Another DC story: Gangs Suspected In Latest Shooting

[Superfly]

Gang shootings in DC? I thought guns were banned there?

Link

More police are on the streets in the area around the 1700 block of Columbia Road in Northwest D.C. because of an apparent gang-related shooting there.

[JayS]

1. We have gangs going nuts over here also. The ones getting...

...out of jail are trying to reclaim their place in the "organization" and it can get brutal. On the bright side, they are going back to jail and getting longer sentences now.

[MrBenchley]

2. Wow...

What a disgrace that the corrupt gun industry is able to arm criminals like that.

[Spoonman]

3. Peddle it elsewhere

We have yet to see anything to back up this statement.

[MrBenchley]

4. Who are you kidding?

Did you think these criminals MAKE their guns?

[Spoonman]

5. No, I guess your right.

They just call or go online and order up two or three at a time from the factory. You know, you get a better price that way. Avoid the middleman.
Then good old Bill the postman delivers them right to your door.

That's how they get them.....right?

[MrBenchley]

6. In other words...

You know perfectly well that the gun industry sells guns to criminals.

[schnellfeuer]

12. Are you calling all gun owners criminals?

.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

17. I see desperate spinning

is still the RKBA tactic of choice.

[schnellfeuer]

19. "I see desperate spinning"

is still the anti-RKBA tactic of choice.

Works both ways. Wanna dance? :)

[MrBenchley]

20. The only spinning is yours, dancer...

But thanks for the invitation....

[schnellfeuer]

22. I think its more a response to your spin

Maybe we should go to Square Dancing. :)

[MrBenchley]

31. Dance by yourself

You're the one trying to spin "the gun industry sells guns to criminals" into "all gun buyers are criminals."

[schnellfeuer]

32. I was asking you

you never answered, just more anti-RKBA spin spin spin. A favorite tactic, dont answer. When you said "You know perfectly well that the gun industry sells guns to criminals." Did you mean they sold directly to criminals? If so, then you are saying that all gun buyers are criminals as it illegal for the manufacturers and dealers to do so under federal and state laws. They may only sell to people who pass the Brady check and sign the 4473. Is that what you were saying? I'm getting dizzy with all your spinning, please clarify. :)

[MrBenchley]

36. Tell us then

Does the statement "candy stores sell andy to children" MEAN "all candy buyers are children?"

Does the statement "Pep Boys sell auto parts to senior citizens" MEAN "All auto parts buyers are senior citizens?"

I made a statement that was true and you attempted to spin it into something it was not...par for the course with gun nuts.

[schnellfeuer]

50. OK, now that thats been clarified...

OK then. So you ARE saying then "that the gun industry sells guns to criminals". Is this directly to criminals? Please clarify this as I'm a little confused. As far as I know the gun industry is strictly regulated with lots of rules and laws and they would be shut down immediately by the government if this was in fact true. So, please do show your facts and how they do so and continue to remainin business.
If possible, how about some BATF(E) facts(not that the ATF is all that great themselves!) instead of normal "anti-gun" websites. Thier credibility to me is about the same as the NRA's are to you. Know what I mean Vern? :)

Trying to get a straight answer, from the anti-gun nuts, seems to be almost impossible to get. Oh, wait, isnt that what you say about gun nuts?? Boy this is one vicious circle isnt it? :)

[MrBenchley]

52. Who are you kidding?

"Trying to get a straight answer, from the anti-gun nuts, seems to be almost impossible to get."
You spent post after post trying desperately to spin what was ACTUALLY said into something it was not.

"So you ARE saying then "that the gun industry sells guns to criminals". Is this directly to criminals? Please clarify this as I'm a little confused."

That's your claim NOW....but I think everyone else can see what's going on here...

[schnellfeuer]

59. NO......

That's your claim NOW....but I think everyone else can see what's going on here...

Its still your claim, I'm not claiming anything, I just wanted your facts, and clarification, which dont seem to be forth coming, as usual, so we spin off in yet another direction.

And your right, I think everyone else can see what's going on here...

[MrBenchley]

63. The gun industry sells guns to criminals

That's my claim.

Your claim was that you had JUST figured out that was what I meant when I said it...after making post after post trying to distort that claim into something it was not.

[schnellfeuer]

66. It took all that

just to get you to say that. Now, about those facts......... :)

[MrBenchley]

71. Here's a FACT

I said it in post #6,and you spent post after post trying to spin it into something else.

[schnellfeuer]

73. if getting a straight answer out of you is spinning....

then I admit, I'm quite dizzy! :) And I do believe it was you who started with the spinning. (post #17)

Why not just answer my question and show us your facts, or just drop it. Or is this just some sort of post count fetish thing?

[MrBenchley]

75. No spinning like you've been doing is spinning

" and the industry as a whole are fully aware of the extent of the criminal misuse of handguns.... In spite of their knowledge, however, the industry's position has consistently been to take no independent action to insure responsible distribution practices."

—
Robert Haas, former Smith & Wesson senior vice-president for marketing and sales


Gun Distribution and Sales

* Related Articles
* Current Cases


The Legal Action Project works to bring about significant changes in the manner in which the gun industry distributes firearms. The ease with which criminals and juveniles can obtain guns is a serious problem throughout the United States. Gun manufacturers distribute guns through distribution systems that they know divert large numbers of guns to illegal secondary markets and provide a steady supply of weapons to criminals and juveniles, circumventing state and federal laws designed to prevent acquisition of guns by such individuals.
" and the industry as a whole are fully aware of the extent of the criminal misuse of handguns.... In spite of their knowledge, however, the industry's position has consistently been to take no independent action to insure responsible distribution practices."

—
Robert Haas, former Smith & Wesson senior vice-president for marketing and sales

The gun industry's distribution systems make guns available to criminals and juveniles through a variety of practices, such as "straw purchases" in which a person prohibited by law from buying a gun has another person complete the required paperwork on his behalf. Gun sellers not only participate in these illegal transactions in circumstances where they know or should know the "straw buyer" is not the gun's true purchaser, but even suggest and encourage such transactions to avoid losing sales. Despite circumstances signaling purchasers' unlawful intent, dealers also make knowing "multiple sales" of guns to traffickers who promptly transfer them to prohibited purchasers via the unlawful market. Gun makers also distribute guns through dealers who do not maintain genuine business premises (known as "kitchen table" dealers because many sell guns out of their homes), often do not comply with legal restrictions on sales, and supply a disproportionate number of the guns obtained by criminals and juveniles.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/reform/distribution.asp

"Dealers are in a position to exercise judgment when a customer is explicit about buying a firearm for someone else. Some appeared willing to ignore or sidestep relevant information even when told that the end user was prohibited from purchasing a firearm him/herself. In the absence of federal handgun registration, which would track ownership changes, resources with which to conduct compliance checks (for example, as are conducted to identify retailers who sell tobacco or alcohol to under-age persons) seem warranted. "

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/147

"Undercover congressional investigators using fake IDs
were able to skirt mandatory background checks and purchase guns in all of the five states where they tried, according to a report issued Wednesday.
In one buy in Santa Fe, N.M., when the background check did not provide immediate clearance for the undercover agent, the gun dealer suggested that the second agent could purchase the gun and transfer it to his partner.
In another in Tuscon, Ariz., the dealer suggested that the agent purchase a .38 calber revolver from 1893 because background checks are not needed for buyers of antique guns."

http://www.vahv.org/news/AP-Gunshows.html

"Here is the GAO report that the NRA does not want you to see. This report, requested by one of the leading gun control opponents in the Senate completely debunks the NRA myth that the three day waiting period will shut down gun shows.
78% of all instachecks are completed within three minutes. 95% are completed within two hours. And only 5% take more than one day to complete. But those 5% are far and away the most likely Brady checks to turn up a felon. In fact, they are 20 times more likely to result in a denial than the other 95%. A background check won't affect gun shows more than a pittance.
This report was issued on February 29th. You haven't heard a peep about it, because it is the GAO report the NRA wants to lock away in a closet. Why? Because it kicks away the one remaining leg the gun lobby has to stand on to block the gun show loophole. "

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR00168.html

"Robert Ricker was a top lawyer for the NRA as well as the chief spokesman for the gun industry.  
For most of the past 20 years, Robert Ricker was a top lawyer for the NRA as well as the chief spokesman for the gun industry, which relied on him to argue the industry's position against gun control.
He also defended it against critics who blame the industry for the violence caused by guns.
That's why it came as such a surprise when he told Correspondent Ed Bradley that many of the things he said all those years weren't true.
What is true, Ricker says, is that gun manufacturers have long known that distributors and retailers supply thousands of guns each year to criminals, and yet gun makers deliberately look the other way.
“It's a 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' strategy,” says Ricker. “A manufacturer would be hard pressed to stand up and try to say, 'Hey, my company is doing everything we can possibly think of to keep our guns from falling into the wrong hands.'”
Ricker believes the gun industry bears a considerable responsibility for that, which is a pretty remarkable statement coming from someone who used to represent the gun industry."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/60minutes/main553147.shtml

"A manufacturer knew but still supplied firearms to a retail dealer who intentionally sold firearms to criminals;
* A manufacturer advertised a firearm as fingerprint proof to attract criminals to that particular model of gun;
* A retail dealer was caught on tape selling firearms without a background check;
* A retail dealer was caught on tape advising a criminal to use a straw purchaser to buy a gun;
* A retail dealer fails to keep the records required by law to trace guns recovered in crimes..."

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/gunimmun.htm

[schnellfeuer]

83. wow, thats a ...whats the word...oh yeah....PANTLOAD!

Just more anti-gun nut spin! If the "industry" were all possible outlets, wouldnt Chevrolet, Ford, Dogdge, etc all be liable for all the drunk driving deaths and accident deaths, cause by their products? What about "any" industry? Thats the logic here, isnt it? So your "spin" is, that the manufacturers on down are selling to people who shouldnt have guns right? Have all these manufacturers and dealers been arrested, and if not, why not? They are criminals now too right? Why are all these numerous gun laws not being enforced? I guess your sources must all be mistaken, or there would be no gun industry at all due to all these violations. I'm suspect of your facts, how about some "offical" ones?

[MrBenchley]

92. Peddle it to somebody dumb enough to buy it

You asked and you got it. Now go snivel about it to somebody who gives a crap..

[Superfly]

57. One thing you're going to have to learn is

that in this forum, one anti-gun member (who shall remain nameless...wink, wink) refuses to participate in adult conversation. Expecting logic when none is forthcoming will frustrate the hell out of you, which is what I think his/her tactic is.

[schnellfeuer]

62. Ahhhh, but it does wonders

for showing the rest of the world how unreasonable and illogical the anti-gun ranting really is. :) If those members (the ones who shall remain nameless...nudge, nudge) only knew how much they help the other sides cause. :)

[MrBenchley]

65. Gee, it wasn't the anti-gun folks

who were trying to spin "the gun industry sells guns to criminals" into "all gun owners are criminals".

"If those members (the ones who shall remain nameless...nudge, nudge) only knew how much they help the other sides cause."
Yeah, we can tell by the furious spin and the rage-filled screaming..

[schnellfeuer]

86. WOW, wheres this, I want to see!

Yeah, we can tell by the furious spin and the rage-filled screaming..

The only spin I see comes from the anti-gun nuts. Lots of " furious spin and the rage-filled screaming", but not much substance.

spin on! :)

[MrBenchley]

97. Look at your own posts

then

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

64. Adult conversation is wasted on

folks who distort and lie, as gun nuts do almost reflexively.

[MiniBalrog]

112. Only if

you call the ex-Repukenazi James Brady a gun nut.

[Spoonman]

13. Sure,

all the AK 47's are shipped directly from the manufacturer in China to their homes............

So using that logic - the automotive industry sells vehicles to drunk drivers?

No, only a fool would believe that.

The "gun industry" does not sell guns to criminals, because selling a gun to person, with the knowledge that the person/purchaser intends to use the gun in the commission of a crime is itself a felony.

Answer this
You sold your car to a man, you knew drank too much.
Two days later, that man got drunk and drove the car you sold him into another car killing four people.
Are you responsible for the deaths?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

18. Hand us a BIG laugh

"The "gun industry" does not sell guns to criminals"
And the Iraqis are tossing roses at our boys for liberating them...

[Spoonman]

23. Your right,

I'm sorry but what we have here is a simple misunderstanding.

The illegal gun industry sells guns to criminals
The gun industry does not sell guns to criminals

It was pretty simple simple for me once I took the misguided emotional rant out of the equation and replaced it with facts and real world events.

[MrBenchley]

24. Only one of us has a misunderstanding

But then I'm not trying to pretend a corrupt industry is anything but...

[Spoonman]

28. Please

Tell me how it is corrupt?
I seriously would like to know why you feel it is corrupt.
This has been asked time and time again by several of us, and you evade the answer.
Even if it's just your gut feeling, an opinion whatever.
For once please explain it in a straight forward statement.

[MrBenchley]

30. Ple-e-e-ase

Everytime I do, you try to spin it away.

Do you think an honest industry would have to hire a nutcase like John Lott to peddle phony statistics, as the gun industry does?

Do you think an honest industry would have to resort to outright lies again and again, as the gun industry does?

Do you think an honest industry would have to hide what it is doing from the public, as the gun industry does?

What other industry has engineered itself out of product liability laws? What other industry is trying to engineer itself immunity from civil liability?

Look at the scum that make up the NRA Board of Directors.

[Spoonman]

37. No spin, just more questions

Do you think an honest industry would have to hire a nutcase like John Lott to peddle phony statistics, as the gun industry does?
John Lott does not represent ANY manufacturer.
He does however however work as a lobbyist for The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

This group is the leader in firearms safety education.
They are also very active in supporting legislation and programs to prevent illegal purchases of firearms.

Not long ago the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) announced the launch of a national campaign to help prevent and deter the illegal "strawman" purchase of firearms. Featuring the theme of Don't Lie For The Other Guy, the campaign is a coordinated effort designed to educate the public on the consequences of purchasing a firearm for someone who legally cannot and to train firearms retailers on better identifying potential straw purchases.
http://www.nafr.org/DontLie/
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/ycgii/brochure/

I assume these programs should be abandoned because of a lobbyist?

Do you think an honest industry would have to resort to outright lies again and again, as the gun industry does?

What lies? That accusation demands proof, what documneted evidence of this do you have?

Do you think an honest industry would have to hide what it is doing from the public, as the gun industry does?

What is it they are hiding? Once again an accusation of the degree demands proof, what documneted evidence of this do you have?

What other industry has engineered itself out of product liability laws? What other industry is trying to engineer itself immunity from civil liability?

Let's start with the fast food industry. Their getting sued because fat slobs are too stupid to not eat fatty foods.
How about the auto industry, are they going to be sued for allegedly creating a “public nuisance” because drunks are killing people while driving their vehicles?

These "liability" lawsuits are nothing more than transference of responsibility or blame. People refuse to take and place responsibility where it belongs. Responsibility lies on the individuals committing the crime, or the parent that failed to follow the most basic rules of firearm safety. People committing crimes do so because they’re criminals, no one made them or even encouraged them to do so. While I by no means wish to sound heartless, parents whose children are injured or killed by firearms are responsible for not locking/securing them.
The mere notion that manufacturers “marketed” guns to criminals or failed to put locks on them demonstrates the desperation of the anti gun crowd to circumvent the 2nd amendment.

Look at the scum that make up the NRA Board of Directors.

What do you think their opinion of you would be?
Who cares just like your statement, it's only an opinion.
I do however take issue with your elitist attitude.

[MrBenchley]

38. Peddle it elsewhere....

John Lott owes any prominence he has to a gun company.. Gun nuts trying to pretend he's not a gun industry shill because they shuttle his payment through a foundation's books are beneath contempt.


"What lies?"
Here are three whoppers the RKBA crowd peddles constantly:
1) "America Owes Its Freedom to Gun Owners."
Although the gun nut crowd likes to invoke the image of enraged patriots taking down their trusty squirrel guns from over the mantle and heading off on their own to fight Hitler, it’s not even close to being true and never has been.
The first shots of the Revolutionary war were fired at Concord, where the patriots had gathered to defend their collective armory. Throughout that war patriots like Morris risked their fortunes to buy quantities of muskets and powder from the French, Spanish and Dutch. One of the turning points of the war was the purchase of 80,000 Charleville muskets from the French by the Continental Congress. In 1794, Congress authorized the opening of a federal armory in Springfield to turn out 4,200 muskets annually, while in 1798 the fledgling government contracted with 26 private individuals to produce even more guns…and those publicly owned guns were the ones with which the War of 1812 was fought. Subsequent wars were ALL fought with our collective armaments.
One noted battle in which gun owners DID fight against a common foe was Little Big Horn, where the individual native Americans used their individually owned guns against Custer’s forces. Sad to say, the long term result of that battle has been that native Americans have been treated as second class citizens, usually by the very conservatives promoting the "gun owners saved America" lie.

2) "The Second Amendment prohibits gun control."
In fact, the Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY puts arms in the context of a WELL-REGULATED militia defending a free STATE (in other words, those organizations that have evolved into today’s National Guard). The Founding Fathers specifically noted this. Defending the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper 46, James Madison says that the people are to be armed so that they can form a state-regulated militia in order to defend the political powers enjoyed BY the state. In Federalist Paper 29, Alexander Hamilton argues that in order to bear arms in the militia, a citizen must submit to rigorous military training and discipline, as required by Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States and every federal appeals court have held uniformly that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms independent of the right to be armed as part of a well-regulated militia.
(Incidentally, George Washington believed that ALL guns ought to have been held by the militia, and be individually numbered for easy inspection. When gun owners rose up in the Whiskey Rebellion, he personally led the forces that put them down.)
Gun nuts often produce a supposed quote from Samuel Adams proposing an amendment to the Massachusetts ratifying convention such that the US Constitution should ‘never construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.'" Besides the FACT that this proposal cannot be actually attributed to Adams, there is also the FACT that the convention then voted to turn down that specific proposition.
Another gun nut quote often produced is this by George Mason at Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people....To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." The quote is cobbled together out of two bits said two days apart (the second half was actually said before the first). Never heard of that famous Founding Father George Mason? Don’t feel too bad…he’s obscure mostly because he voted AGAINST adopting the US constitution.
The Supreme Court and Federal District courts have consistently ruled that gun control is constitutional.
The NRA has been the main source of this lie about the meaning of the Second Amendment. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a staunch conservative and gun owner, called the NRA's position on the 2nd amendment an outright fraud. In its entire history, the National Rifle Association has never challenged any gun law anywhere in any court on Second Amendment grounds. That’s never as in not once. No way, no place, no how. The old saying is, you put your money where your mouth is. What does it say about the NRA that they will not do this?

3) "More Guns, Less Crime."
Please! If this were remotely true, cities like Cartagena, Baghdad and Beirut would be the safest cities on the globe.
This preposterous lie is almost entirely the work of pseudoscientist crank John Lott. Lott owes his livelihood to the Olin family, manufacturers of Winchester arms and ammo. They have funded his "research" and purchased positions at a number of universities. (None of those universities has let him anywhere near students; there is a limit on what blood money buys. However, Lott has invented a student named Mary Rosh and often poses as her on the Internet and elsewhere, praising his own work and attacking critics.)
Other fruits of Lott’s crackpot "research" have been the stunning discoveries that hiring minority police officers CAUSES more crime and that airline safety inspections contribute to airlines being unsafe. Lott also has appeared before the Senate Rules Committee, in the aftermath of the 2000 Florida debacle, to claim publicly that although black and Hispanic voters were turned away from the polls, it was "voter error" and not discrimination.
Real scholars at schools such as Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and Georgetown have dismissed his claptrap as error-filled and dishonest. As one noted, Lott fails to show there are more guns, he lies about there being less crime, and he is unable to show any causation between the two.
In fact, states that have relaxed their gun control laws have become MUCH LESS SAFE. In the seven years following the passage of Florida’s CCW law, violent crime skyrocketed from 120,977 incidents in 1986 to 161,789 incidents in 1993. (After 1993 and the passage of the nationwide Brady Law, violent crime in Florida did decline, but at a much slower rate than it did in states with sane gun laws).
Another bit of Lott’s "research" often dredged up by gun nuts is the claim that 98% of defensive gun use involves no shots being fired. The basis for this claim is a survey he says he conducted during 1997, although he began making public announcements about the results well before he would have completed it. When challenged publicly on internal inconsistencies on the data (he also claims 2 out of every 28 gun toters shoot the criminals facing them; you do the math), Lott has changed details about when, how and where the survey was conducted. None of the eight "students" Lott claims helped him with the survey can be found anywhere, and the only person on earth who will even admit to having been surveyed by Lott is David Gross, an NRA board member and pro-gun activist.

"What is it they are hiding?"
Look at the attempt to sneak crap through Congress with the last-minute Tiahrt Amendment, for a start.

"Let's start with the fast food industry. Their getting sued because fat slobs are too stupid to not eat fatty foods.
How about the auto industry, are they going to be sued for allegedly creating a “public nuisance” because drunks are killing people while driving their vehicles?"
And yet we don't see these induistries trying to engineer an exemption from civil liability for themselves.

"What do you think their opinion of you would be?"
Exactly what it is for the majority of sane Americans...and what the hell do I care? Ted Nugent IS scum, as is Jeff Cooper and most of the rest. YOU stick up for Grover Norquist if you want.

[Spoonman]

40. Once again

Gun nuts trying to pretend he's not a gun industry shill because they shuttle his payment through a foundation's books are beneath contempt
OK I'm beneath contempt - I do not however hold myself up to be a better person than those I disagree with. If scum is better than a self proclaimed elitist, so be it.

Morris risked their fortunes to buy quantities of muskets and powder from the French, Spanish and Dutch. One of the turning points of the war was the purchase of 80,000 Charleville muskets from the French by the Continental Congress.

Yes Morris spent his own money to furnish weapons to those who did not have them already. The vast majority brought their own guns with them.
You expect us to believe that they had already stashed enough firearms to outfit an army when the fighting started. Don't try to rewrite history to fit your statements.

In 1794, Congress authorized the opening of a federal armory in Springfield to turn out 4,200 muskets annually, while in 1798 the fledgling government contracted with 26 private individuals to produce even more guns

The acts passed in 1794 were passed in order to supply the newly formed army, you forgot to read these;

Militia Act of 1792
Sec. 1. Be it enacted . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . . That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. . . .

I do not see "report to the amory to recieve your govt supplied weapon".


The currently effective Militia Act

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


The Freedman's Bureau Act (1866)

Sec. 14. And be it furhter enacted, That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion . . . the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.

In fact, the Second Amendment SPECIFICALLY puts arms in the context of a WELL-REGULATED militia defending a free STATE (in other words, those organizations that have evolved into today’s National Guard).

A more correct statement would be (in YOUR words, those organizations that have evolved into today’s National Guard).
Spin spin spin to suit yourself and your agenda. Nothing has evovled from the intent of the framers! It only "evolved' if your trying to justify your position.

The majority of Americans (to use your statement) and the VAST majority of constitutional scholars will disagree with you. If mnot, we would have already eliminated gun ownership.

The Second Amendment says the right is "the right of the people"; the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments use this phrase to refer to an individual right. Early Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont Bills of Rights speak of "the right of the people to bear arms." Since these provisions secure rights against the state governments, they must recognize a right belonging to someone other than the state or entities whose membership is defined by the state -- this likewise suggests that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to a right of individuals.

So are we going to EVOLVE and get rid of the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments?

Selective interpretation to validate your argument won’t work unless your willing to give up several other RIGHTS!

Nevermind, we're all "gun-nuts", "scum" and "beneath contempt", but we also believe ALL MEN/WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. This is something that some people have forgotten.

[MrBenchley]

41. Too frigging funny....

So you WERE going to pretend that John Lott isn't paid by the gun industry because the payments are routed through a foundation's books...

"Nothing has evovled from the intent of the framers! It only "evolved' if your trying to justify your position."
What the hell would this mean, if it were in English?

"the VAST majority of constitutional scholars will disagree with you."
Not even close to true.

"If mnot, we would have already eliminated gun ownership."
What a pantload.

"Nevermind, we're all "gun-nuts", "scum" and "beneath contempt", but we also believe ALL MEN/WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL."
Not the asswipes of the National Rifle Association...in fact, here's one of the board members: "Besides, apartheid isn't that cut-and-dry.  All men are not created equal."

http://www.nocompromise.org/news/000731c.html

[Spoonman]

46. I'll not

waste my time on your unsubstantiated BS of your first point.
I can't prove either way where Lott's money come from. Neither can you.

Seeing as your reply is hard to understand (typical) let me remind you of your own words.

Your statement those organizations that have evolved into today’s National Guard

My reply Nothing has evovled from the intent of the framers! It only "evolved' if your trying to justify your position

Your reply What the hell would this mean, if it were in English?

Try, try, try slow and simple , it’s never enough.

Not even close to true.

Post up big boy, I’ll put up five for every one you find, and mine will be recognized experts.

What a pantload.

Standard MB answer when confronted/confused by facts

"Nevermind, we're all "gun-nuts", "scum" and "beneath contempt", but we also believe ALL MEN/WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL."
Not the asswipes of the National Rifle Association...in fact, here's one of the board members: "Besides, apartheid isn't that cut-and-dry. All men are not created equal."

Here’s some iverglas logic you seem to agree with

The NRA are asswipes
I am a member of the NRA (not actually, just demonstrating a point)
Therefore I am an asswipe

Sorry doesn’t work

One more time

Ted Nugent is a racist
Ted Nugent owns guns
All gun owners are racist

Get a grip – don’t put us all in a basket and call it laundry day.
It's in bad taste, very rude and lacking of ethics to even come close to such an insinuation.

[MrBenchley]

48. Hand us another laugh...

"I can't prove either way where Lott's money come from. Neither can you."
The hell I can't. Lott is funded by the Olin Foundation.

"Try, try, try slow and simple , it’s never enough."
It's more than enough to point out that your sentence makes no sense AT ALL.

"don’t put us all in a basket and call it laundry day."
You climbed in the basket with the dirty linen, pal.

[Spoonman]

49. So

You have proof of that?
Educate us.

The sentence makes perfect sense, defend your statement, and quit trying to skirt the issue.

Let me get this right Your saying all gun owners are racist?

Would that apply to the MILLIONS of blacks and hispanics that own guns too? or just the white guys?

Keep diggin!

[MrBenchley]

51. Hand us a BIG BIG laugh

"These questions have focused on the ties to the firearms industry of the funder of Mr. Lott's fellowship, the John M. Olin Foundation.
There are significant links between the John M. Olin Foundation and the Olin Corporation, which owns Winchester Ammunition (the largest producer of ammunition in the U.S. and the manufacturer of the infamous "Black Talon" bullet). Olin Corporation at one time also owned Winchester Firearms, a trade name which it now licenses out. Winchester Ammunition stands to reap financial gain from the increased sale of handgun ammunition generated by the passage of lax concealed weapons laws."

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/john_m_olin_foundation.htm

"Let me get this right Your saying all gun owners are racist?"
Is this what gun nuts call "logic?" No wonnder they're always howlinng that sane people don't have any!

YOU were the one claiming that gun nuts had a burning commitment to the equality of people. Now you're having a hissy fit because I demonstrated that at least one prominent gun nut, who has been elected by his fellow gun nuts to Gun Net Central where he serves as a spokesman for gun nuts, is in fact a rcist piece of shit who says not everyone is equal and that the odious system of apartheid was jim-dandy.

[Spoonman]

54. WRONG

YOU were the one claiming that gun nuts had a burning commitment to the equality of people. Now you're having a hissy fit because I demonstrated that at least one prominent gun nut, who has been elected by his fellow gun nuts to Gun Net Central where he serves as a spokesman for gun nuts, is in fact a rcist piece of shit who says not everyone is equal and that the odious system of apartheid was jim-dandy.

Find it, post it , prove me a liar. I've never made such a broad statement. If anything I try to distance myself from people such as Ted.
I have no affiliation with the NRA, and it seems to be eluding you that someone could oppose you and not be in that group.
Your arguments are all without merit or substance.
You have difficulty remembering the past, so let me enlighten you as to some of your comments that can be proven.
Your the one who lumps all gun advocates together with various terms and phrases such as; Honkeys, Racists, Supremists, Gun-Nuts, criminals, pieces of shit, scum and insane.
Now that you have included millions of people with your statements that cannot be discarded, you try to falsely shift the focus onto someone else.
This is the same illogical tactic that got the liability lawsuits thrown out!
Step up to the plate and take your medicine! You claimed that all gun owners are racist period. No on forced you or intimidated you to do so. You showed your true colors for everyone here to see.

[MrBenchley]

67. Happy to prove it, bucko...

"Find it, post it , prove me a liar. I've never made such a broad statement."
From post 40, spoonman: "Nevermind, we're all "gun-nuts", "scum" and "beneath contempt", but we also believe ALL MEN/WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. This is something that some people have forgotten."
Mostly Ted Nugent and some of the other scum on the board on the National Rifle Association.

"Step up to the plate and take your medicine! You claimed that all gun owners are racist period."
Prove it.

[Spoonman]

74. Jeez get a grip on reality

"Nevermind, we're all "gun-nuts", "scum" and "beneath contempt", but we also believe ALL MEN/WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. This is something that some people have forgotten."
Reference the people on the forum, but I guess like you do with EVERYTHING is spin it into a convenient statement to justify your own shortcomings.

[MrBenchley]

77. Gee, it's not my shortcomings

but the shortcomings of scum like Ted Nugent..

"Reference the people on the forum"
Who the hell are you trying to kid?

[Spoonman]

81. Oh, I never knew

you were psychic!
That explains it, YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!!!!

[Spoonman]

79. Truth hurts

I already know you'll come up with some ad hoc one line BS vomit standardized reply to all this, so save yourself the time and effort and spew it out to the wall next to you. You’ve shown your colors.


"Step up to the plate and take your medicine! You claimed that all gun owners are racist period."
Prove it.

Post 46
One more time

Ted Nugent is a racist
Ted Nugent owns guns
All gun owners are racist

Get a grip – don’t put us all in a basket and call it laundry day.
It's in bad taste, very rude and lacking of ethics to even come close to such an insinuation.

Your reply post 48

"don’t put us all in a basket and call it laundry day."
You climbed in the basket with the dirty linen, pal.

There's your proof PAL, you included anyone and everyone in that summation of yours. It indicates your take on things very clearly.
Anyone with that view has no credibility period.

You said it, live up to it, be a man.
You've become what you hate.

[MrBenchley]

82. How would anybody know from you?

"you included anyone and everyone in that summation of yours"
No I clearly said YOU. "You climbed in the basket with the dirty linen, pal."
Sure says "you" to readers here on planet earth....

[Spoonman]

85. Sqirm, squirm, squirm

come on you can crawl out of that hole if you just keep trying BUCKO.

[Spoonman]

53. Memory Lane

Posted by MrBenchley

Does the statement "candy stores sell andy to children" MEAN "all candy buyers are children?"

Does the statement "Pep Boys sell auto parts to senior citizens" MEAN "All auto parts buyers are senior citizens?"

I made a statement that was true and you attempted to spin it into something it was not...par for the course with gun nuts.

Remember this? Of course you would never employ the same tactics as those you so vigorously denounce.

I believe the term for this is

bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb
Synonyms: Predudice, Racism, Narrow-mindedness

[MrBenchley]

55. Once again, since you seem to have trouble with logic

YOU were the one who was spouting rubbish about ALL gun nuts; to wit: "Nevermind, we're all "gun-nuts", "scum" and "beneath contempt", but we also believe ALL MEN/WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. "
But as it turns out, one of the loudest official gun nuts believes no such thing and has said so publicly. And now you're sniveling because I pointed that out. Save your oh so clever "bigot" definition for THAT racist piece of shit, who has earned it.

As for whether all gun nuts are dishonest, I have said no such thing. I said dishonesty was par for the course among the breed, which I also have demonstrated amply. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge an honest gun nut...in the event I ever run acrross one.. But I'm sure not holding my breath anymore.

[Romulus]

58. 'nuff said

I said dishonesty was par for the course among the breed, which I also have demonstrated amply. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge an honest gun nut...in the event I ever run acrross one.. But I'm sure not holding my breath anymore.

Thanks for clearing that up and validating what he said.

[MrBenchley]

68. No reason to hold my breath around you

is there?

[Spoonman]

60. Sarcasm escapes simple minds

I'll place blame where blame belongs - you demonstrated the very definition. Your title, share it with Ted for all I care, the only difference between you two is your perspective positions on the issue.

[MrBenchley]

69. Is that what flat-out lies are called these days? Sarcasm?

"the only difference between you two is your perspective positions on the issue."
What a pantload. Yeah, the only diffference between Ted Nugent and me is that he's a racist piece of shit and I'm not.

[BullDozer]

89. Olin

For you to suggest that the Olin Foundation directed John Lotts research is totally unsubstantiated. There is no proof or evidence that it happened that way, only some people saying "oh my they must have paid him off to do that study, look at the money source."

Have you considered for even a second that the foundation is totally separate from the corporation? Have you taken into account that from 1985-2002 The Olin Foundation made $276,483,329 in grants to 542 institutions? Do you think that they took control and directed what was done with all of that grant money?

Olin FOUNDATION, which funds guest academic positions at institutions throughout the country. It does not choose the scholars who fill these slots, but leaves it up to the institution. Nor does it choose their research projects. John Olin did make money in firearms, but died in 1982, endowing the foundation that bears his name. Since then there has been no connection between the Olin Corporation and the Olin Foundation.

[jody]

91. The NILO Plantation in Albany, Ga. is one of the world's premier

spots for quail research and hunting. I hunted there before the quail population plummeted and it is a thing of which dreams are made. NILO is OLIN reversed.

The Olin family has tried to repay society for the blessings the family has received as citizens of these United States, something the BFEE will never learn.

AWOL and all the Bushes wouldn't make a good pimple on John Olin's derriere

[MrBenchley]

93. Yeah, surrrrre.....

How gullible ARE you?

[BullDozer]

99. Show it

If you want to dispute the facts I presented then supply facts that dispute them.

The twisted little view that you have courtesy of Brady et al, is just that a view and one that is not grounded in facts or the real world.

[MrBenchley]

101. Gee, you're pretending

that a foundation run by a gun manufacturer, staffed with executives who worked at the gun company, produced a phony study by a crackpot lying about a supposed benefit from guns, and that it had nnothing to with the gun company.

And the rest of us are supposed to be dumb enough to buy that.

[BullDozer]

102. Proof?

Your little tirade aside you still haven't provided any evidence that contradict my facts about the Olin Foundation.

You claim that it's run by a gun manufacturer. Really? Which one is that? Certainly it's not Winchester!

Which members of the Board are former executives of what gun company?

And finally where is your proof that the Olin Foundation directed ANY research in an effort to benefit Olin Corporation. You'd think with all of the effort that is put into disputing Lotts research that someone would have some shred of proof beyond endless innuendo. Haven't your brady pals supplied you with something? Oh wait that's right they don't have any proof either.

[MrBenchley]

104. Peddle it elsewhere, dozer

If you think other people are dumb enough to fall for it, rotsa ruck peddling it.

"You'd think with all of the effort that is put into disputing Lotts research"
Doesn't take MUCH effort at all....

[BullDozer]

106. As usual...

Your posts on a subject are all bark and no bite.

Not one single piece of proof eh? Why is that? I can think of a damn good reason.

[MrBenchley]

108. Yup, as usual

"Not one single piece of proof eh? Why is that?"
Because none is needed for sensible people.

Q: Is John Lott's study a valid one?
A: No, Lott is a crackpot and his study is pure horseshit. Every scholar who has looked at it has dismissed it as rubbish.

Q: Who funded John Lott's study?
A: Not surprisingly, the gun industry, which ran the payment through a right wing nut foundation controlled by a gun manufacturer.

[BullDozer]

109. So lacking

Q: Who funded John Lott's study?
A: Not surprisingly, the gun industry, which ran the payment through a right wing nut foundation controlled by a gun manufacturer.

Of which you have provided no proof of! Oh wait you make the claim that you don't need any stinking proof!
Because none < proof > is needed for sensible people.


Never mind that the Olin Foundation has enough money that they surely wouldnt need to take it from an outside source as you alledge. Plus now you tack on the charge that it's a right wing nut foundation? You might want to share your source on that one, I honestly don't know their politics, however a quick browse through their list of 1999 grants (totaling $19,357,408)(Including $70,000 to Michigan State University one of my schools and definitely NOT Right Wing)($260,000 authorized to Univ of Michigan, another of my schools again NOT a right wing place) shows a few places that are on the right for sure, some that I identify on the left, so it seems to me that it's balanced

Every scholar who has looked at it has dismissed it as rubbish

Please name names and provide the quotes where they call the work rubbish.

By your claims there should be plenty since academics at 24 universities have been provided with Lotts data (as of the 1998 printing of the book More Guns Less Crime) Making the data available to academics who want it seems to me to be a sign of the intent to produce honest work.

Your blanket out of hand dismissal of anything that has Lotts name on it is ridiculous and goes against the grain of DUs policy of discussing the message and not the messenger.

[MrBenchley]

110. Dozer

YOU pretend Mary Rosh is a real scientist.. But don't expect any intelligent person to be that gullible.

"the Olin Foundation has enough money"
Wow.....du-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h. Gee, I wonder where they got that money?

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

121. Gee, I'm not the one trying to pretend Mary Rosh

is a REAL scientist...

[BullDozer]

123. You are so fixated

You are the only one mentioning Mary Rosh though.

Why don't you address what has been posted?

[BullDozer]

124. Get real

Where did the Olin Foundation get their money? Why I'm sure at least a good chunk of it comes directly from John Olins share of Olin Corporation a leading producer of copper alloys, ammunition and chlorine and caustic soda.

Calling that the Gun industry and trying to claim, without a shred of proof I'll remind you, that the gun industry funded and directed Lotts research to a predetermined conclusion is nothing but pure B.S.

But you go right ahead and stick with your claim that proof isn't needed (see post #108) to back up your claims.

[MiniBalrog]

111. Doesn't take MUCH effort at all....

...to prove that Donohue and his cronies can't even read their own statistics right.

[MrBenchley]

122. Sure it does...

that's why the RKBA crowd have to lie.

[BullDozer]

90. Nice source of information you picked there

Not!

nocompromise.org

"» A.L.F. Goes on Offensive in Bay Area - NC #16

"A series of daring actions by the Animal Liberation Front has animal abusers across the San Francisco Bay Area feeling the heat and running for cover. The A.L.F. offensive, which has drawn intense media attention to animal rights issues, began in December of 1999 and has continued into the new year. Using arson and other property destruction techniques, the Bay Area A.L.F. cell has so far caused more than $500,000 in damage to businesses that exploit animals and forced one laboratory supply company to move out of California.""

"The A.L.F. followed up its October 24 break-in and liberation at WWU with a second lab raid in one month, raiding the Washington State University Poultry Research labs in Puyallup, WA and doing extensive damage. According to the WSU communiqué, the raiders smashed out a window to gain access to the labs and, finding the animal rooms empty, proceeded to destroy every computer and piece of lab equipment in the facility."

[MrBenchley]

94. Sez you

n/t

[BullDozer]

98. Check your own damn sources.

MrBenchley Response to Reply #90

94. Sez you

No actually "sez" the website you linked too. If you decide to go back and look at just who you are using as source information you might want to download their "how to be an arsonist manual" that they so thoughtfully supply online for everyone to read.

That's funny you use a terrorist group to pin the racist label on someone. Too funny.

[Spoonman]

105. Come on BD,

We all know that the desire for gun control is to protect the people.
Just think about the father of gun control acomplished:eyes:

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in § 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and § 9 of the Fuhrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten- German districts of 1 October 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1331 ) are the following ordered:
§ 1
Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
§ 2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
§ 3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.
§ 4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
§ 5
For the implementation if this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
§ 6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick

What's the old saying about the apple not falling far from the tree?

[jody]

44. Now Spoonman, there you go again stating irrefutable facts. Don't

bother the gun-haters with facts, their minds are made up -- guns are evil incarnate and they like Don Quixote must continue on with their quest.

[MrBenchley]

45. No, there he goes spouting nonsense

Exactly which facts are those that Jody feels are "irrefutable," one wonders?

[demsrule4life]

42. Some of the scum

On the NRA board have been Medal of Honor winners, a few others have won other decortions from WW 2 from the Pacific campaigns. It is one thing to disagree with people another thing to call a MOH winner scum.

[MrBenchley]

43. Go pimp for them elsewhere

"It is one thing to disagree with people another thing to call a MOH winner scum. "
And yet another thing to try to hide racists, right wing loonies and white collar criminals behind a Medal of Honor..

[Spoonman]

47. You have no idea

what it takes to be awarded the MOH.
As a veteran, I find it appalling to read TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED comments such as that.
I would totally express me feelings about it, but it would only get deleted.
It's a far cry from the little plastic trophy you got in little league.

I think you might want to look at this,

http://www.sacwriters.com/quizzes/racist.htm

[MrBenchley]

56. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

"I find it appalling to read TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED comments such as that."
Such as what? That you bozos are trying to hide the NRA board's lunatics, racists and criminals behind some unspecified MOH winner?

[Spoonman]

61. Chances are you could never earn one

if given a thousand life-times.

[MrBenchley]

70. Chances are

if you spin and spin and spin and spin you'll still be as dizzy as you are now.

[demsrule4life]

76. I will let you look for other heros

http://www.lawzone.com/half-nor/foss.htm

[MrBenchley]

78. Please DO pimp for lifelong Republican Foss

on Democratic Underground. Go on up to general discussion and tell THEM what a hero he is. Show them what a pantload your handle is.

I dare you.

[demsrule4life]

80. I've never said you have to like him

you can dislike him, hate him, debate about he's beliefs all you want, you don't have the right to call him or anybody else you dont agree with scum.

[MrBenchley]

84. See you in General Discussion

hahahahaha

[demsrule4life]

88. unspecified MOH winner

Your words, so I specified it, ran a google check and put on the first link that showed. FYI I'am not a member of the NRA, have never been a member of the NRA. I just don't ever need to resort to name calling, I've never seen no use in it and it never solves anything. My question to you your namecalling has never changed anybodys minds so why do you continue to do it?

[MrBenchley]

95. Guess somebody's not going to General Discussion

to peddle what they want to peddle here.

[Cthulu_2004]

115. John Glenn...

apparently respected him enough to be on the BoD of the Joe Foss Foundation. Glenn sports a (D) after his name. Apparently he doesn't think Foss was scum....

[MrBenchley]

116. So let's see you pimp for him

in General Discussion...

[Cthulu_2004]

118. Have you read the temporary rules...

for posting in GD?

Kind of hard to do that without getting it locked...

[MrBenchley]

119. You mean

you can't think of five sentences about this gump you're idolizing?

GD requires QUALITY posts....that would rule out virtually the entire RKBA crowd....

[Walter_Bowman]

125. Only if you think the RKBA crowd

includes that ex-Repukenazi S.Brady...

[MiniBalrog]

113. Please point out

a racist comment by them?

[MrBenchley]

117. Happy to...

http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/heston.html

http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm

"TED NUGENT finally got somebody mad enough to fight back. Following a vitriolic April 1 diatribe against Latinos, as well as, ahem, liberal use of the word "faggot" during a performance, the outspoken Motor City Madman became the first person ever banned from Houston's Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion in the venue's eleven-year history. Nugent's racist remarks also galvanized the League of Latin American Citizens to plan a national boycott of future Nugent performances. "We're not objecting to his right to free speech," said League director Charles Flores. "The way it was said we feel it was directed in hatred at Hispanics. I'm sure he could have worded it better." To make matters worse, Nugent repeated his anti-immigrant rhetoric the following night at West Palm Beach's MARS Music Amphitheater. His management had no comment about the two incidents. The league also plans to notify Sony's corporate headquarters about its concerns . . ."

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=10610

[Emoto]

25. They are, actually.

How many returning vets have you spoken with?

[MrBenchley]

26. Gee, moto, please go peddle THAT one

up in the General Disccussion folder.

[schnellfeuer]

10. Do they make their...

knives, clubs, chains, cars, beer bottles filled with gas, oh, wait, I guess they probably do make the last one. Guess we better sue the beer companys for allowing misuse of their bottles and the gasoline companys for the same thing, huh? Do we go after the car companys for providing the cars for the drive bys? How about your local realtor for selling them the house for selling their drugs out of? Jeez, what do you know, just about anything can be called corrupt and be used improperly.

[MrBenchley]

21. Jeez, what do you know

if you got any more desperate you'd be airborne...

[schnellfeuer]

27. Obviously not as high as you.

I've only left aircraft at that altitude. :)

[Spoonman]

29. I was

Got my wings at Ft. Benning Georgia 1985.

[acerbic]

7. So one state tries to control guns,

neighboring gun nut states allow easy trafficking of guns and gun nuts everywhere blather and babble (especially in DU J/PS at least 5 threads a day) "See, gun control didn't work there!". So "clever"...
:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[Superfly]

8. If you call the legal exchange of

money for a product such as a gun trafficking.....

And, if you haven't noticed, the last time I checked, DC is NOT a state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Not a state

More like a state of confusion.

[the_acid_one]

33. Then why....

do all the gun nut states have lower rates of violence? Must be the water in DC....

[jody]

39. Interesting stats in the following DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=2587&mesg_id=2587

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[the_acid_one]

35. Careful....

Someone in the NRA said something similiar about gangs. I think the quote was:

"the consensus is that no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society. These people fight small wars amongst themselves. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well-supplied with ammunition."

Basically "i hope they all kill eachother".

But, because most of the gang members who die by gunfire are african-american everyone (everyone being the VPC, the Bradys and a rather outspoken person here who's name rhymes with SisterGrinchley) tried to construe it as a racist remark.

So tread carefully, applying the same rule to your remark could be used to spin it into being "racist".

Personally, I am with you, string the bastards up, black, white, red, yellow. They have no place in our society. They dont give anything back, all they know how to do is destroy.

[556]

34. Weird?

So if gun bans are designed to stop gun violence and guns are banned in DC then how could this have happened? You mean the criminal(s) didn't even take one second to think about the law before they broke it? But isn't that............never mind. It's all too confusing to me. I guess I'll just keep my mouth shut and continue to let the government take tax dollars from me to support laws that don't work and further more don't even make sense.

[MrBenchley]

72. Even weirder

Tell us, do you think laws against bank robberies are failures because banks get robbed?

"It's all too confusing to me. I guess I'll just keep my mouth shut"
If only.....no, I won't say it.

[556]

87. No!

I don't think laws against bank robberies are failures. That law is there so that the courts can legally punish someone who steals from another. Stealing is an imoral act that hurts others. Just like there is a law in place to punish someone that takes the life of another. Murder is an imoral act that hurts others. All laws are are sanctions. So the law that bans assault rifles from production so that I cannot purchase one is there so that if I do buy one I'll be punished for it? What the hell? All that law did was make something a crime that never use to be one. By enacting that law we created a another crime. How on earth does that make sense? You tell me.

[MrBenchley]

96. Yup

"By enacting that law we created a another crime."
Gee, and if we had no law against bank robbery, bank robbery would not be a crime.

[the_acid_one]

100. No comparison.

Bank robbery is inheritantly wrong. It's stealing, it hurts other people no matter how you do it.

Guns are not inherantly wrong, they can be used without hurting people, and are used in that manner much more often then to hurt people.

You're talking about banning something that on it's own is harmless. Versus an act that cannot be done harmlessly

No comparison.

[MrBenchley]

107. What a pantload.

On their own, anthrax, heroin and plutonium are all harmless, by that "logic."

[MiniBalrog]

114. Actually, banning heroin was an idea without merit. (nt)