Gun Violence Higher In States That Vote Republican

Right, and they could prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt"...?
If they HAD stopped these morons from muling the guns, you would be online screaming about the ATF persecuting people for purchasing firearms. It's like you just look for things to complain about...

 

I am not demanding any specific parameters of your proof; just asking you to substantiate, with a type of support commonly accepted to prove a "fact", your statement that, "The fact is that many of the victims in the instances you're citing could have defended themselves just as easily with tazers."

I can appreciate that if you "feel" that to be true it could "feel" like a "fact", but that doesn't make it one.

Neither does your statement refute my supported fact or even my inferred supposition that the number is probably much higher now with millions of law-abiding people going about their daily business armed for defense.

What's pathetic is you drawing any conclusions about the case with such a flawed knowledge of it.

I mean come on willya. . .

 

Of course. The ATF knew who the strawbuyers were and knew the guns were flowing immediately to Mexico within a couple weeks of the inception of Operation fast and Furious:

"The first large recovery of weapons in Mexico linked to
Operation Fast and Furious occurred on November 20,2009,
in Naco, Sonora - located on the U.S/Mexico border.

All of the 42 weapons recovered in Naco traced back to
Operation Fast and Furious straw purchasers. Forty-one of
these weapons were AK-47 rifles and one was a Beowulf
.50 caliber rifle. Twenty of the weapons in this recovery were
reported on multiple sales summaries by ATF, and these weapons
had a "time-to-crime" of just one day.

Within a span of 24 hours, a straw purchaser bought guns at a
gun store in Arizona and facilitated their transport to Naco, Mexico
with the intent of delivering the guns to the Sinaloa cartel.

Mexican authorities arrested the person transporting these
weapons, a 21-year old female. Mexican authorities interviewed
her along with her brother, who was also in the vehicle. According
to an official in ATF's Office of Strategic Information and Intelligence
(OSH), the female suspect told law enforcement that she intended
to transport the weapons straight to the Sinaloa cartel.

From the very first recovery of weapons ATF officials knew
that drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) were using these
straw purchasers. . . ."

The Department of Justice's Operation Fast and Furious: Fueling Cartel Violence
JOINT STAFF REPORT
July 26, 2011
pg's 16 & 17
​

When you have no argument, always assign nefarious intentions / motives to a debate opponent - that is a universally accepted and well repsected debate tactic.

 

Exactly. And the methodology equates to examing homes and finding insulin in the refrigerator, asking if someone in the home has diabetes and concluding that insulin in the home causes diabetes . . .

Even worse is that these studies do not control for guns brought into the home . . . when a homeowner is shot in his home by an intruder or even an acquaintance, we can assume that the outsider brought the gun into the home . . . that it wasn't a 'gun kept in the home'. Well, that didn't matter to these "researchers" all they asked 'was there a gun in this home, any gun, when this crime was committed?' . . . Well, duhhh . . .

 

Does that mean that gun registration is unconstitutional?

After all, it will only be enforced on non-criminals. . . Criminals are exempted from being compelled to register their guns and are immune from any prosecutuion for not registering their guns. (that pesky 5th Amendment)

 

It is a federal law (Lautenberg Amendment) and the lifetime gun rights disability is applied for any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

There is no exemption for the military or police.

It is among the criteria that establishes a "prohibited person" under federal law:

18 U.S.C. § 922(d) - It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -


​

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
( is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . .
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


​

 

Thank you. I am pleased you admit it.

One of us certainly is. The usual suspects trot out the "blame the law abiding first, disarm Americans" rhetoric and new gun grabbing laws and every time gun sales go way up and membership in the NRA and other like minded civil rights groups also goes way up. That is reality. Those who despise the Constitution, who lust for more power, are the best salesmen for civil rights groups such as the NRA and for adding to the stores of available weapons.

Your point is irrelevant. Government actions and the actions of the worst of the Left (and all of you are pretty bad) result in more gun sales and in an increase in the power of civil rights organizations. The remarkable thing is that you benefit when the NRA is stronger.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Do you give up your right to life to work where you do? I encourage every teacher to apply for, train and then carry a concealed weapon for the rest of your life. If you carry your weapon properly no one will ever know you have it. On that terrible day when you need it if you are in a state like mine you will be lauded as the hero you are. If you are in a liberal state you may have to be judged by twelve of your idiotic peers. But isn't that preferred to being carried by six?"

Do you think the day you are assaulted, and perhaps murdered, is a good day? Are you a utopian who believes that government can solve all problems, sooth all ills and remove every unpleasant moment? Who is responsible for protecting your life more than you are?

Perhaps you are a coward. Perhaps you suffer from a mental defect that precludes you from doing the responsible thing and acting as your own first line of defense. That is for you to ponder. You get to choose for you. Disarm. Declare your home to be a gun free zone. Declare to the world that you are a ready, willing, and able victim.

Let me decide for me. That is the nature of freedom, of liberty. I di not expect you to understand either.

I also wrote, "Perhaps you believe in fairy tales. I hope no such thing. I realize that as long as liberalism remains a blight upon the land we will have to deal with its most harmful effects. Mass killings in gun free zones is what I hope to curb. Single murders and accidents can never be stopped."

You believe in fairy tales. I live in the real world.

I have not proposed to arm anybody. Each of us should arm ourselves. Do you recognize the difference?

Are you implying that teachers sleep in their classrooms? LOL.

Her son murdered her while she slept. You should have known that.

You do get to decide for yourself. Why do you believe you should be able to decide for everyone else?

 

Thanks for the info E Rick. Dig the authoritative reference.

Looks as though doin' the crime and the time, it really isn't over with. I am for constitutional rights being resumed after one's debt to society (an impersonal justice) has been paid with exception. For violent crime offenders, acute scrutiny most likely ending in a permanent loss of a specific right or rights would be the rule unless by a preponderance of the evidence it would be decided otherwise.

I do not like laws that are retroactively and punitively applied after a sentence has been served. Kinda a double jeopardy type of circumstance...already convicted of a crime with a particular set of punitive outcomes but let's add one to it years later. Baloney. An abuse of power.

 

Sincerely, thanks for your Marine Corps service.

Part of his duty. Top was speaking about the Marines he was responsible for and to. See no problem here with him educating his Marines on the substance, depth and duty of their sworn/affirmed oath and explaining that the Federal military forces cannot be used domestically for law enforcement-the British did that, Americans didn't like it.

Most if not all domestic terrorist, when arrested on our soil, have been arrested by domestic civilian law enforcement. The Fifth Amendment has an exception for the military regarding criminal procedures arising in the military and during war.

When anyone suggests or is determined to take or reduce the rights of citizens to access firearms commonly carried in the military I must protest. I believe the best firearm control to use is centered on and encompassed by the B.R.A.S.S. system. The Press will report what they want you to know, the internet, where people can talk to a multitude of others, however is wide open...that's why the government wants to control it.

The government is going about infringing further on the right to arms with present and threatened legislation.The president and his minions are throwing in, via treaty option, with the UN to diminish American Constitutional rights. Gitmo is addressed in the Fifth Amendment, the military/war exception.

The Second Amendment is the last right in the BOR allowing Americans the chance to counter a tyrannical government...is it any wonder the government wants to limit the citizen's access to arms? When the Constitution was written the civilian and soldier of the day had the same access to types of firearms. Criminal acts were used to tax that right for civilians in 1934. Then congress further reduces access by allowing machine guns manufactured after a certain date could not be purchased...drying up the supply of available machine guns for citizens.

Arms allowed the South their power to physically disagree with Washington DC. They were a separate nation until defeated by a foriegn power.

The government has committed tyrannical acts that killed innocent mothers and children and some men. Ruby Ridge and Waco originated in taxes and gun control (do you know why sawed off shot guns became illegal?)...the government believed that a person on each property did not pay the tax stamp for some of their fire arms or may have been short on a barrel length...sound like a good reason to shoot women and children? What held the federal forces at bay, if for only a time, like at the Alamo, sure the superior federal force finally crushed their defenses but the firearm did allow a defense for a time...many lived a time longer until killed by aggressive action because they were armed. You can't see the tyranny in these attacks?

I suspect that you think your children will be safe or safer if you relieve your fellow citizen of their right to specific arms today. But you are not and they will become more at risk when they and their fellow citizens are disarmed...make no mistake the end game is to disarm the populace.

 

In a democracy that would be true, but the USA is a Constitutional Republic and our elected officials are strictly bound to executing their duties in conformance with the Constitution. They take an oath to the Constitution, not their constituents.

Good for you!

I hate to see someone wasting time and energy on a useless endeavor because the right to arms in not in any manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment to exist. Modifying the words of the 2nd or completely removing them from the Constitution would not impact the right to arms in any fashion.

Such an action and any attempt to disarm citizens would de-legitimatize the government, justifying the citizens rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers they originally conferred to government -- using the means secured by the 2nd Amendment if necessary.

Rights can not become obsolete and the 2nd Amendment, since it does nothing but redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it, can't be obsolete either . . .

The right to arms is restricted in exactly the same manner as any other enumerated right, e.g., the oft heard, 'you can't yell fire in a theater'. That prohibition on specific speech doesn't stop anyone from talking. Those specific prohibitions of certain actions using a protected interest are narrow and has no effect on the ability to legitimately exercise the right, nor does it inhibit or condition the simple possession of any protected ancillary items (your voice, paper, pens, paint & canvas, clay, computers, digital camera, recording device).

As I said, legitimate laws restricting the right to be armed follow perfectly the exemplary 1st Amendment models. There are laws against brandishing and threatening with a gun and laws against assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder and homicide and they are in perfect unison with the 1st Amendment examples. Those laws are legitimate responses by society to specific illegitimate uses of a protected interest.

The theory and execution of what is termed "gun control" goes way, way past those boundaries.

The restrictive gun laws on the books and now being called for, amount to -just say no to everyone- or -jump through these hoops, acquire this permit, please show me your license- and IMO constitutes a form of prior restraint.

I equate restrictive gun laws with forbidding everyone to speak because someone might slander or yell fire in a theater, or forbidding anyone from publishing because someone might libel, or forbidding digital cameras and computers because someone might create and disseminate child porn, or restricting church services because someone might make a human sacrifice or forbidding all assembly because someone might incite a riot. Laws such as those would be considered prior restraint and they would fail constitutional scrutiny.

It's not, how do YOU justify demanding that the 2nd Amendment be treated differently?

 

This is getting ridiculous.

Not being able to yell fire in a theater while still maintaining the right to speak in a theater is reflective of the probability to do harm, not the level of restriction on your voice in the specified environment.
I don't believe anyone is saying "you can't own ANYTHING which might cause harm to another person", they're saying "we need to limit the availability of products that are designed to kill."

 

Have you ever known of a firearm being used to save life?

The point being that yelling fire in a theatre not under attack by fire is illegal but voices or words have not been confiscated from all citizens prior to a crime being committed with those possessions.

The gun grab folks would take a right to specific firearms from all citizens PRIOR to those being used in a criminal act by the citizen. Criminals are not the folks that should be consulted about the responsible exercise of any right. We have a senator saying she would conficate all firearms from Mr. & Mrs. America if she had the backing.

 

I do recall saying that I support gun CONTROL. I do not recall saying that I support a gun BAN. Those are two very different things in that banning is something that can only be done with the uncontrollable. Faciliate control and banning won't be entertained by anything other than a lunatic fringe.

 

You prefer tyranny on the installment plan. I get it.

 

Right, because England and Australia have such tyrannical governments... Unlike those lovely places that have negligible gun control...

 

In a creeping fashion gun control tracks to an eventual, at the very least a de facto, ban.

The average everyday citizen was effectively banned from owning a machine gun in 1934, know why...drive by shootings and tax stamps. However, if a person could come up with $200.00 in '34 (13-15% of avg household annual gross income- $1300-1500) he could pay a stamp tax (remember the power to tax is the power to destroy) for the "right" to bear this heretofore legal arm. Cost of a pistol .38-$22-25.00-.45, Rifle .22-$5-70.00-elephant gun in the 1930’s. Later the government sets a manufacture sunset date for automatic firearms that can be legally purchased.

In 1994, as is her mission today, Senator Ma'am bans specific firearms.

If you can't personally control your neighbor's firearm(s) acquisition(s) you are for teaming with the government to ban his access to those arms?

What is it that turns a Marine, a sworn defender of the Constitution, against his oath of true faith and allegiance to the Second Amendment?

 

Tell me - that "ban" on machine guns - did it work? Was there a lessening of drive by shootings with machine guns?

 

If you count the law abiding citizen who did not do drive by shootings as it "working" then yes, no law abiding citizen committed that act. However a number of criminal organizations, in my time on this earth, have been found to possess automatic firearms in violation of that 1934 law. Drive-by shootings still take place. Why?

 

Sorry - the law is still in effect? Could you link me please? And what I meant was - did the rate of these incidents diminish?

 

Yes the law is still in effect. National Firearms Act of 1934 .<That is a link, to the US Department of Justice / ATF

Shootings really declined when the 21st Amendment was ratified (Dec 1933). The 18th Amendment was what gave rise to the organized crime syndicates that used machine guns to protect their enterprises.

Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and anti-aircraft guns and recoilles rifles and anti-tank guns and bazookas and miniguns are not banned.

Hundreds of thousands of those weapons are in the hands of regular citizens and they get together all over the nation and literally have a blast.

Here is a fantastic video of the Big Sandy Shoot in Arizona; more like a professional documentary. About 6 minutes in the guy who made this vid shoots a Tommy Gun which was the big bad machine gun used in the 30's by the Mob. I highly recommend you watch the whole thing (if you can take it). The guns shown in this vid cost between $10,000 and $250,000 and cost hundreds of dollars a minute to shoot (some go over $1000).

I note that the documentary "narrator" who looks more like an Occupy Wall Street guy, says that "you can murder a lot of people" . . . I would say he's the only one there that had that cross their mind . . . .

[video=youtube;uCppmoZiXUY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY&feature=endscreen[/video]

.
Another big shoot in the USA is held in the East . . . it is called the Knob Creek Shoot.


[video=youtube;lSf7BMIhROI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSf7BMIhROI[/video]

 

Another great professional video from G4 television.

Oklahoma Full-Auto Shoot

As the cutie-pie host says, God Bless America!

[video=youtube;OQnU1t7UzgM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnU1t7UzgM&amp;feature=pl ayer_embedded[/video]

 

Okay so I did not see them - give me a break my vision is not always spot on (I have a couple of eye problems) and at the moment am using the MAC so the links do not show that well

As for the rest - usual American right boasting with no real content

 

Why do you tell only a portion of the truth?
England does have a tyrannical government. It has no effective limits and its people are not free. I suspect the same is becoming true in Australia. Liberalissm is a disease. All are infected.

 

Well, since it is beginning to look like things will get ugly, here...you might want to consider heading over to one of those places..........

So, you are so sure that you would give up all of your rights to sell mine down the river? I take that as a compliment; it's a lot to give all those Rights up just to see me forced to allow the one infringement.
By the way, neither of those nations allows the peons to have such things as a Bill of Rights. They only have privilege, you know, subjects, not Citizens.