I wonder if gun Nuts & 2nd Adm Absolutest have brains to figure out why people are scared of them

[Homer12]

And why after all the semi-automatic weapons that are used in both murders and mass murders are partly their fault for pushing for loose regulations that let people like them who snap, decide to murder in mass fashion.

It's not guns who kill people, it's the NRA and their supporters who just make it easier for those who want to and push laws that let their supporters get away with murder!

I am scared of the so called "responsible gun owner", how many have purchased weapons legaly and then go on a killing spree?

[rrneck]

1. Probably because most people arent really afraid

and the few that are don't know what they're talking about. Those are the ones that keep the fear mongers in a good living.

[Homer12]

4. Please inform

otherwise shut up!

[Clames]

38. Listen to this kid talk.

Telling people to shut up on the internet...

[rrneck]

52. Gas on a fire.

I can mouth off standing in line at Wendy's.

[rrneck]

48. Learn to read.

[Homer12]

8. You mean the NRA fear mongers and the gun lobby that makes billions

off of other Americans killing eachother?

[rrneck]

16. No. The anti gun fear mongers on the other side. nt

[Homer12]

20. I am for heavy fire arm regulation

That keeps gun nuts from massing and aresenal of military weapons that they use to kill other people.

[holdencaufield]

21. " I am for heavy fire arm regulation"

Shocka!

I'm for heavy spelling regulation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

61. And "from massing and (sic) aresenal of military weapons". This kid might still be in school.

[shadowrider]

104. Might? n/t

[Callisto32]

111. Meh.

Don't most folks graduate from public school functionally illiterate these days?

Witness every time someone tells you that the differences between "there/their/they're" don't matter.

[Callisto32]

110. But in the late 18th century way, right?

[holdencaufield]

115. Sorry?

[Trunk Monkey]

125. In the late 18th century to regulate something meant to make it run properly or well

Hence, a “well regulated” militia (a favorite canard or the antis here) would be a well trained or proficient group of riflemen and a well regulated speller would at least know the difference between “no” and “know”

[Callisto32]

132. ^^This.

[Trunk Monkey]

134. That^^

[Callisto32]

136. and the other thing.

[rrneck]

22. Good for you. It won't work. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

118. I have a really light scandium frame semi-auto, I take it that is ok by you?

[spin]

126. I'm also against "heavy fire arms." ....

The weight makes them a pain in the ass to carry.

I own an old bolt action Mauser rifle and it is heavy! I much prefer the modern lighter semi-auto rifles. My Mauser weights around 9 pounds and an AR-15 weighs around 6 pounds.

Of course I don't believe requiring the registration of heavy firearms would do anything to make them lighter.

[Trunk Monkey]

138. I am for heavy fire arm regulation

Does that mean we don't have to regulate light firearms?

[holdencaufield]

24. The NRA makes Billions?!

[Homer12]

30. I have another wolf

[spin]

120. Perhaps they make TRILLIONS! ...

a little exaggeration and exacerbation goes a long way.

NRA Raises $200 Million as Gun Lobby Toasters Burn Logo on Bread
By Peter Robison and John Crewdson on January 11, 2012

***snip***

Sources of Income

Combined, sources such as fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties produced about $115 million in 2010, just over half the NRA’s $227.8 million in income, according to the group’s tax return. Most of the rest, about $100.5 million, came from membership dues. Other sources included program fees, sales of assets, investment income and subscriptions.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-11/nra-raises-200-million-as-gun-lobby-toasters-burn-logo-on-bread.html

[fascisthunter]

65. lol.... um, yes you are

[rrneck]

67. Bill?

Bill Frist is that you?

[fascisthunter]

68. Oh my.... that was harsh... but being a paranoid gun pusher

is the truth, whereas, me being Bill Frist or any other name you could come up with, is not. Fortunately you don't live near me. You aint foolin no one gun child. Your days working for gun=$$ will be coming to an end and there is nothing your guns can do about it. Have a nice night.

[rrneck]

69. Rah! rah! rah!

Shake those partisan pom poms!

Maybe you should shop for your political ideology where the stock gets rotated more than once every forty years.

[4th law of robotics]

2. So many logical fallacies and ad hominems

Where to start?

[Homer12]

3. Then Start?

Get going, we don't have all day?

[RegieRocker]

6. Why should they? I see the

far left and far right suffering from the same ailment.

[Homer12]

5. You are correct I am attacking NRA supporting gun owners

They support murder.

[4th law of robotics]

7. Keep 'em coming

What next? The NRA started slavery right? Or the massacre in the Sudan. Don't stop halfway. Let 'em rip!

[Homer12]

9. Hey you replied.

The NRA supports the right to own semi-automatic weapons which are used by military and para-military forces to kill people.

Right?

yes or know would suffice

[4th law of robotics]

11. The ACLU supports free speech

which is used by skinheads.

The ACLU causes all hate-crimes.

[Homer12]

18. And murders using semi-automatic weapons have been rising

Because the NRA & ALEC keeps pushing against any sort of sane gun control and pushes for laws such as he "Castle Doctrine" and the "Stand your ground law".


So gun nuts, NRA supporters (all of them), and 2 ADM absolutest are guilty of these crimes of murder so they can own their glock or semi-auto.

[Reasonable_Argument]

43. Either you don't know what the castle doctrine is

Or you support people being forced to flea their homes if they're attacked.

[Homer12]

50. I know exactly what the castle doctrine is

A black 13 year old was killed by a man in my city who is going to use it as a defense and another 20 year old was murderd for hiding on a porch after the party he was at was busted by the cops.

2 murders that go back to that law.

[Reasonable_Argument]

56. Well

The courts will decide if it was a legal shoot. Doesn't mean it's a bad law regardless of how the court decides.

[Homer12]

57. You are wrong

The killer of the 20 year old Bo Morrison was let go in a few hours since the law justifed him, regarldess of any evidence.

The 13 year old's murder will go in court, but the man is using the "castle doctrine" as his excuse.

[Reasonable_Argument]

59. And the court will decide

I have no duty to retreat from my home and if you break in I have a right to defend myself with force, up to and including deadly force. If you don't like that, don't break into my house.

[Jenoch]

92. The Morrison incident

had nothing to do with SYG or the recently passed Castle Doctrine law in Wisconsin. The 'porch' was in actuality another room of the house as defined by law. Morrison was trespassing and could have been charged with breaking and entering had he survived. Had Morrison not broken several laws that night he would have been alive the next morning. After that, I'm not sure what stupid thing he would have done to endanger his life.

[Trunk Monkey]

70. He can't spell "absolutist", "amass" or "no" and you expect him to understand Castle Doctrine? NT

[slackmaster]

44. Do you have anything to support "murders using semi-automatic weapons have been rising?"

Or is your whole spiel based on what you see on TV?

[oneshooter]

81. So tell us, what are the "sane gun control" laws you would propose.

[GreenStormCloud]

94. According to the FBI UCR gun homicides are decreasing. N/T

[4th law of robotics]

113. Murders and all crimes have been on the decline

get a new talking point, this one is broken.

[PavePusher]

128. "And murders using semi-automatic weapons have been rising"

Cite your stats, please?

[4th law of robotics]

133. Well the stats show the opposite

but he feels they're on the rise so really what are you going to believe? Meticulously collected data or some random dude on the internet who has a hunch?

[spin]

131. "Castle doctine" and "stand your ground" are victim rights laws. ...

Castle doctrine

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Stand-your-ground law

A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justifies the accused's conduct.

More than half of the states in the United States have adopted the Castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from other locations. "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[1] Other restrictions may still exist; such as when in public, a person must be carrying firearms in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550

(1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Please explain why it should be necessary for me to first retreat before defending myself if I find myself under attack from an individual who intends to seriously injure or kill me and has the capacity to do so? Assuming I did nothing to provoke the attack why should I have to first try to run away?

I had martial arts training years ago and none of the techniques I learned involved retreating. I have done a lot of handgun shooting in my life and I can assure you that it is hard to properly place your shots while backing up or when you turn your back and run. Inaccurate shots can endanger innocent bystanders.

If I get into a argument with a person and I realize that he is becoming dangerously angry, it is wise for me to attempt to break off the encounter and leave. That may make me look like cowardly to witnesses but I would rather be seen as a coward than have to kill someone in self defense.

Many citizen the 'stand your ground" law and say that it allows a person to start a fight and then to kill his opponent and then claim self defense. If the law is properly written and there are witnesses and evidence then the shooter should have his day in court if there are legitimate questions about his actions.

Of course sometimes there are no witnesses and no real evidence to convict a shooter of murder. One of the great strengths of our legal system is that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

So if there were no witnesses or evidence to disprove his claim, a shooter who killed another person might walk free. This same scenario could happen even without a 'stand your ground" law. The shooter could simply claim that he DID try to retreat. His opponent would be dead and unable to tell his side of the story.

Oddly enough the "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws might actually save lives. First it can save a innocent victim's life or health when he finds himself under attack and is able to respond in an effective manner rather than weaken his chances by requiring him to first retreat.

Second it might save the attacker's life.

Years ago I often heard people say, "If a person breaks into your home and you shoot him, make damn sure you kill him. Dead men tell no tales."

Under "castle doctrine" in Florida I have the right to shoot an intruder in my home. If I wound him and stop his attack I then can call 911 and summon the paramedics to help him have a chance of survival. I don't have to first try to retreat.

If I find an intruder in my home I have the right to consider him dangerous. It is not difficult to determine if a home is occupied and if all a robber wishes to do is to steal my possessions he can wait until I am not home.

It is also unwise for a predator to attack people on the street. In many states it is very difficult to tell who is legally armed. Street predators usually pick out the weakest members of the herd to attack. In the United States today, because of "shall issue" concealed carry and "stand your ground" laws it's very difficult for a predator to know which sheep might have sharp teeth.

You state:

So gun nuts, NRA supporters (all of them), and 2 ADM absolutest are guilty of these crimes of murder so they can own their glock or semi-auto

What many on your side of the issue always ignore that while firearms can cause tragedies they also can save lives.

I personally I'm not fond of Glocks but I have fired many and they are indeed very reliable and accurate pistols.

I personally like a double action revolver for self defense but I feel it is somewhat harder to learn to use a revolver effectively than it is to use a semi-auto pistol such as a Glock. It is also easier to conceal a pistol than a revolver and if you are legally required to carry concealed this an be an advantage.

[Jenoch]

91. The military also uses

pump action shotguns and bolt-action rifles. Should those weapons also be made illegal for U.S. citizens to own?

[shadowrider]

105. Yes or know?? ROFL.

[Simo 1939_1940]

116. You are brilliant.

Baseball players use baseball bats. Sometimes, murderers use baseball bats. Ergo, baseball supports murder with baseball bats.

[PavePusher]

127. Please tell me what military uses AR-15's and non-full-auto AK rifles.

We'll wait.....

[Homer12]

10. NRA supports the same forces that want Voter ID

Yes or know.

[4th law of robotics]

12. This is fun

and the fact that you feel the need to double-tap on every reply is just awesome.

What else have those dastardly pro-second amendment folks done?

I bet they talk in the theater. And they always take a penny but never leave a penny. Oh and they wait until the last second to merge.

[Homer12]

14. I know this is fun, but you miss the point

Did you not read my title?

When did I every say that I was against the 2nd adm?

I think you missed the point since you have just outed yourself.

[4th law of robotics]

17. There was a point other than just venting?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. I seriously think that there is a point other than just venting. Please see #25.

[Homer12]

26. yes double tap it's fun

There is being pro-2nd, but it's another thing to support the continuation of the slippery slope that the NRA has started years ago.

I want to keep semi-auto weapons out of the hands of people.

[DisgustedCynic]

101. Because...

...prohibition is a liberal position, right?

[4th law of robotics]

119. Banning something makes it impossible to acquire and convinces people not to want it

just look at what it's done for pot.

[GreenStormCloud]

95. The NRA takes no positionj on that issue. N/T

[rl6214]

137. I no, I no

[Homer12]

13. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-truth-about-gun-sales_b_1193498.html

With fewer Americans choosing to own firearms, the gun industry understands that it must sell additional firearms to people who are already gun owners. To this end, the NRA has dramatically ratcheted up the promotion of gun confiscation conspiracy theories since the election of Democratic President Barack Obama. What started with the NRA's pledge to spend $15 million to defeat Obama in 2008 and a website called "GunBaNObama" has led to increasingly outlandish and paranoid attacks designed to promote gun sales. As Fox News' Follow the Money segment noted on January 4, "President Obama is the reason" for the upward trend in background checks since 2008, because the NRA has convinced some gun owners that he is "going to go after [their] guns."

[gejohnston]

33. you have to be joking

Do you know who Josh Horwitz is? Master propagandist at the VPC who makes shit up.

http://www.csgv.org/about-us/about-josh-horwitz-executive-director
he is also has a class one gun dealer's license.

according to the ATF, his current one expires in 2014

[rl6214]

86. What about us non NRA supporting gun owners?

[Homer12]

15. Name a logical fallacy

Listen

Its one thing to accuse, but its another not to offer up your evidence.

[PavePusher]

129. You haven't yet "offered up" a single piece of evidence. n/t

[slackmaster]

19. This gets only 2 out of a possible 10 points

It barely even qualifies as a rant.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. what really chaps my ass: this is getting recs but, if a 2Aer posted such

drivel it would be alerted and hidden.


There is absolutely nothing of substance in the OP.

conflation and emotion.

as for the NRA, Wayne LaPierre can kiss my ass. That goes double for all the rest of the leech Lobbyists.

[cherokeeprogressive]

79. Only TWO recs though, HE rec'd his own thread!

[Homer12]

80. Insults now?

What names should I call you?

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. Whatever gets you through the night bro. Knock yourself out.

I've been called some pretty bad shit by some pretty good people. I doubt you'd measure up either way.

You, my friend, are trolling. Don't be surprised if it gets you gone.

[Union Scribe]

87. Ouch, lol. Doesn't he know we can see that? nt

[Trunk Monkey]

108. I'm amazed that after the OP admitted that this whole thread was flame bait

it's still allowed to stand

[Homer12]

23. Do any of you guys support gun laws

that keep semi-auto weapons out of the hands of most Americans?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. I support the election of Democratic candidates. See Bill Clinton's analysis at #25.

[slackmaster]

31. Semi-automatic firearms have long been among the most popular and common sporting arms

What kind of authoritarian scheme would you propose to take them away from most of us?

I suppose you could hire sheriffs like that clown in New Hampshire who says he'd use deadly force to stop abortions, but that's not really a Democratic way of doing things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021182289

[Homer12]

40. Gee, it's called gun control law

Like the semi-automatic ban we had under Clinton.

I am being moderate, you guys look at any and all gun control law.

I wonder if you are afraid of Obama and that he'll take away your guns??

[slackmaster]

42. I bought several semi-automatic firearms during the Clinton Presidency

What "semi-automatic ban" are you referring to?

[rDigital]

45. Semi autos have NEVER been banned in the US. nt

[gejohnston]

78. you don't have the slightest clue

what you are talking about. You don't even know what a semi automatic is. The so called ban, that wasn't was passed by huge margins including extreme right wingers like Trent Lott.

[rl6214]

88. No

[Jenoch]

93. What exactly is it that you are proposing?

Are you actually suggesting banning the sale of semi-automatic firearms to U.S. citizens? Are you also going to make it illegal for U.S. citizens to own semi-automatic guns. Are you going to have the U.S. Military go door to door searching and confiscating all semi-automatic weapons?

[GreenStormCloud]

97. I have several semi-auto pistols.

i also have Dad's old semi-auto rifle that is older than I am, and I am a senior citizen.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. Are you seeking to support or undermine the election of Democrats? Bill Clinton has a view

as to a factor that contributed to the loss of the Democratically controlled House in 1994 after controlling it for 40 years.

In his book "My Life", he explains:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

There are some on this web site who want to revive the anti-gun issue. And do so at a time when no Democratic candidates are doing so.

Why are you and other posters who are representing yourselves as anti-gun advocates doing that? Seriously, are you and they seeking to either (a) support or (b) undermine the election of Democrats?

[Homer12]

28. I am sick of spineless liberals and democrats

Who don't stand up.

I see to much of it here on DU.

Sometimes it's better to fight, than to lose whimpering on your knees.

[slackmaster]

32. Why would I stand up against my own interests, and against what I think is best for the country?

Sometimes it's better to fight, than to lose whimpering on your knees.

Fight what?

What are you thinking?

[Homer12]

36. And what are your intrests?

To own an arsenal of weapons so you can do what? Why other people buy the same ones an dthen crack and commit mass murder?

[slackmaster]

41. I am a federally licensed collector of curio and relic firearms. It's a serious hobby.

I have a significant investment in mostly obsolete military firearms, many of which are semi-automatic.

So, what's your plan? Send police door-to-door and search everyone's home, confiscating any semi-automatic weapon they find?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. You're sick of "liberals and democrats"? So you are not a liberal? And not a Democrat?

Your posts in this string indicate the answer.

[Homer12]

37. Funny nice twist

I am sick of spineless liberals and democrats who will do anything to win an election.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

49. So you are, as you say, "still a better conservative than most Republicans"?

[Homer12]

55. it's called sarcasm

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. It, your posts and evasiveness with respect to whether you are a Democrat, is called an admission.

There's no way that you can factually describe how your statement was intended as sarcasm in light of your other posts in this string.

There's no way that you can factually describe how your statement was intended as sarcasm in light of your criticism of liberals and Democrats coupled with your evasiveness as to whether you are a liberal or a Democrat.

You refer to "liberals" but not "progressives." Is that because Gingrich started the phrase "liberal Democrats" as a dog whistle to stir up the Republican base but never got around to pejoratively referring to "progressive Democrats"?

[Homer12]

64. I am not being evasive.

I vote democratic most of the time, but in primaries I vote for the "liberal" "progressive" etc... if you will.

I think the time for moderate democrats is over.

Republicans and conservatives are playing to win and are at this moment using anything and everthing to crush anyone left of their center

[Reasonable_Argument]

46. Interesting

I'm a liberal, a NRA member, and a strong supporter of gun rights. Where do I fit into your little rant?

[Homer12]

54. You support the NRA

You support the same people that support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

[holdencaufield]

72. "Sometimes it's better to fight, than to lose whimpering on your knees."

A more eloquent defence of the 2nd amendment has yet to be penned.

Thank you!

[X_Digger]

73. So what do you do, besides whine on DU?

How much have you donated to your favorite gun control org?

How many signatures have you collected? Which of your congresspeople have you contacted?

How exactly are you 'standing up' except by throwing a hissy fit here?

[DWC]

35. Homer12

You seriously need to read, and understand the DU OP at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117262952

If you actually believe what you have written here, the thread may help explain the basis of your fears.

Semper Fi,

[Homer12]

39. I agree it should be on Free Republic

People with easy access to semi-automatic weapons kill people more quickly and efficiently.

yes or no

[Reasonable_Argument]

47. No

A few criminals use those types of weapons to commit crimes while the vast majority are used by legal owners for legal purposes.

[ManiacJoe]

51. "more quickly and efficiently" than what?

As a general rule, the correct answer to your incomplete question is "no".

[rDigital]

53. Oh dear.

[IMG][/IMG]

[ileus]

58. Boo

[Tuesday Afternoon]

62. go ahead and live your life in fear if it makes you feel good

[fascisthunter]

66. you mean those who have a NEED to won as many guns as possible

to feel free and secure?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

77. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. who is winning guns? Oh!

I do believe that is a typo -you mean- OWN as many guns as possible . . .

[CokeMachine]

124. Damn --

I thought I WON something. I guess I'll just have to buy something so I can OWN it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. So now that you've admitted this thread as nothing more than a fishing expedition meant to

"out the Right wingers", are you going to keep posting in it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021182951

I believe this is what is termed a "call-out", and it calls out a whole segment of DUers instead of a single individual.

If I were you, I'd have waited until your bullshit call-out thread played out before I went to GD and bragged about how schmart you are and how you can prove who's a "Right winger" and who isn't.

Creative.

Not.

[ileus]

74. Shades of Canada...

[ileus]

75. Homer12 (1,851 posts) 37. Jody So in order to be a good democrat I have to be against any sort of

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. honestly, I think that since that one was locked then this one should be locked.

I am not sure the topic for this thread actually meets the SoP for GC&RKBA in conjunction with the other thread.

[cherokeeprogressive]

84. Can't say I disagree with that.

The only purpose for this thread is one big group call-out, and it's not even a very good one. I have to laugh at the fact this genius had the temerity to go to GD to brag about his schmarts before it played itself out.

[derby378]

76. Guess what I did two days after the Aurora massacre?

I went to see The Dark Knight Rises at my local movie theater. In peace. The sky is not falling.

Mourn the fallen, punish the guilty, but don't drag the innocent into this, please.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

89. For such a...

...banal and boring response you deserve a peaceful and pleasant evening.

[rl6214]

85. Not another one...

[petronius]

90. Pretty entertaining night in the gungeon (and nearby)

I'm glad I chose this to be my drinkin' night...

[Clames]

96. You too?

Brought home a bottle of Tito's, a bottle of Zing Zang's, and a jar of pickled okra tonight. Also made a huge batch of fresh orange/grapefruit juice with my juicer. Bloody Mary or Screwdriver? I also have some local micro-brew to work on. Choices, choices...

[petronius]

98. Wow, you are on the horns of a very tasty dilemma!

I was limited to a choice between two bottles of red wine (I chose both), but at a mere $6 for one and $2 for the other, at least I can rest assured that I probably haven't totally destroyed President Obama's reelection hopes with my selfishness...

[Union Scribe]

99. Wait wait, you guys are spending money on drinks??

Why do you want Rmoney to winnnnn?!1?

[Clames]

100. Oh noes...

[DisgustedCynic]

102. "You are wrong."

[Simo 1939_1940]

103. Jon Stewart is on record as saying he was once a knee-jerk just like you.

Scroll to the 7 minute mark of this vid:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/jon-stewart-mosque_n_688546.html

[trouble.smith]

106. I just assume they're pusillanimous little beta males who are naturally afraid of things

such base cowards really should purchase a firearm. Nothing turns a poltroonish beta male into a a dominant alpha male faster than a .44 magnum.

[slackmaster]

112. A .44 Magnum makes a great equalizer. But to really amplify a man's strenth there is no substitute

...for a forklift.

[4th law of robotics]

123. Even the women are beta males apparently

[MrDiaz]

107. yea i heard

that the NRA also supplied that guy with all those bomb supplies and materials too.

[hack89]

109. Sure - I blame your fear and panic on ignorance. That was easy - next question please. nt

[Remmah2]

114. +1

Post of the day.

[4th law of robotics]

122. Ha

well played.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. I don't care if you are scared of me.

That is your problem, not mine.
I am absolutely no threat to you. If you cannot believe that, that is your business.

[spin]

121. Much depends on where you live. ...

A higher percentage of people who live in some large urban areas such as Chicago and New York City fear gun owners than do those who live in other large urban areas such as exist in Florida.

I lived in the Tampa Bay area for 37 years and gun ownership was very common. I would estimate that 80% of my co-workers owned firearms and several owned evil looking black rifles. A good number had a concealed weapons permit.

The majority of my co-workers were not born in Florida but came from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New York state. Some were hunters, some target shooters and many just owned firearms for self defense.

It might also be interesting to note that the Tampa Bay area voted for Obama in the last election.

United States presidential election in Florida, 2008

The 2008 United States presidential election in Florida took place on November 4, 2008 throughout all 50 states and D.C., which was part of the 2008 United States presidential election. Voters chose 27 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.

Florida was won by Democratic nominee Barack Obama by a 2.8% margin of victory. Prior to the election, most news organizations considered this a toss-up, or swing state, as it was heavily targeted by both campaigns. Despite the fact that polls showed McCain in the lead throughout much of 2008, Obama took the momentum in the two months before Election Day. Obama ended up winning the state with 51% of the vote, including wins in four counties that Bush won in 2004.

***snip***

Big wins in the Orlando and Tampa Bay areas, where George W. Bush won in 2004, contributed to Obama's victory. In the former, Obama carried Orange County (which includes Orlando) by 19 points - the best margin for a Democratic candidate in 64 years.[24] Before Al Gore and John Kerry narrowly won it, Orange County hadn't supported a Democratic presidential nominee since Franklin D. Roosevelt's last run for president in 1944. Obama also carried Osceola County near Orlando by a 20-point margin (Bush won it in 2004 52%-47%).[24] His strong performance in Central Florida more than likely helped the Democrats win two U.S. House seats in that region.

In the Tampa Bay region, Obama carried Hillsborough County, home to Tampa, by a 7-point margin.[25] Obama also won Pinellas County, home to St. Petersburg, by a 53%-45% margin.[25] Bush had narrowly carried the county by about 0.1% in 2004.[26]...emphasis added


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2008

[Lizzie Poppet]

130. That fear is irrational.

"I am scared of the so called "responsible gun owner", how many have purchased weapons legaly and then go on a killing spree?"

Precious few...and certainly not enough to make being afraid of such a contingency a particularly rational fear. There are over 300 million privately-owned firearms in the US... somewhere between 50 million and 89 million gun owners, the overwhelming majority of whom purchased these weapons legally. There are fewer than 10 thousand firarms-related homicides per annum, and the majority of those are perpetrated by persons with prior records that prohibit their legal possession of firearms. "Killing sprees" (that is, multiple homicides) are a small fraction of that 10k. You are (literally) more justified to be afraid of being struck by lightning.

[Atypical Liberal]

135. Very few.

I am scared of the so called "responsible gun owner", how many have purchased weapons legaly and then go on a killing spree?

You are demonstrating an irrational fear.

The fact of the matter is, most people who commit homicide have extensive prior criminal histories. Very few people just "snap" and go kill someone. Most murderers worked themselves over a long criminal career to the point that they do not value human life. And many had such severe criminal records that they were already prohibited by law from possessing firearms when they finally committed murder.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

There are 40-80 million firearm owners in this country. About 2% of them are involved in firearm-related crimes every year.

Also, violent crime has been in decline for decades. We are now at 1960's levels of violent crime.

Don't let high-profile shooting cases and fear drive you to irrational conclusions.