My FB post on guns & civillians...

[mslman71]

Well, it is nice to know that you put action into your thoughts. Most people don't.

I don't know what most people do. There are a lot of people out there. Assuming anything is risky.

[Kraken]

You mean like a knife, right?

You are aware that the press lied about the weapon used in the assault on Sandy Hook? Lanza didn't use a long arm, much less an "assault weapon". Perhaps you can inform us what an unassault weapon is, just so we're on the same page.

Exactly. The official report states that the rifle was actually still in the trunk of his car, and all the shooting was done with handguns.

[mslman71]

Exactly. The official report states that the rifle was actually still in the trunk of his car, and all the shooting was done with handguns.

I never did track this down, because frankly it doesn't matter, but I recall at first they said the 223 was left in the car and he used the pistols, then they said the coroner's report identified the wounds as being from the 223. Did this change again?

[Corbi]

Exactly. The official report states that the rifle was actually still in the trunk of his car, and all the shooting was done with handguns.

Which is the same damn thing I have read in numerous reports, are they all wrong or is the media and government in on this to create hysteria and get their precious ban enacted?

[lotusdeva]

You mean like a knife, right?

You are aware that the press lied about the weapon used in the assault on Sandy Hook? Lanza didn't use a long arm, much less an "assault weapon". Perhaps you can inform us what an unassault weapon is, just so we're on the same page.

Oh, press lied about Columbine Also?

[Kraken]

I never did track this down, because frankly it doesn't matter, but I recall at first they said the 223 was left in the car and he used the pistols, then they said the coroner's report identified the wounds as being from the 223. Did this change again?

My wife told me that the police had made a statement that the .223 was found in the trunk of his car. It's awfully fishy that PD on scene find the rifle in the trunk, but the media and other sources say that people had been wounded by a .223. More irresponsibility by the media and the government, as usual.

Watch this video. It's not just conspiracy stuff, they show reports and their inaccuracies, but notice, he states, the AR 15 was left in the car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

[mslman71]

All the stories I can find report the ME stating that the wounds were inflicted by a rifle; rounds and empty magazines recovered on site. Speculation is that it was a shotgun in the car (?)

[so-tex]

I am not advocating taking away every single gun from every single gun owner in this country. Assault weapons, anything capable of taking away so many lives in minutes - I have a problem with that. Most importantly though - justifying ownership of any weapon by implying that one is protecting their Freedom is naive, to say the least. So how about Patriot Act ? Which one of you fine citizens took it time to the streets? IMXO - the reason for all this commotion is that it is YOUR gun we are talking about, It's YOU who will lose something. Sometimes, we as human beings have to put our I on the side and sacrifice for the good of the society. Philosophers won't be Kings here, ah? Nop.

P.s. I am not afraid , you know, if you are meant to hang yourself, you won't drown

So how do feel about limiting our 1st ammendement rights, since they do not always print or report the facts?

[JRT6]

I am not advocating taking away every single gun from every single gun owner in this country. Assault weapons, anything capable of taking away so many lives in minutes - I have a problem with that. Most importantly though - justifying ownership of any weapon by implying that one is protecting their Freedom is naive, to say the least. So how about Patriot Act ? Which one of you fine citizens took it time to the streets? IMXO - the reason for all this commotion is that it is YOUR gun we are talking about, It's YOU who will lose something. Sometimes, we as human beings have to put our I on the side and sacrifice for the good of the society. Philosophers won't be Kings here, ah? Nop.

P.s. I am not afraid , you know, if you are meant to hang yourself, you won't drown

Can someone translate this?

[SP1966]

Can someone translate this?

Just another fool who chooses to ignore all of the recorded history of man and proclaim that having a well armed public is no longer a deterrent to a tyrannical government.

Or to be blunt, another pathetic individual who is willing to ceed her own protection to a government.

We could clearly add that she is also another hopeless optimist who thinks that removing a tiny portion of weapons from a society will result in a safer society.

We could boil it all down to one word that was used often around here for a time: Fuktard.

[mslman71]

...Sometimes, we as human beings have to put our I on the side and sacrifice for the good of the society. Philosophers won't be Kings here, ah? Nop.

I will not willingly sacrifice anything as an individual for nothing more than the promise, or more appropriately, the best guess at legislation that might have a statistically measurable positive outcome for society if everything works out just right.

[erinlee01]

I logged in recently to upload my progress pictures and noticed negs with shut up, etc comments for voicing my opinion in this thread. I do have an opinion as a mother, tax paying citizen, as a human being (which is obviously very different from majority here). It amazed me that men in their 50's took time to push a red button and leave disrespectful comments. Level of intelligence is just epic here.

P.S. also, I am assuming that most freedom fighters in this thread were on the streets protesting when the Patriot Act was passed. You know, the one that took away some serious liberties per 2 nd Amendment.

And yet a 37 year woman took time to make a post to whine about negs on an internet forum.

Too funny.

[mslman71]

"A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes (Koper and Roth, 2001b). Using state-level Uniform Crime Reports data on gun homicides, the authors of this study suggest that the potential impact of the law on gun violence was limited by the continuing availability of assault weapons through the ban’s grandfathering provision and the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban. Indeed, as the authors concede and other critics suggest (e.g., Kleck, 2001), given the nature of the intervention, the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small and, if there were any observable effects, very difficult to disentangle from chance yearly variation and other state and local gun violence initiatives that took place simultaneously. In a subsequent paper on the effects of the assault weapons ban on gun markets, Koper and Roth (2001a) found that, in the short term, the prices of assault weapons in both primary and legal secondary markets rose substantially at the time of the ban, and this may have reduced the availability of the assault weapons to criminals. However, this increase in price was short-lived as a surge in assault weapon production in the months prior to the ban and the availability of legal substitutes caused prices to fall back to nearly preban levels. The ban is also weakened by the ease with which legally available guns and magazines can be altered to evade the intent of the ban. The results of these two studies should be interpreted with caution, since any trends observed in the relatively short study time period (24-month follow-up period) are unlikely to predict long-term trends accurately."

Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie, "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review," National Academy of Science, NAP 2004, 2005. pp. 96-97.


The best Feinstein can do is state that since we can't say crime was reduced we can't say it wasn't reduced (go figure) and that the increasing cost of the weapons due to the ban likely had and would have had more impact if extended. Seriously, this is the best that the next bill's sponsor can do? Really, what difference does it make though? She is selling this to her choir who will believe anything so long as it is in line with what they want to hear, perhaps emphasizing that adding some sort of federal fingerprinting and registration system will somehow give it that little extra kick it needs to be measurably effective. How do these people have enough sense to remember to breath?

[Corbi]

And yet a 37 year woman took time to make a post to whine about negs on an internet forum.

Too funny.

Internets is serious business.

[erinlee01]

Internets is serious business.

Apparently!

[EB68]

The initial reports stated that he used two handguns and the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the car, but the media jumped on the opportunity to state that the big scary assualt rifle was the weapon used. I tend to ignore most anything reported by the leftwing media outlets anymore. And if we should ban any weapons because they are dangerous, we need to take a look at the first amendment as well, lots of idiots should be banned from voicing their opinions, in my opinion

[Marius_Ursus]

Oh, press lied about Columbine Also?

That's not what I asked.

[lotusdeva]

And yet a 37 year woman took time to make a post to whine about negs on an internet forum.

Too funny.

You never miss my posts. I feel special.

[lotusdeva]

Implying? No. I justify owning guns because that's my clearly defined Constitutional right . . . which by definition means I am exercising my freedoms (and thus also protecting them).

As for your notion about "sacrificing for the good of society" . . . I'll take a pass on that as the standard for allowing the govt to start chipping away at the Constitution. That's one of the last things some countries' citizens heard from their governments, right before they stomped on them and robbed them of what few rights they had. History is rife with that lesson. But we're the naive ones, right? Might want to read up a bit on where that line of reasoning was used--you don't have to go back very far.

Also, with regard to the Patriot Act, I think you'll find that gun owners are/were among the most vocal critics of it . . . so I'm not sure what that whole canard is about. But since you are the one trumpeting about govt acting under the banner of the common good, I would think you would be all for the Patriot Act. Or are you in favor of the govt keeping its collective nose out of our/your business--as long as it doesn't involve scary guns?

Clearly defined 200 years ago for the purposes to arm militia in case British decide to attack. We, as a society clearly changed, where we don't need to be armed with military style weapons. Government is more then capable, we have the best military/technology in the world. Paranoid much?

[cowboybiker]

The Federalist Papers.



You should read them.

Can I find it on Blue Ray?


Its kinda late and I'm feeling lazy

[mslman71]

Clearly defined 200 years ago for the purposes to arm militia in case British decide to attack. We, as a society clearly changed, where we don't need to be armed with military style weapons. Government is more then capable, we have the best military/technology in the world. Paranoid much?

I just checked, the purpose (eg defeat a British invasion) was not called out in the Amendment. Nor was the extent or limitation of the milita, no more than equivalent limitations were applied to any of the other Amendments that would otherwise invalidate them in these here modern times (no matter what Ginsburg says). If the government is so capable then why do we need things like the FOIA or the free press as it pertains to political matters, for example. I mean, who needs people like Woodward and Bernstein in these modern advanced enlightened times?

I'm pretty sure my local PD has no intention to disarm, for god's sake they have an APC not to mention an enviable collection of small arms, and I live in a pretty calm mid-sized southern city.
I'm fairly certain the FBI has no intention of disarming and they are free to roam the country doing whatever they want.
The secret service and other organizations sure seem pretty well equipped.
I know criminals will not disarm, neither those of dedicated criminal organizations or the one-offs.


Yet, I'm paranoid, and I and the millions like me should disarm because it's the right thing to do. Hm. What to do ... What to do.

[lotusdeva]

I just checked, the purpose (eg defeat a British invasion) was not called out in the Amendment. Nor was the extent or limitation of the milita, no more than equivalent limitations were applied to any of the other Amendments that would otherwise invalidate them in these here modern times (no matter what Ginsburg says). If the government is so capable then why do we need things like the FOIA or the free press as it pertains to political matters, for example. I mean, who needs people like Woodward and Bernstein in these modern advanced enlightened times?

I'm pretty sure my local PD has no intention to disarm, for god's sake they have an APC not to mention an enviable collection of small arms, and I live in a pretty calm mid-sized southern city.
I'm fairly certain the FBI has no intention of disarming and they are free to roam the country doing whatever they want.
The secret service and other organizations sure seem pretty well equipped.
I know criminals will not disarm, neither those of dedicated criminal organizations or the one-offs.


Yet, I'm paranoid, and should disarm because it's the right thing to do. Hm. What to do ... What to do.

Arm!!! Get a tank and a tor**** and a bomb. SHUT, if FBI is coming for ya, you have been a bad boy. 2 guns won't do it, heck 10 won't do it. So What to do? All jokes aside - What are you arming for? Criminals? OK, won't 1 gun do? 2, how many? Do you need an assault weapon? For What, army of criminals? Who?

[mslman71]

Arm!!! Get a tank and a tor**** and a bomb. SHUT, if FBI is coming for ya, you have been a bad boy. 2 guns won't do it, heck 10 won't do it. So What to do? All jokes aside - What are you arming for? Criminals? OK, won't 1 gun do? 2, how many? Do you need an assault weapon? For What, army of criminals? Who?

Who cares how many I have but me? I only have two hands and I'm not a particularly good shot with my left.

I have a relatively small number of firearms. Most of my neighbors do as well. In fact, a very large number of the people in my State do. Start adding people together with a common interest and what do you have?

In all seriousness the chances of the deterioration of government are vanishingly small in our lifetime, but how about the next? The one after that? Countries and governments can come and go in the blink of an eye. What's so special about this one? What so special about now other than it happens to be the times we live in? The writers of each generation have crowed how theirs is somehow special, somehow immune to all shortcomings of those before them, and yet we find ourselves repeating our history over and over. I'd rather take a chance, accept a risk, than forgo the preservation of the right to self defense, for this naive concept that we are somehow the chosen ones.

I as an individual wouldn't stand a chance against any real organized force, but I do have a chance against an individual that wishes to do me or my family harm. It isn't perfect, it comes with potential risks, as does anything in life. The best I can do is secure what I have, take the responsibility seriously, train when I have an opportunity, and go about my business.

Vote however you wish. Think whatever you wish. I'd prefer to pretend that I am empowered rather than accept that I am entirely powerless.

This question has been asked a few times, but what's an assault weapon?

[SP1966]

2 guns won't do it, heck 10 won't do it.

Exactly what difference does it make how many or how big? Exactly?

[Brackneyc]

Exactly what difference does it make how many or how big? Exactly?

That's what she....wait a minute

[taf1968]

Clearly defined 200 years ago for the purposes to arm militia in case British decide to attack. We, as a society clearly changed, where we don't need to be armed with military style weapons. Government is more then capable, we have the best military/technology in the world. Paranoid much?

Have you spent more than 5 minutes on American history and the Constitution? You think the 2nd Amendment is there specifically to defend against the British? And that it's only applicable until such time as the govt is more capable. You couldn't be more wrong. Here . . . let me help you:

Thomas Jefferson:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” –Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” –Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in “On Crimes and Punishment”, 1764

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny –Thomas Jefferson

“And what country can preserve it’s liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, 1787

“The Constitution of most of our states, and the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves: that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

Samuel Adams:

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” –Samuel Adams

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” –Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams, 1776

Benjamin Franklin:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” –Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755

Noah Webster:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” –Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).


“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe, in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.” Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

John Adams:

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense.” John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88

Alexander Hamilton:

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Richard Henry Lee:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

Patrick Henry:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Every man who is able may have a gun.” –Patrick Henry, During Virginia’s ratification convention, 1788

James Madison:

“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, The Federalist No. 46

George Mason:

“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.” –George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention, 1788

Thomas Paine:

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them.” –Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

George Washington:

“A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” –George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790

“To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.” –George Washington, The Federalist No. 53

[paolo59]

I don't understand it. There are many millions like Lotusdeva, a relatively intelligent young woman I have no doubt. They can look square in the eyes of their own children and in most cases know when they're lying through their teeth! "What sort of a cocka-maimee story is that? Do I look like I have (%*$ for brains? Did I just fall off the back of the cabbage truck yesterday?" All, questions that any parent has asked of their kids (if only in their own heads) while they look into seemingly innocent little eyes staring up, blameless! LMAO

Just how is it that these same parents who know human nature (the very capacity to decieve that resides in their own offspring) would trust, believe in, put their faith and confidence in a bunch of lying, hypocrital, two-faced, mealy mouthed politicians? It is beyond me!

[DubfromGA]

Arm!!! Get a tank and a tor**** and a bomb. SHUT, if FBI is coming for ya, you have been a bad boy. 2 guns won't do it, heck 10 won't do it. So What to do? All jokes aside - What are you arming for? Criminals? OK, won't 1 gun do? 2, how many? Do you need an assault weapon? For What, army of criminals? Who?

You are so right.


I really should get more.


What I really need, though, is people who insist on telling me what I need ...... to STFU.

[livebrah]

let's take military assault weapons off of our streets

oh yeah but cops are exempt because they work for us


Obama 2013

[13donniedarko]

My wife told me that the police had made a statement that the .223 was found in the trunk of his car. It's awfully fishy that PD on scene find the rifle in the trunk, but the media and other sources say that people had been wounded by a .223. More irresponsibility by the media and the government, as usual.

Watch this video. It's not just conspiracy stuff, they show reports and their inaccuracies, but notice, he states, the AR 15 was left in the car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

didn't one cop say no guns were found in the car, but later that night they found a shotgun in the car?