Can’t Bloomberg give us even one day of peace?

Merry Christmas, everyone. Want to see (Former) Mayor Bloomberg’s Christmas wish?

States should make background checks for firearm buyers a stronger tool to prevent gun violence by focusing not only on applicants with mental illness but also on whether they have been violent or abused alcohol or drugs, a group of experts says.

Oh, lovely. I just want to spend the day with my family and I get attacked by Bloomie’s anti-gun minions on my holiday.

So what do they propose?

Determining ahead of time who is most likely to shoot others or themselves is the challenge, he said. So the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy has come up with recommendations focused on the past behavior of those who want to buy guns. The report urges states to temporarily suspend gun rights to those who meet these profiles:

  1. Anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor.
  2. Anyone subject to a temporary domestic-violence restraining order.
  3. Anyone convicted of two or more driving while impaired or misdemeanor controlled substance convictions within five years.

The report recommends temporarily confiscating guns from those who have been briefly held involuntarily in a mental health facility, even if they haven’t been formally committed by a judicial or administrative order. The report suggests states also develop specific timelines and processes for restoring gun rights.

Are you kidding me?

1. “Violent” misdemeanor? They plan on taking away a fundamental civil right based upon a misdemeanor? Of course they do. Never mind that the majority of murders are committed by people with FELONY criminal records. For them, gun ownership and self defense are privileges extended by the state. And since they are not natural civil rights, the State can take those privileges away. No. If it’s serious enough to lose your fundamental civil rights over, it’s serious enough to be a felony.

2. Your civil rights taken away based upon the unsupported word of a woman to a judge in a legal proceeding where you are not even invited to defend yourself sounds more like the workings of a Communist show trial than it sounds like the faithful following of the Constitution, doesn’t it? The problem is that this is already the law. If your wife wants to divorce you, she need only tell a judge that she’d like a restraining order and you’re banned from possessing a firearm in the State. You don’t even get to appear at the first hearing to defend yourself. It sounds like a nightmare to me, but it’s embraced wholeheartedly by the gun ban crowd.

3. Again with the misdemeanors taking away your civil rights. If it’s serious enough to warrant taking away civil rights, it’s serious enough to be a felony.

The best part of this is how they skip over the problem of enforcement. We see “felon in possession” charges punished with 9 months to 18 months in prison. We never see actual hard time. Do these people ask for the serious criminals to get serious jail time for their crimes? No. Whenever something bad happens they run to the nearest podium and demand more restrictions on the people who didn’t do it.

Go home, (Former) mayor Bloomberg, you’re drunk, on power.

98 responses to “Can’t Bloomberg give us even one day of peace?

  1. Merry Christmas, Sean!

  2. Merry Christmas to you and yours sir!

  3. My daughter was murdered by a man whose only prior convictions were misdemeanors, numbers 1 and 3, per Mr. Bloomberg’s criteria. I am sure that hers would not have been the only life saved if these criteria had been available as preventative tools. The right to life should preempt the right of a nut case to have easy access to a murder weapon. Why is that concept not easy to grasp?

  4. Susan: Your daughter was murdered by an active duty Marine, with access to weapons far beyond what he could have purchased at the store.

    http://myfox8.com/2012/09/27/sheriff-woman-hospitalized-in-davie-county-shooting-dies/

    I reiterate what I said. If his crimes were serious enough that they warranted the loss of his civil rights, he should have been charged with and convicted of a felony. Until that time, he was a free man living in a free country.

    Your pain and loss does not give you the power to take our rights away. None of us was involved in murdering your daughter, so please do us the courtesy of leaving us alone.

  5. Pingback: A Mom comes to my blog and Demands | An NC Gun Blog

  6. Susan: Your comment inspired me to write another post on the subject.
    http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/12/26/mom-comes-blog-demands/

  7. Susan,

    Your fervent beliefs have no functional actions. Your daughter was killed and the murderer kills himself, both are criminal acts. That makes any law meaningless as he was already set of violating the prime law prohibiting
    murder. There was no law that would stop that violence as he was already beyond obeying law for whatever reason.

    As to misdemeanors, We have no information what they were for or what level. To that I say blame the courts not me. But take care the tighter you make the noose of complex and layered laws the more likely your foot will be in that trap as well. A review of what law is and its function is
    in order. If this person were truly dangerous why did you not pursue the law to act? If you are to blame others there is the responsibility to be sure
    you indeed did all possible to prevent the result. A reminder, laws do not stop criminal acts, good people do.

    Finally, placing an obligation on me or others based on violence or criminal action of offenders a presumptive act. I have done nothing to you and my
    comments are a response to make clear that minding your own obligations
    are closer to the problem rather than making it the responsibility of those
    not involved.

    It is terrible that people die from criminal acts. More laws do not make
    that less likely or unlikely. I still see law as what makes us civil. However creating laws to make even those that are civil into criminals for doing nothing is a an angry desperate act.

    Eck!

  8. I’m going to steal Wade’s comment on Weer’d’s post

    “If my neighbor’s child gets killed by a drunk driver, they don’t have the right to come to my house and steal my liquor or slash my tires just because they’re sad and angry, nor do they have the moral right to send government thugs to do the same.”

    http://www.weerdworld.com/2013/quote-of-the-day-wade/

  9. Sweet Jesus, Sean. You are a cold hearted ignoramus. The reason you and your ilk are afraid of sensible gun safety regulations is simply because you aren’t sensible.

  10. Well thanks, Frank, for your name calling and complete lack of a point. You beg the question (and I’m using that phrase correctly) and call names instead of offering any reason anyone would want to acquiesce to Bloomberg’s proposed anti-gun laws.

    You can’t possibly believe that the only reason we gun owners (that’s me and my ilk, to you) oppose new infringements that won’t work is that we aren’t sensible. Because any sensible person would recognize that his proposals have nothing to do with preventing crime and everything to do with making it more difficult and expensive for people to exercise their rights.

  11. Wrong, Sean. You may believe that we all have some God# given right to arm ourselves to the teeth and shoot first but aim later, but that is not what the Second Amendment says. You, and your ilk, conveniently ignore the “well regulated” phrase in the amendment. We have always, and will continue, to place sensible restrictions as needed. It may not matter to you that thousands of your fellow citizens die violently and needlessly by gun, but it matters a whole lot to the rest of us and we outnumber you.

  12. Well regulated means well equipped, well maintained, well trained. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. Please try again, Frank. You failed. People aren’t killed “by guns” they’re killed by people. And no. You most certainly do not outnumber us.

  13. Well Frank, you just can’t put down the shovel, can you?

    “Well Regulated” modifies “Militia,” not “The People.” It’s not hard to understand English if you try.

    Now, understanding “Well Regulated” might be a little bit tougher. You’d have to consult a dictionary and not your prejudices. “Well Regulated” (which modifies ‘Militia,’ remember) means “In good working order. One “regulates” a clock in order to ensure that it keeps proper time. One “regulates” the sights on a rifle to ensure that the bullet hits where the sights are pointed. What is clear is that “Regulated” does not mean “subject to lots of laws.” I understand that this is disappointing to you, but those are the facts. You will have to accommodate yourself to the facts whether you like it or not.

    People in the era of the founders owned armed warships. That’s ships filled with cannons that sailed against the British and at least attempted to sink their ships. The Founders were well aware of this. You know how we know? Because they put right into the Constitution that only Congress could issue Letters of Marque. Anyone who argues that the Congress has the power to issue a Letter of Marque to a citizenry that was barred by law from owning a warship needs his head examined.

    You can keep pretending that you “outnumber” people like me (and my “ilk”) but somehow you can’t seem to muster the votes. That makes me wonder where your army is. Your army of supporters, who outnumber me and my ilk, can’t be bothered to actually vote. It could be that they are just too busy to vote, but I think the real story is that your biased polls make you *think* you have a majority, but when actual voters hear the actual effects of your actual laws, they vote against you.

    See also: Senate, Colorado.

  14. Wrong again, Sean. How sad for you. You are outnumbered by a long shot and your feeble and pathetic attempts of reimagining the 2nd Amendment are further proof of your lack of mental capacity. Perhaps the manly tights you wear at Renaissance Faires are so tight that they have constricted the blood flow to your brain. The forces of common sense will not back down on this issue no matter what.

  15. You just keep believing that. It’s so fun when you all cry that your plans to take away our rights fail due to lack of votes. “Common sense?” It’s hatred of our rights that motivates you. And it’s clear that your hatred of our rights spills over into hatred of us.

    As for my participation in historical re-enactments, how is that relevant? Perhaps you would be embarrassed to learn about and reenact our rich history, but I am not. I am not so small of mind or spirit that your words would embarrass me.

  16. We have background checks for some sales and they do keep the guns out of some of the hands of people who should not have guns. I do not understand why any gun owner would not want the private gun sales to be treated the same. It does not take away any of my rights because I would gladly undergo a background check to buy any gun, I already do. Making the law clearer, better is a good thing.

  17. Of course you don’t understand why we object to you turning the act of me loaning a rifle to a friend into a federal felony. You don’t care one way or the other about us. You just want to make it as hard and as complicated and expensive as possible to own a gun.

    The law that Bloomberg demanded would have made me, my friend, and my wife all felons for me loaning a rifle to a friend so he could teach my wife to shoot. Why would I object to that sensible law? Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because it was completely stupid?

    http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/03/24/some-questions-for-bloomberg-and-schumer/

  18. Here’s where you are wrong again, Sean. It’s getting tiresome. The only people we want to deny guns from are those that are too irresponsible or mentally challenged to own them, along with criminals. The way you all automatically jump to the conclusion that all guns should be banned is bizarre. If Obama is really coming for your guns like your overlords the NRA say, he sure is taking his sweet time , isn’t he? Tell me this. Why do you want the criminally insane and other unstable people among us to have all the guns and ammo they need to shoot up the local mall, school, church or Renassaince Faire? How does that keep you safe?

  19. Sean you sound like a little kid wanting to share a toy or something.”made me, my friend, and my wife all felons for me loaning a rifle to a friend” A law does not make people felons, you have to break it, get arrested and then get convicted before you become a felon. How many guns are you loaning out anyway?
    Who is the “US”? We are all Americans and we should care about people shooting each other just because they can, there is nothing right about that. Bloomberg is not the mother you were going off on. You do not even know what you are talking about; national law, did you even read what the Senate was proposing to pass. Probably not because you can’t seem to tell the difference between a grieving mother and a man named Bloomberg. It is not US against them. This is an American problem which takes Americans coming together to solve. You are an American aren’t you? Read the law, the proposed bill http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/manchin-toomey-background-checks-bill_n_3065100.html

  20. Guns have but one purpose…to kill. Some folks just shouldn’t have them…period. Simple as that.

  21. Frank: I oppose “background checks” for three reasons. From the general to the specific
    1. Anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a custodian. If someone cannot be allowed to possess a firearm, they cannot be allowed to possess gasoline, matches, knives, or the contents of the cupboard under your kitchen sink. Anyone who is not in prison or in a mental institution should be freely permitted to possess a firearm. That means that if you object to someone having a gun, make sure that they are in prison or a mental institution rather than interfering with the rights of millions of people.

    2. “Background Checks” are a lie from start to finish. The liars in the anti-gun camp claim “2 million” felons were stopped from getting guns. The real truth is that 1.9 million of those were false positives. People like me friend Miguel at the blog Gun Free Zone were falsely denied their right to purchase a firearm because their names, like Miguel’s, are similar to convicted criminals. A right delayed is a right denied. In the end, almost no one is ever prosecuted from attempting to illegally purchase a firearm. So if almost no one is ever caught and a vanishingly small percentage of those are ever prosecuted, the real reason for “background checks” is to add another level of complexity and expense to the act of purchasing a firearm.

    3. The law that you were trying to pass was not a “background check” law, it was a complete redefinition of what constituted a firearm transfer. I loaned my rifle to a friend so that he could teach my wife to shoot. Under the law as written, that would have been a felony act punishable by 5 years in federal prison. He took my wife out on his back 40 (literally his back 40) and taught her how to safely handle my rifle. Each time they passed the rifle back and forth between them would have been another felony act punishable by 5 years in federal prison. It is arguable that giving the rifle back to me after they were done was also a felony act, but that’s not completely clear. This is the law that you wanted passed. Never mind that the Federal government has no power to regulate the sale of anything between two private individuals. It has the power to regulate interstate trade, but not private sales.

    So the answer is NO. And it will remain NO.

    G Wyant and Oledawg: Neither of you said anything that was worth responding to beyond what is above. The answer is no. And we will destroy the career of any politician who crosses us. That’s why you keep losing. We have the votes to take them out of office.

  22. I’m with G Wyant and Oledawg here, Sean. Start paying attention, man.

  23. Frank: Of course you are. And neither of them said anything that deserved a response beyond the response I gave you.

    Perhaps you should pay attention.

  24. Sean, TLDR. Too Long, Didn’t Read. The paranoia that emanates from every pore of your body must be choking off the supply of oxygen to your brain. There is no other way to explain your delusional thought process. It almost seems to me that you are somehow OK with the ongoing slaughter of innocent men, women and babies that occur around this country each and every day if that allows gunzos like yourself to feel more like a real man. Prove me wrong.

  25. Of course you didn’t read it. If you read it, you might have to acknowledge you are wrong. And you could never do that. You’ve let your hate override your ability to learn.

    You may go now.

  26. “Anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a custodian. If someone cannot be allowed to possess a firearm, they cannot be allowed to possess gasoline, matches, knives, or the contents of the cupboard under your kitchen sink.” you just stated a MOTHERLOAD of crap!
    Gasoline is also used to fuel cars, guns are used to kill. Matches are used to light a fire or a candle too, guns are used to kill, no lighting a candle with a gun. Knives are used to butter toast or smear a bagel too, guns are used to kill. Windex and other cleaning fluids, screwdrivers etc contents you might find under the sink all serve other purposes, guns are used to kill. Guns were invented to kill. When the six shooter was invented killing was made so much easier. So if background checks make it a little more difficult for some person with a similiar name to get their gun, so be it , because the current system makes it to damn easy to get a gun, a gun to use to kill. All the other tools and items you listed would make killing a little more personal and a little more difficult to efficiently carry out a killing. Guns are a efficient way to kill. What are you in such a damn hurry to shoot up? You still have all those other tools to defend yourself with if someone like Santa knocks on your door and you get scared and want to stand your ground. Grow up and maybe find some ADHD medication to help with your impulse control because it sounds like you are gimme gimme kind of guy and I want it now. What a baby you are!

  27. You let your hate overwhelm your sense of humanity. By your non response, you’ve made it very clear you’re OK with the slaughter of innocents. That repulses me. I’ll say a prayer for your wretched soul tonite, Sean.

  28. Boom, G Wyant!

  29. Frank, You are tiresome. You and yours believe with a religious fervor
    of the unreasoned that one more law will or even an outright ban will
    stop violence. Oh right, only guns are violent. You think banning an
    object is a solution without looking at the root cause or thinking though
    the impact.

    As soon as you can tell us who are mentally unstable enough to be excluded from a right we can check and see if your also one of “those”.

    As to your ranting about Obama taking firearms. There is a reason it hasn’t happened. Its bluntly and practically illegal under the fundamental laws. But your all gung ho to change that. I’m sure you will let them in to check your house to see that you have no unregistered guns or other weapons.

    Your rant continues with the “gunfree zones”, Do you for one second
    actually belive because you put up a sign that this is forbidden here
    those that mean harm will turn away? There is a sign for that too
    and its about being insanely foolish. You ask how it keep me or others safe, it doesn’t, as we have no fundamental means of self defense
    and there aren’t enough cops in the world to be everywhere. I see
    those as unsafe places and avoid them.

    In the end your a troll, ranting about something you “feel” rather than
    have put critical thought into.

    In the end it will be good people willing to fight evil. Not those that
    abet it by making safer for evil to persist.

    Eck!

  30. Where did I mention “gun free zones”? Eccchhh? Are you drunk or stoned? Either way, pull your gun out of whatever orifice it’s inserted in before you hurt yourself.

  31. Sean, protesting a Sandy Hook vigil? Really? You must be a special kind of evil. And beneath my contempt.

    DURHAM, N.C. (WTVD) — A service was held Saturday in Durham honoring the Newtown school shooting victims and demanding gun reform. Others made their voices heard in favor of gun rights.

    Related Photos

    Sandy Hook Shooting Victims
    View all 28 photos
    Dozens gathered inside Holy Cross Catholic Church, including Frieda MacDonald. MacDonald’s son, Steven Hoyle, was shot and killed more than a year ago.

    MacDonald heard about the Newtown families’ requests for the media to give them space to grieve.

    Related Content
    STORY: Bells toll in Newtown for school shooting victims
    “I understand that completely, because it is so painful sometimes, just talking with people, when you’re in that much pain. You’re weary. It’s just too much work,” MacDonald said.

    On the grim anniversary of the shooting deaths of 20 children and six school staffers, there was talk at the local vigil of ways to reduce the risk of gun violence.

    Some criticized the state law allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring guns to parks and playgrounds.

    “Unfortunately in North Carolina, the General Assembly has restricted localities’ ability to pass any kind of gun restrictions,” said Durham City Council member Steve Schewel.

    Not everyone at the service was in favor of gun restrictions. A man standing across the street called himself a protester and said he was thrown out.

    “I am a fairly well known local activist for gun rights. So the organizer recognized me at the door and kicked me out,” protester Sean Sorrentino said. “Why do they want to take away my rights in order to feel better about something some crazy person did?”

  32. First Amendment is awesome. It allows nutcases to print crap like this blog. Second Amendment could be also be awesome, but it allows those same nutcases to own a gun.

  33. My Condolences to you Susan K. Browder on the loss of your daughter. The fact that these “responsible” gun-owners’ (joke) “rights trumps your loss” is absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn’t take them serious. Enough Said!

  34. My Condolences to you Susan K. Browder on the loss of your daughter. The fact that these “responsible” gun-owners’ (joke) “rights trumps your loss” is absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn’t take them seriously. Enough Said!

  35. So G Wyant makes the “intent is not transferable” error and then Frank jumps right in with him. Par for the course.

    You keep forgetting there is no “but it’s a deadly weapon” exception to the Second Amendment.

    And yes, Frank, I counterprotested Moms Demand Action’s shameful little political rally. I have a serious problem with people dancing in the blood of dead children in order to attack our rights.

    http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/12/15/get-kicked-memorial-service-catholic-church-video/

    Make sure to watch both videos!

  36. Frank your own words…

    “Why do you want the criminally insane and other unstable people among us to have all the guns and ammo they need to shoot up the local mall, school, church or Renassaince Faire? How does that keep you safe?”

    In most places those are designated gun free zones. Especially schools.
    If your debating what you said, yes your didn’t say gun free zones, I’m saying what you called them are indeed nominal gun free zones and
    its your own lie they should be or are safe from those you indicate.

    You suffer from your admitted “TLDR. Too Long, Didn’t Read”. Try reading and listening without the anger.

    In the end that makes you no more than angling for a fight. I’ll watch for you as your anger is out of control and therefore unsafe.

    I’m old enough to likely be your mother maybe even your grandmother.
    Talk nice or eat soap!

    Eck!

  37. Look at Frank change the subject after admitting he can only function in ignorance.

    And CJ doesn’t really understand the 1st Amendment either, nevermind another lack of any kind of factual rebuttal.

    And the fact that ‘G wyant’ can only imagine killing w/ a firearm is just another bit of projection.

    Lies, character attacks and ignorance. The bread and butter of gun control. This is why they’ve done so well.

  38. Again, guns have but one purpose…to kill. It is indeed as simple as that. If you own one you are willing to kill. Some folks shouldn’t have a gun. Easy as that. The majority of Americans feel that way. However the minority seems to want to bully the rest. Guess that is why they need their guns.

  39. If that’s the only thing you can imagine using a gun for ‘Oledawg’, it certainly goes to say that you should not own one. Now take your projection to your therapist.

  40. I don’t have to “imagine”. I know what they are made for. What do you think they are? To play with? Ah, perhaps therein lies your problem.

  41. So you’re saying all my guns are defective? Or are you imposing your desires on the rest of us?

  42. Eccchhh, I don’t even know where to begin with your ignorance, so I will allow you to wallow in it. Third Power, you make no sense, so what you say is irrelevant. Sean, you apparently don’t have a clue what real pain from losing a child really means. If you did, you wouldn’t be such a total jagoff. I hope none of you tools ever lose a loved one to gun violence.

  43. Have no idea if your weapons are defective or not…and are you imposing your desires on the rest of us?

  44. Sean, that’s exactly what he’s doing. He can’t comprehend any use other than what he’d use them for and projects those feelings onto others, decrying them to have ‘problems’ just for merely owning a firearm.

  45. Frank,

    Yes you do. You hope it every day just so you can dance in their blood and say ‘I told you so’. A perfect example of that mindset is in Bryan Miller of the defunct NJ Ceasefire.

    But you keep hopping around under your bridge.

  46. Nope, you are not listening, which isn’t surprising. Some folks shouldn’t ‘t have guns. Is that beyond your comprehension?

  47. Oledawg,

    What ‘desires’ is Sean trying to impose? Beyond your pathetic attempt at turning the tables, can you be specific? Provide evidence and examples.

  48. Oledawg,

    Your absolutely right they can kill. Like so many things it has no moral authority of its own that is the responsibility of the person holding it.

    Over the years I’ve killed rabid dogs when I was living in the hills as they were a threat to the kids in the area. It was necessary as the closest town
    was 15 miles away. The tool was right for the job unpleasant as it was.
    I don’t have guns now, MA is one of those states that make it expensive and tedious to be allowed to get one.

    Its a tool, it can be used take life, it can be used to preserve it, it can be a tool for defense or one of offense. Its not different from a sword, knife or
    an axe. All if misused or employed for criminal intent are the same.

    As to imagine, if your imagination is so limited to destructive uses please stay away from things that can hurt others.

    Eck!

  49. He Eccchhh, from your own blog…Expect a certain level of batshit craziness. Explains everything.

  50. They are made to shoot a bullet out of a barrel. That’s it.

    They can be used for many things. Shooting holes in paper. Shooting cans off stumps. And, yes pointing at and shooting people. Now those can be good or bad people. It depends on the user. Per year, there are 500,000 to 1.5 million defensive gun users- most of them just pointing at bad people.

    Its funny reading the the anti-gunners here- they have only have two things in their arsenal (pun intended): emotional appeal and insulting us pro gunners.

    That’s all they have- appealing to emotion that if we were only sensible and not mean. And then calling us names like murderers, blood covered, heartless. No actual debate, just those two things. Over and over again.

  51. Ah, you provide examples to justify your need for weapons. I don’t need to do so. That field has been plowed many many times. It is simple…guns exist to kill, some folks shouldn’t own them. What is pathetic are those that don’t understand that.

  52. To be fair, they are losing so badly that they are lashing out in anger. They cannot control themselves and so they assume that no one else can either.

    It’s kind of funny, if you think about it.

  53. Sorry Third Power, but you mistake me for the person in your mirror. You and Sean and Ecchh have no pity or sympathy for the thousands of innocents slaughtered every year by guns. Why? I have no earthly idea. You can answer for that on Judgement Day and see what the Almighty thinks about the Second Amendment.

  54. And another change of subject when called on to support their claims. Poor Oledawg. What you’re saying is that outside of your couple of stock sentences, you really have no defense of your beliefs.

    See skippy, you come here claiming I’m a sociopath in waiting and that I should have more restrictions placed on me yet you can’t provide any support for that claim/demand.

    That’s sad.

  55. You know what’s kind of funny, Sean? Your silly little blog. This has to be the most traffic you have ever had for your inane little posts and you have no idea why. Want me to bring more people to the party? Say the word.

  56. “Sorry Third Power, but you mistake me for the person in your mirror.”

    Oh what a retort. “I know you are but what am I?”

    Thank you Frank, you are a highlight of gun control activism. Please continue.

  57. Personally, Third Power, I think a background check on you might be more than warranted.

  58. In Frank’s tiny mind, “sympathy” for the “thousands of innocents” who get murdered each year with guns = “do whatever Frank says.” Then Frank goes on to imply that God is on Frank’s side. Because Frank says so.

    Frank needs to stop arrogantly claiming to speak for God.

  59. “Personally, Third Power, I think a background check on you might be more than warranted.”

    And why is that Frank? Again, be specific, provide evidence.

  60. Frankie,

    Your toilet mouth is getting the better of you. Time to grow up and debate.
    Surely you can do that. Or is abusing people the best you have.

    I’m convinced you don’t care about guns or gun safety. Your here for the fight or likely see if you can stir up one. Yep all hat and no ranch. You
    aren’t here to gain any ground for anti-violence, your too busy trying to create a bit of your own violence by thrashing around on your computer.
    Your not doing any good for your side and you need to see to that.

    Oh, If i’m ignorant that mans i can be educated. When do you plan to try and do just that. I’ve been listening for a long time and all I hear is tripe and silly rhetoric. I’m done with you as your not accomplishing anything useful.

    Eck!

  61. Well, Third, since Frank knows what God thinks, he certainly “knows” what’s in your heart.

  62. ” I’m done with you as your not accomplishing anything useful.” Eck, I’ll disagree, he accomplishing much, for us that is. Every post he makes is just one more soundbite for us to show the real mindset/mentality of gun control advocates and what they really think of firearm owners when they ask to be ‘reasonable’. Those kinds of remarks generate more NRA memberships than a gun show.

    Sean, Then he must know how much I loathe hedge-apples, the real reason I own guns. 😉

  63. I’m not going anywhere. That might be more than Sean’s teeny tiny mind can comprehend. And Eccchhhie… What “toilet mouth”? Are you inebriated? And for you, Third Power…perhaps the fact that a background check bothers you is cause for alarm. If you have nothing to worry about, what’s the big deal?

  64. So that would mean just like your cohort, you’ve got nothin’ Frankie-boy.

    And really? That’s the best you’ve got? ‘You must have something to hide’? Please. Just another weak character attack from one who can’t justify his personal bigotry.

  65. It’s hard to imagine why this guy didn’t get elected.

  66. Sean,

    I personally don’t think their anger is funny. Its sad and I do feel sorry for them. They argue, abuse and yell at us things that if they were my kids they’d have the fannies warmed. I don’t see responsible adult behavior from them. Who was it that said if you want to win their hearts and minds tis better to not kick them in the arse and hit them in the face. Yet here they are big, loud and ugly, for shame. They go for anger or outrage. Back in the days of usenet we had a name for them, trolls. Me I can’t get angry at them, I’ve long since decided to not rent them space in my head. I’ve dealt with that kind for over 30 years of being on the ‘net. In the end they go away and I’m still here.

    I am thrilled that you have the willpower and integrity to let them post
    unlike those other sites that “moderate” those they don’t like or espouse opinions not in total agreement.

    Eck!

  67. Thanks Eck! People like that aren’t interested in changing people’s minds. They don’t care about facts, logic, or anyone’s rights. They are validating their own beliefs by attacking people who believe differently. You know the type. The ultra-religious guys who do their street preacher schtick on college and get heckled. You think, “why would anyone subject themselves to that?” Eventually you realize that their real aim is to congratulate themselves for “sticking up for” their conception of God. As if God needs their help. It’s narcissism.

    I don’t think it’s funny “Ha Ha” more funny “sad.”

  68. I find it funny that people like Frank claim that they represent the majority of Americans.

    In 1919, the majority of Americans decided that alcohol was bad and passed the 18th Amendment, which began Prohibition. Surely, if enough Americans are behind gun control, you all can get the Second Amendment amended or repealed!

    I think all the Americans who support gun control should pressure their Senators and Representatives to amend the Constitution in this regard. Hell, I would *donate money* to this cause, just because I am convinced it wouldn’t ever pass.

  69. Erin: you are creatively evil. I like you.

    You are perfectly correct. People like that don’t want to follow the rules and amend the Constitution. They want to bully us into accepting their unconstitutional infringements. They just don’t know what to do now that we’ve stood up and said “No.”

    And it really seems to annoy them that their tap dancing in the blood of children isn’t working.

  70. Thirdpower,

    Goading them is not something I need to do. Their doing it for themselves.
    I went far enough with him to see what he has to offer. Its less than nothing and a waste of my time. There no debate there.

    However, you are right they do nothing for their cause. They are the poster children of how not to do it. That he chooses to repeat his stuff only makes it embarrassing for her side.

    Eck!

  71. Sean,

    I offer the only words they cannot counter. Freedom, I wont. Consider it a form of non violent protest and the secret weapon. Take my rights, I wont give them up. If enough, and there are more than enough, people say this they are totally impotent. In the end they have nothing, they deserve nothing.

    Eck!

  72. You guys are laughable. Accusing others of anger and name calling when that is all you gunzos have. The tide is turning against you and you will soon be as relevant as dinosaurs. No one is coming after the guns of law abiding responsible gun owners. However, if you clowns think that the majority of the country will continue to stand by and allow unfettered access to guns by every Tom, Dick and Crazy, you are sadly mistaken.

  73. Goodnight Frank! Go run for office somewhere. Maybe you can sell that to them and change the law. But probably not.

    I’m going to bed.

  74. Sleep well, gunzo. I’ll be back.

  75. Sean,
    I will only note that here, unlike most of the usual suspects on the anti-rights side, you keep comments open. On an anti rights blog by now “reasoned discourse” would have broken out.

  76. “Unfettered’. Another word Frank doesn’t know the meaning of. Like ‘majority’.

  77. Or “shall not be infringed.”

  78. Or shall be “well-regulated” 2a is not an unlimited right

  79. Larry Correia penned a post about “The Internet Arguing checklist”

    THE LEFT WING INTERNET ARGUING CHECKLIST

    Skim until Offended
    Disqualify that Opinion
    Attack, Attack, Attack
    Disregard Inconvenient facts
    Make Shit Up
    Resort to Moral Equivalency
    Concern Trolling
    When all else fails, Racism

    Seems Sean has attracted more than a few folks out to prove that Larry REALLY knows what he is talking about.

  80. Let’s see now – murder is a crime, bringing a firearm into a GFZ is a crime, so we must make more laws to make that even more crimey than it already is.
    How about putting signs on the borders with “Crime Free Zone”? That would solve the crime problem once and for all for the whole of the US.
    The logic that criminals not obeying the law is what makes them criminals somehow doesn’t seem to reach the anti-rights side. The discrepancy between the facts and the anti-rights side’s view is what breaks their so-called logic. They can’t comprehend that their GFZ signs don’t actually ward off guns – holy symbols ward off vampires, don’t they?
    Instead those GFZ signs are a great help for any criminals looking for easy, disarmed victims who abide by the law.
    Decent, law-abiding people aren’t out to commit crimes, no matter what tools they own/use/carry, no matter where or when. Turning some of them into criminals for owning some object(s) arbitrarily declared illegal will neither solve any real crimes nor will any real criminals be caught somewhere in the process.

  81. That’s known as a ‘Strawman’ G Wyant. When you attack arguments no-one is making.

    It’s also another default copy-paste sentence w/ no real meaning.

  82. I love the “guns are only made to kill” argument.

    Which is, of course, why Police Officers carry them right? Because the job of a Police Officer is to Kill.

    Even by the most conservative (read “biased toward the anti-gun viewpoint” standards, guns are used FAR more often in the United States to prevent crimes than to commit murder.

    Also interesting how much of the anti’s arguments here have revolved around emotion, name calling, hyperbole and hand-waving, rather than any supportable facts.

    As to the few actual attempted arguments you’ve made:

    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Second Amendment protects and individual right to own firearms “commonly in use” for the purpose of self defense and unconnected to militia service.

    You may not like that interpretation, but that is the recognized law of the land so your own pet interpretations are irrelevant. Period.

    If the majority supports your agenda, then get it enacted into law. Should be no problem whatsoever considering how much you “outnumber us”. Put up or shut up.

    As for the remainder of your “points”, to put it bluntly, personal insults are meaningless coming from people for whom I have zero respect. You can continue to hurl them to see if any stick, but I can tell you right now that name calling is nothing but an act of desperation and demonstrates that you have nothing further to add to the discussion.

  83. So, Jens… GFZ are the problem? Columbine had an armed guard, Virginia Tech had a police department and Ft. Hood was a military base. If gun free zones are so dangerous why does the NRA HQ ban guns?

  84. NRA HQ in DC is “no carry” because the entire district of Columbia is no carry. NRA HQ in Fairfax Virginia allows carry AND has a shooting range.

    And Frank, that’s what we’re talking about with GFZ. Columbine had ONE armed guard and he was quickly subdued. Virginia Tech had police, and they were locked out of the building. Ft. Hood does not allow servicemen to be armed, and only MPs can have gun. The Terrorist was shot by a town officer who was directing traffic.

    Interesting that all of these places with shootings the only armed people must be labeled and limited.

    Frank seems to tell us how wrong we are…but his evidence is non-existent, or factually incorrect.

    And then he calls names and changes the subject.

    T R O L L

    Is there anybody on the anti-rights side who actually WANTS to debate the issue?

  85. Frank, GFZ are _a_ problem, not _the_ problem, but I used them to illustrate the point that criminals can’t be stopped with a sign or yet another law that they’ll ignore as well.

    Decent, law-abiding people can be trusted, they don’t commit crimes, they take responsibility for their actions, so they consider the consequences beforehand – that’s something I’ve encountered far more often with legal gun owners than with any other group.

    It all boils down to personal responsibility – I’m no more responsible for anything you do than you are responsible for my actions. Holding someone (or a whole group) responsible for somebody else’s actions reminds me of illegal actions during some wars, when hostages from a village were shot in response to somebody killing one of the occupying soldiers. Collective punishment is against the law, yet the anti-rights groups demand such collective punishment in the form of more and more laws to further restrict law-abiding people because they can’t get back at the real perpetrator.

  86. You are entitled to your own opinions, Frank, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

  87. Weer’d; This is their ‘debate’. misdirection, ignorance, misinformation and character attacks. They have nothing else.

    Note he claimed I should have a background check done, insinuating I’ve committed some sort of crime, but can’t support his bigotry w/ anything resembling evidence. He has since changed the subject again.

    Guess he’s got something to hide.

  88. Susan,
    If you thought your daughter’s husband was dangerous, why did you not take action?
    If you daughter thought her husband was dangerous, why did she not take action? Why did your daughter not have the tools for her responsibility to protect herself?
    After all, if you and your daughter did not believe him to be dangerous then how would a court or police know that? If he did not have a gun, he certainly had other ways to kill your daughter, so not having a gun would not have changed anything except the method.

  89. Pingback: Anti-Rights Airstrike | Weer'd World

  90. I am a police officer with 23 years of experience at the city and federal level. Gun Control will do nothing to prevent crime just as the war on drugs does nothing to stem the flow of illegal narcotics into our nation and the local growing and manufacture of same. Every school should have armed teachers who can put more than their bodies between a an active shooter and the children in their charge, any place that requires a person to be without arms should assume the responsibility for providing armed security on site sot counter active shooter threats as well as the common street thug in the parking lot. The first ten amendments to the constitution were not meant to empower the federal government to but serve as restrictions on the federal government as the founders had just thrown off the yoke of oppression from a repressive evil tyrant. If choose not to be armed, or not to carry a concealed weapon that is a personal choice however I when I retire or good citizens of the community should not suffer because you have a neurotic reaction to people willing to take responsibility for their safety. Evil deeds are done by evil men and women who will do those deeds with anything they can get their hands on. Remember when seconds’ count the police are minutes away. That is very true in my time as a police officer there have been maybe 5 times in my career when I was within 30 seconds or less of a hot call.You as a citizen have not only the right but the duty to be responsible for your and your families own safety. The placement of the comma in the second amendment indicates that there is a dual right one for the state as in state of and one for the people. If you choose to position yourself that is your right, however nowhere do you have the right to put me, or my family or any other fellow citizen and their families in the role of victim.
    The fact this young lady died is tragic, however it wasn’t the guns fought it was her husband, he could have just as easily snapped her neck, or gutted her like a fish. I realize my response is probably too long for you to read, (that response is an amazing sign of immaturity) but I had to try. As to the mother she has my heartfelt condolences but the gun didn’t kill her daughter a man did.

  91. My! Thank you WGBJr. A fine post… Informed and based upon experience.

    It is remarkable that the emotional, uninformed, name calling people that would like to control the rights of others can’t understand the basics of violence criminal actions. Criminals don’t obey any law that gets in their way. Laws infringing on firearm rights are unconstitutional, and have no impact on the problem. Only law abiding people are affected by gun control laws. The only affect is to unconstitutionally infringe on their rights.

    There are no background checks that will have any impact on violent criminal acts.

    Law abiding people that own guns and have concealed carry permits are part of the solution, not part of the problem. Thankfully, lawmakers are beginning to understand this. It’s both a moral issue, and a practical issue of electing rational responsible candidates.

    If we spent more time worrying about controlling the behaviour of violent criminals (who, as seen repeatedly on this blog, are far too often out on the street to commit their next violent crime), and stopped wasting legislative time on trying to control the inanimate tools they might choose to use, we’d have fewer tragedies like those monitored here.

  92. “G Wyant | A law does not make people felons, you have to break it, get arrested and then get convicted before you become a felon.”

    This is probably the dumbest comment in the whole thread…and we had some doozies.

    Mr. Wyant, you live under the assumption that you, at this moment are not breaking any law. I have news for you: You are. Our legal system has become so bloated with laws that you can be breaking up to three federal laws a day without knowing… Oh and you don’t need to be aware of what you are breaking them to be arrested and convicted for it. The concept of Mens Rea has all but disappeared from our legal system.
    Be careful what you wish for….

  93. I love the argument that “Guns are just for killing!” – Yeah, tell that to the owners of the 7mm Benchrest, Crickett .22 rifle, and the .22 Anschutz rifle used by most shooters in the Olympics.

    As for the insults, seriously? You antigunners toss around insults and then accuse pro-gunners of being the insulting ones? Disingenuous, much?

    Finally, Frank brings up a military base. You mean the place where guards may be issued weapons but not ammunition? Or if they actually have ammunition, it’s either not in a magazine or the magazine is taped up so it can’t actually be used until the tape is removed?

  94. @Eck-

    Always good to hear from a fellow Gand!

  95. @Frank,

    “No one is coming after the guns of law abiding responsible gun owners.”

    Oh, really?

    Have you told this to those pushing to ban civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out? Or magazines holding more than 10, or 7, or 5, rounds?

    Do I need to cite public statements, or bill numbers, or what?

  96. G Wyant- obviously not. But are you too dumb to realize he didn’t need a gun to beat her? That he could have just used a lamp or his damn fists?

    Think man, think!