GUNS IN THE NEWS--August 3, 2004

[MrBenchley]

As CO Liberal sez:
Please try to adhere to the following voluntary guidelines, in order that we can have an orderly discussion of gun-related news topics:
1 - Feel free to add any CURRENT stories to this thread by replying to this message. In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted on the Internet within the previous 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board. EXCEPTION: On Mondays (since many people do not log in to DU over the weekend), stories can be posted from Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.
2 - Both pro-gun and anti-gun stories, editorials, and press releases are welcome in this thread, as long as they're current. Please do not post links to items from a few years back that support your position.
3 - Bear in mind that any links to extremely right-wing sites (such as Newsmax, CNS, or the Washington Times) or intentionally pro-gun or pro-control sites (such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign) are not considered reliable sources by many DU-ers. If at all possible, try to find a link for your story from a more mainstream source, such as a general-circulation newspaper or magazine site. If you choose to use a slanted site, be prepared for any negative feedback you may receive.
4 - Please try whenever possible to provide links to web sites that do not require you to subscribe to the site to read the story. If a subscription site is the only source you can find for a story, please note that fact in your message so people can decide whether they want to follow the link to read the entire story.
5 - Do not change story titles. In other words, if the Oskosh Gazette's web site runs a story titled "Two Killed in Holdup", the title of your message should read "Two Killed in Holdup". Don't change it to "Gun Owner Kills Two People", or anything else that changes the meaning of the story.
6 - If it's not clear from the title where the story occurred, add the city, state, or country in parentheses after the title.
7 - The person adding a news story to the "GITN" thread is allowed (and encouraged) to comment on that story, indicating their position on the topic being discussed. These comments can appear either at the beginning or end of the post; if possible, place comments in a different typeface so readers can separate the comments from the story. Others who wish to comment on a posted story can do so by replying to that story; this allows other readers to follow the comments by scrolling through the subthread.
8 - Please direct your comments to the story, rather than attacking the person posting the story or any person responding to the story. In accordance with DU rules, any message that appears to be a personal attack against another DU-er or a violation of any other DU rule will be reported to the moderators.
9 - If you object to these guidelines (or the basic concept of the "Guns In The News" thread), do everyone else a favor and go to another thread.

[MrBenchley]

1. Too quick on the trigger

"The gun extremists always ask why authorities don't enforce the firearms laws already on the books. It's a good question that ought to be directed to their patron saint, Attorney General John Ashcroft.
As a result of Ashcroft's policy of keeping Brady Act background check records for only 24 hours, a new Justice Department review found that corrupt gun dealers had an easier time doctoring transactions and selling weapons to convicted felons. More than 7,000 people who should not have been able to buy guns did so anyway in 2002 and 2003, according to the review.
Ashcroft pushed through the 24-hour rule under the pretense that it protected the privacy of legitimate gun buyers. What it actually did was weaken the ability of law enforcement to stem the flow of guns to criminals and terrorists.
In response to the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks, Ashcroft's Justice Department has been fighting to limit the rights of individuals to trial by jury, free speech and legal counsel. Such measures are necessary, he says, to stop terrorists. How strange that he doesn't also feel it's necessary to prevent terrorists from building arsenals."

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0804/03guns.html

[Bowline]

3. The article is misleading.

The 7,000 people were able to purchase guns NOT because of the 24 hour rule but because of a legal loophole in the background check law. In states that rely only on the federal government to process background checks, the government has three days to complete the process. If the government doesn't say yes or no in that span of time, a buyer -- any buyer -- can be sold a weapon. 14 states have tougher standards.

The 24 hour rule applies to the destruction of completed, approved background checks. If I try to buy a gun a check is run, comes back clean, I take my gun home, and the record of the check is destroyed 24 hours later. If an ineligible person tries to buy a gun, the system flags the purchase, he doesn't get the gun, and the check is NOT destroyed but forwarded to the FBI (and the BATF I believe).

This article, from a Pennsylvania newspaper, does a better job of explaining the process than I do.
State boasts effective gun purchase check system

[MrBenchley]

8. The article is not misleading...

It hits the nail right on the head....

[Bowline]

10. How so?

I claim it is misleading because it misrepresents the facts. What information do you have that refutes my claims?

[MrBenchley]

15. Yeah, but you also claim the American Daily is a news source....

I'll stand by the article....

[Bowline]

18. But do you have any facts to refute the article?

I cited information to disprove the claims in the original article. You claim my facts are wrong but have no information to counter my facts or support your position. Do you wish to introduce any into the discussion?

[MrBenchley]

20. Couldn't find anything on Newsmax?

You want to pretend your article was worth a warm crap, or did anything to refute that editorial, do it without me....

Maybe you can find something from Rush Limbaugh nexct on the subject...

[Bowline]

23. Strawman too, eh? Admit it, you're position is indefensible.

Nowhere did anyone, besides you, mention Newsmax or Rush Limbaugh. You posted an article, I promptly refuted it with factual information, and you reply with a series of personal attacks and strawmen.

[MrBenchley]

28. Who the fuck are you trying to kid?

"I promptly refuted it with factual information"
In a pig's eye.....but then we can see from the rest of your offerings what you consider "factual."

[Bowline]

31. Your use of profanity says it all.

You've lost the ability to form rational debate points and you've reverted to a steady stream of insults, profanity, ad hominem attacks, and strawmen. You've yet to put together a coherent response to a question this morning.

[MrBenchley]

39. And your use of right wing talking points says even more....

[Bowline]

47. Ah yes, the old "right wing loony" defense. Another oldie but goody.

If one says something you disagree with then they are obviously a right wing loony.

[MrBenchley]

52. Nothing particularly old or good about right wing crap

from "pro gun democrats," as we see this morning....

And no, there's nothing worth discussing about American Daily except why someone posing as a "progressive Democrat" would have gone snorkeling in that cesspool....

[Bowline]

63. Perhaps because the "anti-rights democrat" sites don't post both sides.

One must understand BOTH sides of the issue to intelligently discuss it.

[MrBenchley]

68. Which sites would THOSE be, bowline?

"One must understand BOTH sides of the issue"
Gee, I've understood the RKBA side for years...the arguments for it are all dishonest, the politicians, groups and pundits pushing it are pretty much the actual scum of the earth, and most of it is funded by the gun lobby and a variety of right wing foundations. Hence the reliance on cesspools like American Daily.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

76. No personal attack there at all....just FACT....

Which is why our "pro gun democrats" have to go dumpster-diving for right wing horseshit...

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

83. Yup...once again our "pro gun democrats" post right wing horseshit

and try to pass it off as gold....

Here's a tip...that trick was stale months ago....

[Bowline]

86. Once again our anti-rights "democrat" tries to bluff his way out of a hole

And fails miserably.

[MrBenchley]

89. No bluff...just fact.

[Bowline]

94. Facts? You haven't presented a single fact yet today.

You've ranted, raved, insulted, slurred, cursed, and generally made a fool of yourself but the one thing you HAVEN'T done is present a single credible, verifiable fact to back up anything you've said. In fact, besides the aforementioned ranting, you've actually said very little this morning.

Who do you think you are fooling? Certainly not anyone here. We can see through your bluster and know what you are really up to.

[MrBenchley]

99. Sez you....

Of course, I also didn't try to pass off press releases and crap from right wing cesspools as fact, either....

[Bowline]

100. You haven't tried to pass off anything at all...

You've merely ranted, raved, insulted, slurred, and erected strawmen that even a blind man could see through. You haven't presented even one piece of information to refute a single thing I've said all morning. You attack, attack, attack with nothing to back you up. Kind of like that little Chihuahua dog that thinks it a Rottweiler. All noise and no substance.

[CO Liberal]

46. Perhaps You Think The Article is Misleading.....

...because you disagree with it. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

59. Therer sure wasn't anything in what he posted

that indicated AshKKKroft wasn't a dangerous corrupt gump and that the records ought to be kept.

[MrBenchley]

60. American Daily, opinioneditorials.com and the O'Leary/Zogby poll AGAIN

SSDD....

[Bowline]

64. The article was misleading because it published incorrect information.

I posted the correct information, along with a source for the information. The post then degraded into a series of personal attacks and strawmen from another poster. No additional facts were presented by this poster to counter the original article, just a long series of vulgar slurs and diversionary feints onto random, unrelated tangents.

Read through the entire thread and you'll see this is the case.

[CO Liberal]

109. All I've Seen In This Thread.....

...is you making personal attacks against MrBenchely and those (like myself) who agree with him, accusing us of being anti-rights and implying that we're not true Democrats.

Well, let me tell you something, Bowline.

I've been a Democrat all my life, like my late parents before me. I'll be a Democrat until the day I die. And anyone (like you) who accuses me of NOT being a true Democrat can go to hell.

[MrBenchley]

117. And speaking of being a Democrat

isn't it interesting that after a whole weekend of complaining that it was unfair to put quotations around "pro gun democrats" just because some people slurred Democrats, posted crap from right wing sources, and led cheers for the GOP...

...here today we've got slurs against Democrats, crap from right wing sources, and cheerleading for the GOP from one "pro gun democrat"...and not even a single murmur of complaint from other "pro gun democrats."

Convincing, eh?

[Bowline]

119. I'm accusing you of nothing.

I'm in no way doutbting your personal convictions nor your political affiliation. I've found you to be one of the voices of reason in this particular forum.

[CO Liberal]

120. Then STOP Accusing People Of Not Being Democrats

That's as bad as the asshole RepubliKKKans who accuse each other of "not being Republican enough".

[Bowline]

122. Again, I didn't accuse you of anything.

I accused a certain other poster of being anti-civil rights, based on his own statements claiming to be opposed to the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms without having to ask the permission of the the government.

The other poster and I disagree on this particular issue and I don't see us ever coming to a common meeting point on it. That in no way changes my opinion of the other posters crude, vulgar, inflammatory postings and blatant disregard for facts that do not agree with his position. I think language like that does a disservice to an otherwise well run, informative forum like DU and is disrespectful to other posters here who might wish to have a rational discussion with other adults and not have to see that kind of rude, childish behavior.

Just my two cents worth, and I apologize if my opinions offended you, as they were not intended as such.

[CO Liberal]

123. When You Accuse One Pro-Control Person, You Accuse All of Us

That's why I'm very careful not to use a broad brush.

[MrBenchley]

124. On the other hand...

I say "pro gun democrats" because it certainly seems that so many of them have an affinity for right wing horseshit like American Daily....that so many of them snipe at Democrats and so many of them have nothing bad to say (or actually cheerlead for) Republicans...

Opinion seems to run the gamut from A to A...

[Bowline]

125. Well, it was never my intention to accuse you of anything.

Again, I appologize if I offended you.

[CO Liberal]

126. Accepted

Just be careful not to characterize ALL people in a group. That's why when I post something derrogatory about a pro-gunner, I say "SOME pro-gunners" or "a FEW pro-gunners" - not "ALL pro-gunners".

[Bowline]

127. Agreed.

In the future I will be more careful when attributing the actions of a few to an entire group.

[Retired AF Dem]

133. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

And who uses the term "Pro gun democrat"? Give us a break.

[MrBenchley]

135. And who posts right wing crap

attacks Democrats and cheerleads for right wing pieces of shit like this humhole from South Carolina?

What a pantload our "pro gun democrats" are...in every way.

[Bowline]

2. Guns split the Kerry campaign

Gun-control advocates say that Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign is divided about how vocal the senator should be in calling for the assault-weapons ban to be renewed.

Kerry’s reluctance to mention the controversial issue on the campaign trail has agitated proponents of the ban, which is scheduled to expire Sept. 13.

Kerry supports the ban, and, earlier this year, he changed his campaign schedule to vote for it to be extended. But some gun-control advocates say he has not done enough.

Asked if Kerry will highlight the issue in his campaign, Blaine Rummel, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said, “There is some shiftiness,” said.

Another gun-control advocate said the campaign is divided on the matter and pointed out that Kerry does not mention gun control measures in his speeches.

Complete article

[MrBenchley]

9. SSDD...And the same dreary crap from July 29, no less.....

Wonder what gun nuts across the internet have to say about Kerry-Edwards?

[Bowline]

11. Off topic.

Gun nuts across the internet are not even remotely the topic at hand. The topic is "What effect does Kerry's stand/non-stand have on his candidacy and his election prospects?"

[MrBenchley]

17. The fuck it is....

If you want to pretend that gun control advocates are somehow jeopardizing Keery and Edwards chances, we ought to see what the right wing shitheads who make up the gun owner groups and the gun owner forums have to say.....

Or we could sit right here and watch our "pro gun democrats" post dittohead propaganda from cesspools like "Opinion Editorials" for us...

[Bowline]

25. Vulgar language. Another failed debating technique in your repertoire.

I'm pretending nothing. I'm agreeing with the author's assumption that Kerry's lack of firm, public statement on the issue of gun control might lead some to question his stance and cause some otherwise staunch Democrats to perhaps vote for another candidate.

[MrBenchley]

30. And that's why a six day old bit of shit is dredged up AGAIN

after it's been debunked.....

[Bowline]

37. You've yet to respond with even one rational point.

For each of my posts this morning you've responded with personal attacks, strawmen, insults, slurs, and profane vulgarities.

Sounds like a Dick Cheney speech!

[MrBenchley]

41. Tough titty, bowline....

"Sounds like a Dick Cheney speech!"
Nope, deadheart Dick is pro-gun all the way and dishonest....I doubt he'd have a word of disagreement with any of the dishonest stale crap you've tossed up here, pretending it was "news"

[Bowline]

44. "Tough titty"? ROFLMAO!!! Is that all you have left?

What's next, "I know you are but what am I?"

[MrBenchley]

53. Nothing else needed, bowline...

[Bowline]

66. You are correct, sir.

You have already exhausted your supply of vulgar, profane, and off topic slurs and attacks. You have no valid point to make so you resort to personal attacks and childish toilet humor. Pretty standard fare from the anti-rights "democrats" posting here who claim to be progressive and supportive of equal rights for all.

[MrBenchley]

69. Gee, bowline, and that's why I quote from REAL newspapers

and our "pro gun democrats" got press releases from right wing shitheads and klaverns like the American Daily....

[Bowline]

71. More vulgar diatribes. Simply amazing.

So, only those newspapers that you agree with are REAL newspapers. Any you don't agree with are merely propaganda. Extremely narrow minded of you. Narrow minded, but not surprisingly so.

[MrBenchley]

78. Amazing that anyone anywhere thinks American Daily is a real news source

and not a right wing piece of shit...even more amazing that somebody who calls himself a progressive Democrat could stick his face in it and pretend not to recognize it for what it is....

[Bowline]

82. Still attacking the source but refusing to debate the article.

Do you have anything NEW, or shall we just continue to point out your not so hidden agenda as an anti-rights "democrat"

[MrBenchley]

88. Yup...I'm happy to kick the shit out of these "sources"

since they show what our "pro gun democrats" are REALLY about.....

And since this six-day-old article already was debunked in another thread.....I don't really feel much compunction to play footsie....other than to point out that in the bizarre world of the "pro gun democrat" we are invited to wring our hands over un-named "proponents of the ban" who are somehow hurting the Kerry-Edwards campaign. But we are never ever supposed to notice that gun nuts are attacking Kerry's patriotism and military service on their idiotic on-line forums, or that Larry Pratt's little klavern is practically foaming at the mouth with antiDemocrat venom..

But then in that bizarre world the NRA is a civil rights organization, while the NAACP is not.

[Bowline]

95. Back to strawmen I see. Have you run out of vulgar slurs already?

No one said anything about attacking Kerry's patriotism and military service. Certainly not me. I hold Senator Kerry's service in high regard. I've also made no mention of Larry Pratt, klaverns, or anti-Democrat venom. These are all concoctions of your weak position.

[MrBenchley]

101. Nothing but truth from me, no matter how you pout

"No one said anything about attacking Kerry's patriotism and military service."
Gun nut forums are engaged in open attacks of this sort....but instead you want to pretend gun control advocates are hurting the ticket....

Funny thing, though, last week, you wanted to sob about the numbnutz in Oshkosh whose guns got seized in a cop shooting. THAT story was all over gun nut forums of that sort, with the quote you used, which wasn't in the news story I found. Interesting that you didn't want to give the board a link....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=75071&mesg_id=75071

"I've also made no mention of Larry Pratt, klaverns, or anti-Democrat venom. "
Yup...it's amazing that the "pro gun democrats" try to pretend their playmates aren't in the same sandbox...and evne more amazing that they think nobody notices....

"These are all concoctions of your weak position."
Which is why I'm quoting from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and you're quoting from press releases and right wing cesspools....or dredging up six-day-old crap that's already been debunked...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=74396&mesg_id=74396

[Bowline]

105. Again with the off topic strawmen. Stay on topic.

YOU are the one going on about gun nut forums. I made no mention of them.

YOU are the one bringing up Larry Pratt. I made no mention of him whatsoever.

YOU are the one hurling insults and slurs, not me.

[MrBenchley]

108. The topic is a six-day-old debunked piece of crap

you're trying to pass off as fresh....

[Bowline]

113. Debunked? How? You simply declare it debunked and it is so?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way my good man. We here at DU are smarter than that. We can look around, do a little research, and see your bluster for what it really is...rhetoric to gloss over your belief that basic human rights should be denied to an entire class of people you don't deem worthy of having those rights.

You have been exposed, again. Your position is an anachronism, a throwback to the days of unrestrained gun grabbing by a minority of our government intent on imposing it's will on the people. Those days are gone and they're not coming back. You, sir, are an anachronism. Perhaps that's why so few people even bother to discuss the issue with you anymore. Good day.

[MrBenchley]

114. Six days old and long debunked...

"We can look around, do a little research"
Hahahahahahaha....Since American Daily floated your "research" boat....try Newsmax, stormfront, or Willis Carto's Spotlight next...they're crazy as shithouse rats too and pro-gun all the way....

[MrBenchley]

110. By the way...

I pegged the source of the Oshkosh numbnutz quote correctly....

[Retired AF Dem]

134. What are real newspapers?

They all have their own agendas, don't believe none of them.

[MrBenchley]

136. Ask me next...

how desperate the trigger happy can possibly get....

[Bowline]

4. Gunning for the NRA

It’s not the criminal’s fault, he killed because somebody sold him an “assault rifle.” So goes the thinking expressed recently in an absurd editorial in the Wilmington, NC Star-News.

A young women student at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington was shot 11 times by a deranged, convicted felon; a former boyfriend she rejected. Later, in western North Carolina her killer shot himself and died when his truck crashed in a mountain ravine. The gun, wrote the editor, “allowed him to take two young lives.”

The gun allowed . . .? The gun didn’t permit anything. Guns are inanimate objects—cold steel, until someone chooses to heat them up. They can be used for good or evil. The killer’s crazed condition drove him to violence. His chose a gun to murder the girl. He could have used a knife or many other things.

Using the editor’s logic, we could say that the gun also performed a valuable service. It eliminated a murderer intent on killing again. He had a list of people.

The editor pinned this tragic case on “tools easy to buy” and lack of gun laws. And, guess what else? Right, the National Rifle Association—the bogeyman of the hysterical anti-gunners. By their unbalanced reasoning someone or something, other than the deviant mind and actions of a person determined to do violence, must be blamed. Ban guns, problem solved.

Firearms so frighten some people they become irrational. Facts, evidence and reality are ignored. Nothing, but banning, will quell their fears. Out of sight, out of mind.

Complete article

[MrBenchley]

12. Wow, what a source....

Some other gems from this cesspool....

"A funny thing happened at the Democratic convention this year: Democrats were exposed as closet Republicans.
Abandoning traditional liberal meat and potato issues, Democrats presented...blah blah blah...."

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/vfiore_20040803.html

"I was watching television the other night, chuckling about the fact that John Kerry’s campaign hadn’t received a bounce after the Democratic National Convention and reading hate mail from the liberal-left...."

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/fsalvato_20040803.html

"If Sharpton cares so much about blacks and civil rights, then he should try being more of a real shepherd who guides his flock to better pastures and protects them out of love instead of engaging in blatant partisanship...."

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/jbrooks_20040803.html

Nice to see our "pro gun democrats" have returned to posting right wing talking points from these shitheads....

http://www.ff.org/

[Bowline]

27. Do you wish to debate the merits of the article, or simply build strawmen?

Discuss the post, not some random articles you claim support your position that someone is a shithead, humhole, or whatever other foul name you've come up with.

[MrBenchley]

34. It has no merits...

...if it did, you wouldn't have to dredge this out of a right wing cesspool like opinioneditorials,com, the website for people too stupid and dishonest even for Newsmax's low standards of "journalism."

"Discuss the post"
It's a piece of crap from a far right wing shithead....that's more enough discussion....

[Bowline]

40. Bravo! Bravo! You've derided a website but NOT the article. Why is that?

Quality insults and derogatory statements. Now, how about discussing the article and not the website that hosts it?

[MrBenchley]

43. Because the website it comes from is right wing stupidity, silly....

Do you have to stick every dog turd in your mouth to find out that what comes out the dog's ass is not a Baby Ruth?

[Bowline]

49. But can you debate the ARTICLE and not the WEBSITE?

And your vulgar references to dog excrement is all to telling of your mentality.

[MrBenchley]

55. Why should I even bother....

if it was a valid article, it wouldn't have been in the cesspool to start with....

[Bowline]

67. You don't bother to debate the article. You rarely do.

You instead chose to hurl vulgar insults and foul mouthed personal tirades against others simply because they do not agree with your denial of rights stance.

[MrBenchley]

79. It's right wing horseshit no matter how much you pout

wonder why our "pro gun democrats" never have anything else?

[Bowline]

84. And yet another vulgar diatribe by our resident anti-rights "democrat".

Your true colors ARE shining through, and they're blatantly anti-civil rights.

[MrBenchley]

90. Boo hoo hoo....

"they're blatantly anti-civil rights"
Yeah, surrrrrrrre.....

[Bowline]

96. Your anti-rights stance is well known. Don't be ashamed, embrace it.

It's all you have left.

[MrBenchley]

102. Tee hee hee....

Sayeth the folks trying to pass off Ted Nugent as a civil rights leader....

[Bowline]

107. Strawman..strawman..strawman. Have you got ANYTHING else?

Show me, if you can, where I made any mention whatsoever of Ted Nugent, let alone claimed he was a civil rights leader.

I do, however, believe that Mr. Nugent has the same rights as you and I. No more, no less. Do you deny that?

[MrBenchley]

112. Tee hee hee....

Oh yeah, poor oppressed Ted...

LOL!

[Bowline]

5. Reasonable Gun Control – Support H.R. 648

Who would have thunk it? A congressional bill has been introduced to defend your Second Amendment rights that is reasonable and makes sense. Which probably means Schumer/Boxer/Feinstein/Clinton will go ballistic vilifying it.

H.R. 648 was recently introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right."

I have long argued that law-abiding citizens should be armed, trained and prepared.

H.R. 648 not only reaffirms many of my arguments but also legislates reason. By congressional standards the bill is startlingly straightforward.

It states: "A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms – in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person."

Complete text.

[MrBenchley]

13. Cheerleading for the GOP while slurring Democrats...

Yeah, that's why our "pro gun democrats" deserve quotation marks....

And from "American Daily" no less.....

Ain't that sweet? Good job, there bowline. I'm sure you'
ve fooled everybody....

[Bowline]

29. Another strawman. Well done. You are on a roll this morning.

At no point did I promote or cheer for the GOP or any of it's candidates. I'm promoting the right of self defense for all, regardless of political affiliation. Equal rights, it's a fantastic concept. You ought to check into it.

[MrBenchley]

36. That IS really funny....

Bowline in post number 5: "A congressional bill has been introduced to defend your Second Amendment rights that is reasonable and makes sense....H.R. 648 was recently introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C."

Bowline in post number 29: "At no point did I promote or cheer for the GOP or any of it's candidates."

[Bowline]

42. Blatant obfuscation??? That's a new one from you.

If you were to rationally analyze my post you would see that I was championing the intent of the bill, not the bill's author. A good law is a good law, regardless of which side of the aisle from which it originates.

[MrBenchley]

45. That IS funny....

"A good law is a good law"
Yeah, and right wing horseshit is right wing horseshit...and mysteriously, our "pro gun democrats" never have anything but this dittohead crap to sling around...

[Bowline]

50. So, a law you don't agree with simply MUST be "ditto head crap", right?

Couldn't possibly be a rational, reasonable law that benefits the majority of Americans, even if you derive no benefit from it.

[MrBenchley]

56. The source of the article is dittohead crap, bowline....

As for the rest of it, I'll just say again that it's cheerleading for the GOP and a slam at Democrats from our "pro gun democrats"...business as usual for the RKBA crowd.

[Bowline]

72. You can't refute the article so you attack the source?

The article itself should be discussed on it's merits, not the source of the website. But, since you can't refute the article you attack the source. Business as usual for the anti-rights crowd.

[MrBenchley]

80. When the source is a piece of shit

there's little reason to even pretend the article has merits....

Now please tell us you're going to try to champion this humhole Wilson as a civil rights leader....

[Bowline]

85. Tiring of vulgar insults our hero turns to Ad Hominem attacks. Brilliant!

You pretend the article has no merits because you can't refute it or even rationally debate it. Realizing your weak stance you then attempt to deflect attention from your failed position by personally attacking the character of another individual simply because you do not agree with his position on a matter.

Again, I'll point out to you that I wasn't championing any particular person but rather the law he seeks to enact. But I believe you already knew that and simply don't wish to admit it because it doesn't support your alternative reality.

[MrBenchley]

91. Once again, the "honesty" of our "pro gun democrats" on display....

Bowline in post number 5: "A congressional bill has been introduced to defend your Second Amendment rights that is reasonable and makes sense....H.R. 648 was recently introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C."

Bowline in post number 29: "At no point did I promote or cheer for the GOP or any of it's candidates."

Bowline in post number 85: "I wasn't championing any particular person"

"I believe you already knew that"
You sure haven't fooled me for an instant....

[Bowline]

97. Thank you for helping me make my point.

You failed, again, to show where I supported a GOP candidate. Nowhere did I express support for the individual, only for his proposal. But then, you knew that already, didn't you?

[MrBenchley]

103. Yunh-HUH!

[MrBenchley]

75. What else is in American Daily today, I wonder?

Oh, looky.....funny none of these raised a stink as bowline burrowed past them....

"Despite Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry’s assertion that as President, he would "use every available resource to destroy terrorists and deny them sanctuary…and new recruits," one of the invited guests at the now-concluded Democratic National Convention was an organization that has served as a terrorist recruitment tool, a communications conduit for al-Qaeda in general and Osama bin Laden in particular. "

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4515

"Bush and Cheney will both do better in the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates than their counterparts. Bush is persuasive, whether Democrats wish to admit it or not, while Kerry is simply dull."

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4520

"But for America’s growing army of young conservatives, there are no boundaries to the battle for the future. Even the newspapers of America must stand to reckon with a new generation of conservatives. "

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4514

"Democrats do not advocate socialist practices because they care about black Americans; Democrats prey upon and exploit black Americans specifically to retain their power at any cost -- and to further their ideal of a true socialist state in America.
Apparently, Mr. Davis believes that banning racial profiling of potential terrorists, refusing to prosecute illegal immigrants, and increasing federal spending on education, agricultural subsidies, and health programs even outside of Medicare and Medicaid are typical traits of your run-of-the-mill right-winger. "

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4519

Yeah, the concern for "rights" there is breathtaking, isn't it?

[iverglas]

121. what nonsense is next?

<HR 648> states: "A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms – in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person."


Since when did legislatures enact statements of principle (other than as part of legislation that actually makes legal rules, to assist in the interpretation and application of those rules)??

Since when did it become the prerogative of the legislative branch of any government to INTERPRET THE LEGISLATION IT ENACTS, or to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION of the nation in question?

That's all this bit of drek is: an attempt to limit the constitutional authority of the courts (a) to interpret and apply legislation enacted by legislatures, and (b) to interpret and apply the constitution to legislation enacted by the legislative bodies subject to it.

Oh, and also an attempt to limit the constitutional authority of the executive branch (of which the police and the civil service are part) to execute, i.e. enforce, the laws by interpreting and applying them (subject to the interpretation and application of those laws by the courts).

As I understand it, the US federal govt does not have jurisdiction over criminal law within states. Accordingly, this pitiful attempt to supercede the jurisdiction of state legislatures, by defining the lawful excuse of self-defence, by specifying that a state may not prohibit the use of firearms to injure or kill a person in circumstances that do not constitute "self-defence" under state laws, i.e. "in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person", would just be unconstitutional anyway.

But then what should I expect from a Republican?


(html fixed)

[MrBenchley]

131. A sampling of the "rights-loving" co-sponsors of this crap.....

Dan Burton of Indiana, perhaps the crookedest guy in the House;
Roscoe Bartlett of MD, perhaps the stupidest person in the House;
Marilyn Musgrave of CO, Mrs. Bigotry personified...
Ron Paul of Insania, the neoNazis' favorite congresscritter
J.D. Hayworth, the insufferable right wing gasbag on MSNBC...
William Janklow, recently convicted of manslaughter...
John Hostettler, the fuckwit who tried to smuggle a handgun onto a plane....
And something called Butch Otter....

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Butch_Otter.htm

[Bowline]

6. 'Send Kerry to Perry' to See Legitimate Use of Semi-Autos, Says SAF

BELLEVUE, Wash., Aug. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry need only turn his attention to the National High Power Rifle championships being held this month at Camp Perry, Ohio to observe the legitimate use of semiautomatic rifles, a use that seems to elude him and other gun control proponents, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

"There's no better place than Camp Perry for Mr. Kerry to see hundreds, if not thousands, of registered shooters and spectators, participating in a registered competition with the kinds of legitimate firearms for which anti-gunners claim there is no legitimate use," said SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb. "Camp Perry is the World Series of shooting competitions, attracting dedicated marksmen from across the nation. After visiting Camp Perry, nobody could honestly claim there are no legitimate uses for the firearms that would be affected by legislation Mr. Kerry and so many of his colleagues support.

"The timing couldn't be better," Gottlieb noted. "The National High Power Rifle Championships are scheduled Aug. 8-12, and the National High Power Long Range Championships follow immediately, Aug. 13-16." Gottlieb said such a visit by Kerry or his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, would be a revealing educational experience that would belie their notions about semi-auto rifles.

"For more than ten years," Gottlieb stated, "gun control proponents have demonized these firearms-and the people who own them-when they know nothing about them. It's easy to criticize when you speak from ignorance. Unfortunately, it appears that the gun banners prefer to remain ignorant, because they are unwilling to admit that they just might be mistaken.

Complete article.

[Bowline]

7. FOP Should Now Endorse CCW for Private Citizens, Says CCRKBA

Based on the Fraternal Order of Police support for national concealed carry for working and retired police officers as "a deterrent to crime and terrorism," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) today called on the FOP to support national concealed carry for armed private citizens.

CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron noted, "We all know that even retired policemen can't always be there when they are needed to prevent or stop a crime, but the likelihood of legal intervention increases when you add several million law-abiding, licensed private citizens to the equation.

"These private citizens," Waldron observed, "lobbied vigorously on behalf of the police in their effort to pass the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. It is only the right and proper thing to expect that active duty and retired police officers now benefiting from that law, along with police groups like the FOP, would immediately, and without reservation, step to the plate and support national concealed carry for all legally- armed private citizens."

Currently, dozens of states have enacted reciprocity agreements amongst themselves and a handful of states have passed "universal recognition" laws that simply honor concealed pistol licenses issued by all other states, Waldron noted. The problem is that these state reciprocity agreements do not cover all states.

Complete article.

[MrBenchley]

14. And right wing loonie Joe Waldron...Ann Coulter busy this AM?

"pro gun democrats"

[Bowline]

16. Ad Hominem attacks but no substantive debate.

Do you have any opinion on the actual article or do you simply wish to attack in public the character of people you've never met?

[MrBenchley]

19. Yeah, my opinion on the "article"

is that it's a press release from a right wing piece of shit.

"the character of people you've never met"
Now how do YOU know I haven't met this dreary fuckwit?

[Bowline]

21. Still no debatable facts, just slurs and insults, eh?

Do you have any facts with which to debate the article or are you content to simply to defame the character of another man for your own purposes?

[MrBenchley]

22. It's a press release from a right wing piece of shit...

Couldn't you find anything from Pat Buchanan?

[Bowline]

26. Your true colors are showing.

When faced with a reasoned debate for which you have no legitimate counter you result to vulgar language, personal attacks, and insulting posting.

[MrBenchley]

32. That's right...I'm a progessive Democrat

who has no interest in what a piece of shit like this humhole wants to lie about....

[Bowline]

33. Rant on MacDuff...

And damn'd be him that first cries, “Hold, enough!”

(With apologies to William Shakespeare)

[MrBenchley]

38. Hey, always happy to point outour "pro gun democrats"

are slurring Democrats and posting dittohead talking points...if you guys couldn't do that, you'd have to be mute.

[Bowline]

51. Always happy to discuss things with our "anti-rights democrats".

[MrBenchley]

57. Yeah, it shows....

That's why there's a whole thread bitching about what is clearly an accurate description of our "bullets for brains bunch."

[Bowline]

62. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder, sir. n/t

[MrBenchley]

65. And right wing crap, slurs against Democrats, and

cheerleading for Republicans seem to be the stock in trade for our "pro gun democrats." Wonder why (snicker)?

[Bowline]

74. Anti-rights "democrats" can't debate the facts so they attack the source.

You sir, are a prime example of that tactic.

[MrBenchley]

81. And "pro gun democrats" can't tell a press release by a loony

from a newspaper article...

[Bowline]

87. Swing and a miss...strike three.

Well Ted, looks like the mighty Casey has struck out again.

[MrBenchley]

92. Yup...strikeout after strikeout from the trigger-happy....

What did you expect when you have so many foul balls?

[MrBenchley]

93. Police begin search for gunman (KS)

"A 22-year-old Wichita man told police an unknown gunman shot him in the chest Sunday night in north Wichita.
It happened about 11:30 p.m. on the 1400 block of North Kansas, near East 14th Street North, where officers later found shell casings, police said."

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/9302580.htm

[Bowline]

98. Your position weakens with each post you enter.

Your anti-rights stance is falling farther and farther out of favor with main-stream America. Each year more and more people buy guns, more and more people get licenses to carry them, and more and more people are able to defend themselves and their families from criminals. That really sticks in your craw, doesn't it. How dare these people become self reliant and reject the cry from the anti-rights crowd that we all simply roll over and become victims just waiting for the privileged armed ones to come to our rescue.

[MrBenchley]

104. Oh no! Surrender, Dorothy!

Wow....is there anything as lame as right wing rhetoric?

[Bowline]

111. Just your attempts to defend your anti-rights stance in the face of fact.

You've got nothing to back up your stance so you continue to hurl insults, slurs, and diversionary strawmen. It's all you have left.

[MrBenchley]

115. Yeah, all that "fact" at American Daily....

however will I cope? (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

24. Schwarzenegger doll losing gun

How embarassing for the Governator...

"A bobblehead doll featuring California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger packing a machine gun will drop the weapon, and profits will go to charities under an agreement between the governor and the maker of the toy dolls.
Schwarzenegger's Oak Productions Inc. and Fitness Publications Inc., a magazine company he co-owns, sued the Bosley Bobbing Head Doll Co., claiming the $19.95 doll violated the former bodybuilder's right to control his image and used unauthorized copyrighted photographs on the packaging."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0802schwarzenegger-doll02-ON.html

[Bowline]

35. Ironic, isn't it.

Schwarzenegger made his fortune mostly portraying characters who create all manner of death, mayhem, and destruction with all manner of guns, explosives, swords, knives, etc. and NOW that he's in politics he's turned anti-gun.

[MrBenchley]

48. Milwaukee Man Accused of Having Guns & Drugs in Daycare

"A 23 year old man now faces charges after police found guns and drugs at a day care. Tarrance Jenkins is charged with possession of a firearm and a controlled substance. Friday police say they found stacks of cash, four weapons, and nearly 20 thousand dollars worth of crack cocaine at My Castle Daycare on 63rd and Keefe."

http://www.cbs58.com/cbsdata.cgi?_dhweb=form&_lt23r=home&kv=headlinenews.headlinenew_id=5780

[NorthernSpy]

54. end the War on Drugs!

Some jackass dealing out of a daycare: yet another example of what Prohibition hath wrought.

:eyes:


Mary

[Bowline]

73. Agreed.

Prohibition of alcohol didn't stop the production or consumption of alcohol, it only made it an extremely lucrative business for a select few. The "War on Drugs" is no different.

[MrBenchley]

58. Man Who Killed Father Mentally Ill, Family Says (CT)

Another family made safer by guns...

"MIDDLETOWN -- The 21-year-old son of a psychologist who fatally shot and cut his father before killing himself had been receiving treatment "for a serious mental illness" for the last four years, according to the son's obituary.
The deaths of Gary DeVito and his father, Joseph DeVito, 58, last Friday were ruled a suicide and homicide, respectively, after autopsies Monday.
Joseph DeVito died from a combination of blunt trauma and a single gunshot wound to the head. Gary DeVito died from a single gunshot wound to his head from the same handgun, according to police and the chief state medical examiner's office."

http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-middevito0803.artaug03,1,7805879.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

[MrBenchley]

61. 2 shootings kill 1, hurt 4 in Phoenix

"PHOENIX - One person was killed and four others were injured early Monday in unrelated shootings that occurred within 20 minutes of each other and less than two miles apart in west Phoenix, police said.
The first incident began about 12:45 a.m. when three assailants opened fire inside a suspected drug house near 44th Avenue and Catalina Drive, Phoenix police Detective Tony Morales said.
An unidentified man in his mid-20s was pronounced dead at the scene, Morales said. Two other men jumped into a suspected stolen car and drove to a nearby fire station seeking treatment for gunshot wounds, Morales said."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0803phxshoot03.html

[MrBenchley]

106. PVPD officers go on leave as result of fatal shooting (AZ)

"PRESCOTT VALLEY – The Prescott Valley Police Department has placed two officers who were involved in a deadly shooting on Saturday on administrative leave while another agency investigates the incident.
Jacob Bradley Jackson and Mark Allen Postula, both master patrol officers, are taking routine administrative leave per the department’s policy while the Department of Public Safety is conducting an investigation regarding the shooting incident that left a 25-year-old Prescott Valley man dead.
Martin Anthony Andrews Jr. died the same night after emergency personal airlifted him to John C. Lincoln hospital in Phoenix.
The Prescott Valley Police Department report states that at around 5:42 p.m., the two officers went to Sauter Drive West to investigate a report of gunshots being fired. When the officers arrived on scene, they encountered an armed man inside of a garage, the report said. When the man pointed a rifle at the officers, both sides exchanged gunfire."

http://www.communitypapers.com/DAILYCOURIER/myarticles.asp?P=986154&S=400&PubID=12858

[MrBenchley]

116. Shotgun used in slaying, suicide try (MI)

registration required
"Police say a 48-year-old Norton Shores man fatally shot a guest at his mother's trailer home during a card game late Monday, then turned a shotgun on himself.
Norton Shores police arrived to find the guest, 68-year-old Johnny P. Galindo of Lakewood Club, dead on the floor in the trailer's living room-kitchen area.
The alleged shooter, identified by the Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office as Harold Hammond, was reported in critical condition this morning at Mercy General Health Partners Sherman Campus."

http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1091547986101030.xml

[MrBenchley]

118. Idaho Falls Police Looking for Armed Robber

"Idaho Falls Police are looking for a man they say robbed a pizza store at gunpoint.  The staff was just closing the Little Caesars on 17th Street when the clerk says a man burst through the front door with a handgun, demanding cash.  The clerk gave him the money and he took off on foot."

http://www2.kidktv.com/x18258.xml?ParentPageID=x3963&ContentID=x56197&Layout=kidk.xsl&AdGroupID=x18258

[MrBenchley]

128. 16-Year-Old Shot in School Parking Lot (AL)

"BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) - A 16-year-old student was shot in the shoulder at Huffman High School around 8:30 this morning.
A school administrator says the altercation happened in the parking lot while at band camp.
The school official also said another student fired the shot. "

http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=2125755

Hey, what right wing bunch of loonies publishes a gun magazine for kids?

[Endangered Specie]

137. This, one time at band camp...

Nice cartoon Mr Benchley.

[MrBenchley]

129. 'Persons of interest' sought regarding shooting at local club (OR)

"PORTLAND, ORE. - Police are trying to track down two people they are calling 'persons of interest' in a shooting incident at a local club that left a pregnant woman in critical condition.
That shooting happened early Monday morning at the International Club on Northeast San Rafael Street in a building rented for private parties and music shows.
Witnesses reported seeing a white male and a black male arguing near the club, and then shortly thereafter hearing automatic gunfire, followed by possibly semi-automatic gunfire.
At this time, police believe none of the victims was the intended target of the gunfire. "

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=69778

[MrBenchley]

130. One Dead in Night Club Shooting (MS)

"Six people were shot in Vicksburg in a night club early Monday morning. The lounge is across from Fred's department store on Washington Street. One of the six is dead, a second is critical condition, a third is in stable condition and three have been treated and released.
It happened at the Hill Top Lounge in area that is undergoing a massive renovation. Police responded to a shots-fired call to find a very large hysterical crowd running out of the nightclub.
Danny Woodland, 32, was dead on the floor. Reginald Rogers, 27, of Vicksburg was critically wounded. Lakeia Green, 25, was shot in the hand and was in stable condition. Three others -- 21 year old Erica Smith, 26 year old Latonya Williams, and 30 year old Christopher Henderson -- were treated and released. "

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2122557

[MrBenchley]

132. Frisco City shootings leave one dead, another injured (AL)

"Two men wounded at a Frisco City mobile home park in separate weekend altercations -- one with lawmen and the other with a neighbor -- remained in the Monroe County Jail on Monday, authorities said.
A sheriff's deputy shot and wounded one of the men during a domestic violence call, and the other survived being stabbed by a neighbor he shot and killed, authorities said. "

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1091524623300180.xml