "feo", they say "steaming pile of runny shit". Original intent here would refer to what was meant by words such as "lift", "flat", etc.
"WE are the government. Not dead people."
This is typical of those who cannot muster the numbers necessary to amend the Constitution. Those "dead people" were far more intelligent that you could ever hope to be (a very low bar, I know) and the concepts of their governmental experiment do not fail due to advances in tech as they are based on human nature and the obvious temptations plaguing those in power. When they believed that the people should not be outgunned by the government, it accounts for advances in tech automatically, because the dynamic is the point, not the tools. The people are to be a force to be reckoned with for whatever government is in power.
"God given right to wield an assault weapon? Wow. You don't understand God at all. You think Jesus would carry a gun? You gospel ignorant hypocrite. When they came for him in the garden of Gethsemane, what did he tell Peter when Peter cut the ear off of Malchus?"
Aside from the many passages that more than suggest that weaponry, violence and war has their place, the story of the Garden of Gethsemane is a case specific situation that does not suggest the carrying of weapons to be anti-Christian or anti-Christ. Of course lefties like to pervert Scripture to support their leftism and you do it now. Here's but one commentary that I could have provided to clarify the situation:
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
So the truth, you liar, is that I support the contention that we have a God-given right to self-defense. I never said what weapons specifically should be chosen for the purpose. However, as I have that right, to suggest that I lack the right to determine how best to defend my life and the lives of loved ones is idiotic at best. It's up to the individual to decide if the arm he bears can be a mere sap or a machine gun is required. If you want to pretend I don't know the gospel, you might want to consider the entire gospel first, not just those parts you select to make your nonsensical case.
You're still stumbling over the concept of "original intent" as it pertains to interpretation of the Constitution and/or whether or not laws are aligned with it. Again, it refers to what the framers meant when they used particular words or expressions, NOT the intent of a given law. Imagine if a law today was enacted that said, "No chicks allowed." Two hundred years from now, to understand the law would require what was meant (or intended for our purposes) by the word "chicks". Does it mean baby chickens or women? What YOU'RE referring to is whether or not the intention of the law was to bar either chicks or women, whereas "original intent" refers to the term "chicks" and what was meant by it. Original intent has to do with how they understood words and expressions at the time of the writing of it. When the song "Deck The Halls" was written, "gay apparel" didn't refer to the clothes queers wear. The original intent was lighthearted, festive etc.
"Marshall, your first full paragraph isn't going to make sense even to you when you wake up tomorrow."
The first full paragraph of both my preceding comments make perfect sense. You shouldn't judge such things by your own poor capabilities. Find an adult to help you sound out the words. Then, be specific about which "first full paragraph" you mean.
"Original intent includes conceptions, not just words"
You're conflating two different things in hopes you can salvage your shame at being schooled. Original intent refers to what the intention of the law meant at the time it was written and ratified. In order to understand that, one must also determine how the words in the law were used at the time of the writing in order to convey the intended thought. I'm doing my best to come up with ways to make this simple concept understandable to your simple mind. The "living document" idiots ignore original intent...intentionally, ironically and as a matter of fact...in order to avoid dealing with a law they don't like as it was originally intended to be understood.
"You're a lying, deceiving, truther delusionist if you can't accept plain US history."
I clearly not only accept US history, I understand it far better than you. That's painfully obvious.
"You think AR-15s would defend you against the US government? You can't remember the Branch Davidians?"
Obviously the Davidians were outgunned, weren't they, chucklehead? An AR-15 would level the playing field against the gov't far better than would a musket, wouldn't it, chucklehead?
"The inference of your argument demands of you to argue that rocket propelled grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, tanks, jets, bombers are needed if you are to be honest at all with your interpretation that "they believed that the people should not be outgunned by the government.""
Private citizens can own any of the items on this list. It ain't easy to do, but it can be done.
My personal opinion is that any responsible, sane, law-abiding adult should not have any restrictions as to the type of weapon he wishes to own. You're an idiot, so I'd hate to see you own even a Nerf-gun. But for responsible, law-abiding adults, what have I to fear of their owning any weapon whatsoever? People like you assume the mere ownership of weapons will lead to such people using them for evil purposes. But then, they wouldn't be responsible, would they?
Try as I might, I cannot find anything that explains why I can't have a machine gun. I read the law of 1934. I read what motivated it. But just as with most gun-grabbing laws after atrocities are committed, they stupidly infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding because of the actions of law-breakers. How does that make sense? I've yet to see any attempt to prove that the framers would have balked at the notion of me owning an F-15 or Abrams. The revolution was a response to the impositions of what was viewed as a tyrannical government. Privately owned cannon were employed to fight off the Brits. Why would the framers have a problem with citizens owning weapons capable of fending off a more modern military?
"But you three don't care. No plan; no ideas; no acknowledgement of facts."
You keep saying this lie, and apparently are trying to support it by our objections to your corrupting stats and "facts". I'll be getting to my ideas in time, but unlike you, I like to use facts appropriately and honestly in order to get to something that actually makes a difference with regards underlying issues. The main fact remains that guns aren't the problem, never were nor will be. As my links to the Australian situation shows, and as we know in our own country (Chicago, for example), disarming the law-abiding does nothing to keep guns from the law-breakers. They just get them from other places. For example, some say the Chicago problem is due to guns purchased outside the city, like from Indiana. The irony here is that Indiana doesn't have the problem Chicago does and thus, guns can't be the problem (Indiana has much more 2nd Amendment friendly laws). It's the people from Chicago that's the problem.
But I'll be getting to all of this. As you've done nothing to present a plan of your own, not even defining your terms yet as Craig continues to note, I'm in no hurry just because you think I should.
Keep talking stupidly as seems the limit of your capabilities and I'll just keep deleting. And when you add lie to the stupid, there's no chance of the comment remaining. Because the truth is that I've advocated for nothing as yet, not being willing to do so until time provides me opportunity to do so as completely as possible. So your snark about "allowing" (a problem position in itself) anything doesn't reflect my position at all about how to deal with the current situation. I know it's not possible for you...I just hope that some day you'll not feel compelled to remind us all of what an incredible dick you are. We get it. We're convinced of it now. You don't have to prove it with every comment you post, though it may be that you simply can't help it.
I’ve already agreed to the fact that you’re an idiot, who can’t define the terms and explain the details of his alleged plan.
No, I mean the plan you allege to have, the one with no definitions and no details. Just a bunch of platitudes, boilerplate and liberal talking points.
Obviously, Craig and I are speaking to comments from feo that I've deleted due to his usual nonsense. I'll continue to delete any comments of his that demonstrate this usual nonsense.
feo lies again. He's offered no plan and thus certainly no details. But stupidity? He continues to bring plenty of that.
I already agreed you’re an idiot who’s incapable or afraid to give the details and definitions related to his alleged plan.
Oh, except I presented the outline of a plan weeks ago, you just don’t have to wit to find it.
By all means, let’s remember where the responsibility for those 17 deaths lie. It’s certainly not with the millions of law abiding gun owners who’d be most affected by some sort of willy-nilly, feel good, knee jerk, let’s start banning stuff that seems so popular.
Hundreds of comments and still no details or definitions, at one point I’d have thought you’d be capable of providing those.,,
Nice try, it’s too bad your so averse to providing such basic information. It’s not the first time your ignorance, laziness or fear has kept you from providing details. Most likely not the last.
“According to the CDC, there were roughly 38,000 gun deaths in 2016 — two-thirds of them were suicides.”
“There are over five times more murders by knives than by rifles.”
“The U.S. has the highest gun ownership in the world, but ranks 28th in gun murders. That’s a rate of 2.97 deaths per 100,000 people.”
“Hand guns are responsible for more than 80 percent of total mass shootings.”
Between 1993 and 2003, gun ownership increased by 56 percent, while gun violence decreased by nearly half.”
“Since 1950, nearly all public mass shootings have occurred in ‘gun free zones.'”
“There is a clear correlation between higher firearm ownership and reducing police killings.”
“Switzerland, a nation of about 8 million, is armed with an estimated 2 million guns in circulation with limited gun legislation. Switzerland’s overall gun homicide rate is practically zero.”
Facts like these prove the ignorance and fascism of people like Feo whose only agenda is to disarm the good guys.
I’ve seen your “plan” such as it is. I’m not interested in having you copy paste the same vague, general platitudes you already spewed. I’ve been asking you to define your terms and provide details as to the specifics. If you’re too obtuse to comprehend that simple bit of information I can’t help you.
Of course, I don’t trust you to do what you’ve been avoiding for weeks, therefore I have zero motivation to provide you what you can easily find on your own.
Feo
I don't follow Breitbart. Try again fool.
Facts don't care about your opinion.
Feo,
The factual statements have been posted on many conservative news sites and I'm sure they don't rely on Breitbart. The CDC seems to be the origin of much of these facts.
My citation by the SCOTUS was not problematic, because in context the statement was about the beliefs as to what the responsibility of the media is/was.
Proved my citations to be in error.
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL VISITORS!!!
Respond to him if you like, but I will continue deleting comments from feo unless and until he adheres to feo-specific demands now in place. They are simple, if for the simple-minded like feo...
1. feo must copy/paste whatever for him passes as a plan for reducing/eliminating school shootings and mass murder. It must be adjusted so as to eliminate all attempts to denigrate, insult or attack any other visitor and instead reflect a level of Christian kindness never before expressed by feo from the first day he ever visited this blog. This will naturally require that he seek help from an actual Christian who can guided him toward such a response.
2. feo must define his terms precisely so as to prevent misunderstanding by those who might read his comments.
3. feo must remember that he has no standing here to make demands of anyone else. To avoid complying with the above until anyone else acts first is not acceptable, as feo has no authority to make such demands while ignoring those of the guy whose blog this is...me.
4. As I will certainly publish new posts in the near future, these demands will remain in effect, and until feo complies and produces here what is expected of him by me, any and all comments from this point going forward will be deleted. He must first comply here with this demand to produce his "plan" along with terms defined to OUR satisfaction.
5. feo, more than anyone else, will be expected to always refrain from ANY snark, insult, demeaning comments and personal attacks, regardless of whether or not such are leveled at him. All of this will be judged by yours truly and the fate of feo's comments is completely and solely at my discretion. So, if feo wishes to copy and store his comments for re-posting (a practice I employ with the difference that mine contain actual questions or arguments not addressed---usually because Dan's a coward, too), it would serve him to make sure they are composed with Christian kindness a chief characteristic, instead of his usual hatefulness and lying.
feo has earned this distinction with flying colors. I will enforce these rules with extreme prejudice at my earliest opportunity and convenience. Keep this in mind if anyone chooses to respond, as the comment to which you responded will surely be deleted.
Feo gave up standing to make claims about anyone’s rationality about the same time he realized he couldn’t provide definitions or details of his magical, fantasy plan.
Until I have the chance to be home in front of my computer to delete feo's last comment wherein he continues to bring the stupid, I leave this response:
Are you seriously so stupid as to believe those regs are meant to protect geese? You really ARE an idiot!
It does no one any good to totally deplete the population of any animal or bird (think buffalo). But one is free to shoot and kill as many as one can within the limits set to prevent the extinction of a species.
Just another idiotic gun-grabbing argument the grabbers think is clever.
That from Feo, who advocates the killing of children. What’s the stat? More black children are aborted in NYC than born? Feo must get al swelled up with pride when those black mothers fulfill Margaret Sanger’s dreams.
No feo. I'm under not delusion that deleting your inane, lie-filled and insulting comments will be forgotten by anyone who reads them, anymore than a person is likely to forget a tragic accident. Stupid like yours is unique and difficult to pretend never happened. So keep dodging your obligations here. I'll keep deleting that which fails to meet them.
I’d point out the fact that your above comment plays fast and loose with the truth. I’d point out that you still can’t provide the simple details of your plan and define your terms.
But that would be a waste of time because your comment won’t be long for this world.
The unjustified arrogance is dtrong with this one. feo actually believes his condescension, insults, rampant falsehoods, misapplied and irrelevant factoids and absence of Christian character and kindness have actual worth.
You know what constitute legitimate worth, petulant child? Responding as requested.
You really enjoy lying, don't you, false priest? You've never expended the least effort to support your fictitious attacks on my character.
If only you had something of value to offer, like details and definitions. But instead, crap. Well, crap and lies.
When confronted with researched data proving, no, arming more people with guns doesn’t quell violence but has the effect of increasing violence, all of you prevaricate, divert, deny and dissemble without success.
When confronted with researched data proving that high gun ownership (congenial to 2nd amendment language) isn’t a problem for countries with high gun regulations and restrictions, all of you prevaricate, divert, deny and dissemble without success.
When confronted with researched data that we are among the most violent of societies and share statistics with failed nation states and those in civil war, all of you prevaricate, divert, deny and dissemble without success.
When confronted with researched data on how to effectively reduce abortions with affordable or free access to women’s health clinics and education, all of you prevaricate, divert, deny and dissemble without success.
You write off suicides; you divert with bats, knives (with fake news), caliber, you use fake research sources having been led there by hard right prejudice opinion pundits that lie about data; Glenn can’t get one simple fact right; Craig peseverates and idiotically acts as if he hasn’t been along for all 390 comments; you argue a point then totally deny where your own point leads you (that’s when you start deleting: when you’ve been shamed into a corner; all of you prevaricate, divert, deny and dissemble without success.
The truth will set you free: love your neighbor. This blog is a temple dedicated to hate.
Yet the truth is, that your inability to provide the definitions of your terms and the details of your alleged plan continue to destroy what shred of credibility you might have had.
That’s because that much of your idiocy is too much for any normal person to take.
And until you can rouse yourself to provide definitions and details of your “plan”, I see no reason to enable you in your diversions.
I do sort of admire you determination to raise avoidance to such an exalted level. One wonders how long you can maintain this.
I understand that you think you did, yet the fact that I immediately asked for specific definitions and details seems to indicate otherwise.
I sort of admire your stubborn desire to avoid committing to specifics. But not that much.
feo,
You're confused about two things (actually so many things, but I'm just referring to your recent comments):
1. It was I who questioned the speed of bullet damage until you clarified what the hell you were referencing.
2. You're confused about the specific comment you are required to post without being deleted. Hence, your last few comments were deleted.
BTW, I'm only leaving your comment of March 29, 2018 at 10:35 PM because of Craig responding to it. I now shall also:
"When confronted with researched data proving, no, arming more people with guns doesn’t quell violence but has the effect of increasing violence..."
No. No research you provided proved this at all as my response to your posting of it clearly showed. You're more than welcome to re-post your "proof" AFTER you've complied with the demands set forth for you in my comment of March 26, 2018 at 4:44 PM.
"When confronted with researched data proving that high gun ownership (congenial to 2nd amendment language) isn’t a problem for countries with high gun regulations and restrictions..."
This doesn't even mean anything. Isn't a problem for who? What's more, you don't even understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.
"When confronted with researched data that we are among the most violent of societies..."
Are you an idiot (rhetorical question...of course you are)? Our support for our God-given right to bear arms for defense is bolstered by the moral corruption of our society. It's a corruption fueled by people like you and your nonsensical leftist, fake Christian denial of reality and actual Christian teaching.
"When confronted with researched data on how to effectively reduce abortions with affordable or free access to women’s health clinics and education..."
"Researched data" from Planned Parenthood advocates pushing a self-promoting need for abortion has no value here or to any other honest people paying attention. Better, more comprehensive care and education for women are easily and more widely available than PP without the murdering unborn aspect along with it.
"You write off suicides" You're a liar. None of us (Craig, Glenn or myself) have done this...EVER.
"you divert with bats, knives" Lending perspective on what weapons are more common for murder compared to the use of rifles of all kinds is not diversion. What's more, it shows the absurdity of railing against rifles, particularly one model, when they are used less than 4% of the time to murder others...which includes all murdered in mass killings. We here in adultland call it "honesty in discourse".
We use legitimate and proven data that is properly cited and appropriately applied to defend our positions. Indeed, we seem to understand YOUR offerings far better than YOU do. You've NEVER provided anything that comes close to "shaming me into a corner". I delete because of your poor character clearly presented in how you post, the words you choose to use to attack us, and the fact that you refuse to comply with demands your sad behavior provoked. Now you want to pretend I'm running scared? That's funny.
So while you wet yourself from reading this, remember that I'll delete any further comment from you that doesn't comply with the demands set for in my comment of March 26, 2018 at 4:44 PM. Also don't forget to copy and save any attempt you might decide to make to comply, as I will delete without explanation such attempts if by my judgement they don't comply perfectly. Otherwise, enjoy wasting your time.
Of coursr, that not a detail of your magical miracle plan. Nor is it defining the terms you used.
As far as your cavitation fixation, speed is only one part of the equation. Of course, your fixation on cavitation shifts the discussion away from the gun and on to the cartridge. Which undercuts your obsession with cosmetics.
It’s also a lame attempt to deflect attention away from your abject failures.
It’s much more like being the parent of a 4 year old, trying to get you to focus.
FYI, an “assault weapon” without ammunition is a club. It’s a inanimate object that can do nothing on its own.
Because clearly, everyone realizes that “assault weapons” have special secret ammunition that only works in “assault wespons”.
Your ignorance is showing.
As is the fact that your magical plan is devoid of both detail and definitions. But your pathetic attempts to divert attention from your failures is at least an example of your stubborn unwillingness to simply do what you’ve been asked to.
feo, petulant, hold-your-breath-till-you-turn-blue, foot-stomping infant,
Comply with the terms laid out for you in the comment of March 26, 2018 at 4:44 PM. I will delete every comment you post until you do from now until the end of time.
And in disagreement with your cavitation diversion. Once again, you give too much credit to the mythical “assault weapon” without taking the numerous other factors that go into how bullets perform. Of course, your ignorance of the fact that these inanimate objects can actually use different types of ammunition doesn’t help your cause.
But, it’s a convenient diversion from your inability to define and detail your alleged plan. Not only that, but your inability to do what you’ve been asked to means that you can say any BS you want to and it just disappears. I suspect that’s a convenience for you.
You keep saying I “lie”, yet haven’t yet demonstrated the truth of your accusation.
It's getting to the point where I'm barely reading feo's comments at all before I delete them, which will suck for him should he ever man up and comply with the terms laid out for him in my comment of March 26, 2018 at 4:44 PM. But since he prefers to continue childishly ignoring them, I doubt I'll ever delete anything I said I'd let stand.
Post a Comment