Four women in TX went to lunch to discuss how they could grow their group membership (ht Bob Cesca). Their group, “Mother’s Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” or MDA for short, is kind of new and looking to expand.  They weren’t protesting.  They weren’t making noise. They were having lunch at a public restaurant.

A group of 40 gun owners who believe that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the right to carry, brought their weapons and sat outside of the restaurant waiting for the women to come out.  The women were frightened, as any normal person would have been particularly in light of all the mass shootings that have been occurring lately. Other patrons were worried and the restaurant owner was too scared to call the cops (thinking that might make things more violent instead of less).

So this is where we are at.  If you disagree with the right, they will follow you to a public place and intimidate you.  Then they’ll claim to be exercising the First and Second Amendments.    It made me pretty angry.  I commented over at Bob’s blog and was immediately insulted by a conservative commenter who says he’s to the right of the NRA (never thought I’d hear anyone actually admit to that).  My response to his attack?

And thanks for that cherry on top of your ad hominem attack. So far you’ve insulted my English reading comprehension skills, my knowledge of American jurisprudence, and now mental stability. You must be The Great Carnac with your ability to gauge someone’s mental and intellectual level over the Internet! I bet you have a tin foil hat in the shape of a turban with a little tea bag hanging jauntily down the front.

My photo response--The Great Conservative Carnac!

My photo response–The Great Conservative Carnac!

I’m seriously considering donating some money to MDA so they can hire a lawyer to sue the shit out of the gun nuts or hire some protection, or maybe both.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. 3boxesofbs says:

    First we don’t know what the women were doing at the restaurant but we do know they identified themselves and their activities as being part of MDA…. so what if they weren’t ‘protesting. The fact they are a group seeking to restrict our rights is sufficient to have people bring attention to their actions.

    The women were frightened? Of people peacefully assembling….of people protesting with their kids in tow. Doesn’t that speak more to their unstable state of mind than anything else?

    They were scared of people obeying the law !! Oh NO, can’t have that ! They were afraid to talk to the people who’s rights they want to trample….better call the cops. But wait, the cops would bring guns also…so what is MDA to do?

    they will follow you to a public place and intimidate you.

    Please be accurate in your statements. NO one is claiming Open Carry Texas followed any one there. They simply showed up where MDA announced they would be meeting.

    • DRangedinaz says:

      Yes, we do know what they were doing. They said they were there to have a meeting about how to grow their organization. Their organization seeks to put pressure on our government to enact sensible gun regulation. Every right we have in the Constitution is similarly regulated. For example, if a group wants to exercise their First Amendment rights in public they must first seek permission and then must behave themselves according to the law, which means not disturbing the peace, engaging in violence or threats of violence, etc. These women were eating and talking in a private business and they came out to the parking lot (which may have been owned by the restaurant making it private property). They announced their meeting time and place so their fellow members could join them there.

      40 people from Open Carry Texas obviously found out about it and decided to greet the four women as they left with guns in hand. That sounds like they “followed” them or if you will, went to where they were….do you like “pursued” better? The majority of OCT (from the photos I am seeing) were men. They brought their most visible weapons–rifles. Because when you want to intimidate someone, I guess a pistol just doesn’t stand out as well as an assault rifle. The children are a side show and cover for the group. Just as you are arguing, they are probably saying ‘but we brought our kids so it was peaceful’. No, they brought them to indoctrinate them in their gun culture and maybe to use them as part of their “cover story”. Since the kids didn’t have deadly weapons in their hands, they would merit about a millisecond of my attention. Their Dads, however, would be a different story.

      I am a gun owner with many years of experience (both professional and personal) and I am not afraid of guns. I would have been afraid and very, very angry to be confronted in public like that. Thank goodness none of the MDA women had their kids with them. If I’d had my gun on me, my instinct would have been to unholster my own weapon and find cover and concealment. Things could have escalated very quickly and badly. If I would be afraid to deal with so many armed people, the average person who has no experience with guns and who has seen very public mass shootings in the news lately would have been very, very afraid if not downright terrified. Other patrons of the restaurant were afraid and the owner of the restaurant was afraid. Even too afraid to call the police for fear that their presence would incite violence. Because a lot of people that advocate for gun rights don’t tend to like authority figures like the police. They tend to just piss them off more.

      Which is a shame because police could have checked to see if OCT had a permit to protest that day in that location (I’m betting they didn’t since the parking lot was probably private property). They could have checked their weapons to ensure they are compliance with national firearms regulations and state permit regulations. And let’s not forget that “Open Carry” in Texas is illegal so they were all in violation of the law, should have had their weapons confiscated and had their asses hauled off to jail. Even if they had conceal carry permits, by brandishing them at all, they violated the law. See, you can’t just unholster your weapon any time you want just for giggles. Bringing guns out in the open threatens people, which is a normal reaction in a modern industrialized society. We don’t live in Somalia where thugs walk around with guns all the time fer crying out loud.

      What they did constitutes harassment and intimidation and they can and should be sued civilly by both the MDA women and the owner of the restaurant. Groups like the MDA do not want all guns gone. They only want sensible legislation to be put into place. Anyone that advocates that the current status quo is okay or that we should have no restrictions on guns is taking an extreme, illogical and ultimately irresponsible position on this issue.

      • 3boxesofbs says:

        Sorry but you are either misinformed or deliberately distorting things.

        For example, if a group wants to exercise their First Amendment rights in public they must first seek permission and then must behave themselves according to the law, which means not disturbing the peace, engaging in violence or threats of violence, etc.

        These ladies exercised their 1st Amendment Rights — in public — with no permit. They, like the Open Carry Texas group –obeyed the law. No law requires people to do things that others might not like, be offended by or get upset over. And that is exactly what the MDA group is complaining about….they got upset.

        NO violence or threats of violence was seen, heard or issued on the part of OCT.

        They said they were there to have a meeting about how to grow their organization.

        So one group of people can meet to try to achieve their goals but another group can’t?
        What is your standard here? Both groups exercised their rights, didn’t they?

        40 people from Open Carry Texas obviously found out about it and decided to greet the four women as they left with guns in hand

        Could you get your story straight? The article and your own statement “<isat outside of the restaurant waiting for the women to come out Indicate Open Carry Group never spoke to the women. The spokes person for OCT issue his challenge to the media….not at the restaurant.

        They brought their most visible weapons–rifles. Because when you want to intimidate someone, I guess a pistol just doesn’t stand out as well as an assault rifle.

        HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO !!! The Group is Called OPEN CARRY TEXAS. It is illegal to open carry a firearm but it is perfectly legal to Open Carry a rifle. So they couldn’t Open Carry a pistol !
        The group uses Open Carry of Rifles to show how ridiculous the law is.

        The children are a side show and cover for the group. Just as you are arguing, they are probably saying ‘but we brought our kids so it was peaceful’. No, they brought them to indoctrinate them in their gun culture and maybe to use them as part of their “cover story”.

        Love the mentality and the hypocrisy….gun control advocates use their kids all the time but pro-rights advocates can’t do it without being accused of ‘indoctrinating….or using their family as a ‘cover story’. Which brings up the question — what were they trying to cover up?

        Thank goodness none of the MDA women had their kids with them.

        See what I mean….but wait !! Where does it say the 4 ladies — never any other numbers or people mentioned in the reports i’ve seen — had their kids with them.
        But if they did; how are they any different from Open Carry Texas?

        Which is a shame because police could have checked to see if OCT had a permit to protest that day in that location

        Might learn a little about the law – not every activity requires a permit. I don’t want to live in a society where a meeting of 40 people to advocate for something does require a permit every time. (By the way…how many permits did Occupy “Insert City Name” get for their activities?)

        And let’s not forget that “Open Carry” in Texas is illegal so they were all in violation of the law, should have had their weapons confiscated and had their asses hauled off to jail. Even if they had conceal carry permits, by brandishing them at all, they violated the law.

        Please learn about the law — it is perfectly legal to Open Carry rifles but not pistols — unless the pistol in question is a pistol or replica of a pistol manufactured prior to a certain date in 1890 something and doesn’t use centerfire cartridges. As a gun owner, you seem awfully uninformed on the laws.

        Bringing guns out in the open threatens people, which is a normal reaction in a modern industrialized society

        Simply not true. Some people are threatened by the sight of a firearm. I treat those people the same way I treat people who are threatened by the sight of a souped up sports car, a person of a different race skin color, sexual orientation — the people threatened by the mere sight are the ones with the problem.

        They only want sensible legislation to be put into place

        So we don’t already have sensible legislation in place?

        Joe Huffman has a simple question regarding this issue. Can you answer it?
        Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

        • DRangedinaz says:

          “These ladies exercised their 1st Amendment Rights — in public — with no permit.”

          No, these ladies went to lunch in a private establishment where they didn’t display their business for the whole world to see, didn’t interrupt others and basically kept to themselves. They were NOT exercising their First Amendment rights except for the concept of Freedom of Association. In other words they were hanging out. The OCT was demonstrating to make a political point out in the open, either in public or in a parking lot they probably didn’t have permission to be in. Demonstrating in public, holding up signs, gathering in a large group, with the intention of broadcasting a political message is a demonstration, which requires a permit. No permit is required to go to lunch with your like-minded friends.

          “the spokes person for OCT issue his challenge to the media….not at the restaurant”

          Okay, according to reports the women were inside the restaurant. The OCT was outside the restaurant. I never said they communicated. It wasn’t clear to me if the women took the photo of OCT or not. The credit for the photo appears to be AP. However, the news does say that the women knew of the presence of 40 OCT members outside waiting for them.

          “It is illegal to open carry a firearm but it is perfectly legal to Open Carry a rifle.”

          You are correct, I misread that part of TX law. Since I don’t live in TX (thank God!) I’m not that familiar with it. Since we both agree the prohibition of carrying handguns openly alone is stupid, perhaps they need to ban the open carry of long guns as well. What I didn’t miss is that “disorderly conduct” is defined, in part, as “displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm”.

          “….gun control advocates use their kids all the time”

          I have no fucking idea what you’re talking about here. Only a complete fucking moron brings a kid to a political protest that is centered around guns. I wasn’t saying the MDA women should have had their kids. You are purposely misreading what I said there.

          ” Occupy “Insert City Name” get for their activities?”

          Most of them didn’t and most of them were removed by police and correctly so. They should have gone about it legally.

          “Simply not true. Some people are threatened by the sight of a firearm. I treat those people the same way I treat people who are threatened by the sight of a souped up sports car, a person of a different race skin color, sexual orientation”

          This is a false equivalency. Of the things you list, only a firearm is meant to kill. A car is for transportation and person is, well, just a person. You believe it’s okay to walk around with guns in public and think people shouldn’t be afraid of them. You are precisely why people should be afraid of them. OCT and people like you are the height of irresponsible. We don’t want to live at the O.K. Corral and we shouldn’t have to.

          “So we don’t already have sensible legislation in place?”

          No, obviously not.

          The last question is so stupid, but I will answer it later, just to amuse myself.

  2. 3boxesofbs says:

    Gun Control Advocate (GCA): “Can I band your guns?”

    Gun Owner (GO): “No”

    GCA: “How about just the assault rifles

    GO: “No.”

    GCA: “Just your how about your high capacity pistols?”

    GO: “No.”

    GCA: “Let’s discuss how we can restrict your rights to keep and bear arms?”

    GO: “No.”

    GCA: “I can’t believe you won’t negotiate with me!’

    So who is being unreasonable?

    • DRangedinaz says:

      In this scenario the Gun Owner is being unreasonable. You and I disagree on a very fundamental point. We do not have and never have had a Constitutional right without any restrictions whatsoever. Gun rights are no different than our other Constitutional rights therefore I believe that we have the right and the responsibility to enact sensible gun control and safety regulations. 80% of Americans want more regulations on guns. You believe gun rights should be completely unfettered. Your beliefs are extreme because they do not agree with over 200 years of practice and jurisprudence in this country and fly in the face of overwhelming public sentiment. That’s all that needs to be said.

  3. gunsafetypro says:

    “Reasonable Regulation” means only the rich, famous, and politicians have the right to protect themselves. Their lives are more important!

    • DRangedinaz says:

      That’s a hyperbolic argument with no basis in fact. I don’t support taking guns away entirely. I support regulating guns to make them safe AND available. The gun lobby only wants them available–completely unfettered by regulation of any kind. That’s simply insane.

      • 3boxesofbs says:

        Drangedinaz,

        The gun lobby only wants them available–completely unfettered by regulation of any kind.

        Talk about hyperbolic argument with no basis in fact !! You are simply making stuff up when you say that.

        What we want is less government intrusion in the exercise of the right; no body needs a permit to have free speech in their homes but some states require a permit to even own a firearm.

        No body needs a permit to speak in public yet most states require a license to carry a gun in public. Yet the states that don’t require a less have similar or lower crime rates and firearm related deaths and injuries then the states that do.

        And the states that require permits prices them so high they prevent many lower income people from exercising that right. Costs $26 to get a photo id / driver’s license in Texas but the Concealed Handgun License alone is $140 + plus the cost of the class, the cost of photos and finger prints.

        We don’t see the sense in saying it is okay to have a magazine that holds 10 rounds but not 11. Are gun control advocates like you saying “It is okay to kill 10 people without reloading but not 11?”

        Many restrictions don’t make sense and we oppose those. We don’t and never have opposed laws against murder, robbery, assault, etc. If someone is going to murder a person does it make it better if they use a knife or baseball versus a firearm? No, it is still murder.

        Still waiting on the answer to the question I asked earlier:

        Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

        • “…no body needs a permit to have free speech in their homes.”

          Of course not. Unless that person is in their home using a phone to call in bomb threats to, for instance, police stations or the IRS. That’s not protected speech. The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to impose themselves any place at any time that they “have something to say” to someone that they believe SHOULD hear them. The First doesn’t make it legal to shout “fire” in a theater. No one has a constitutionally protected right to confront someone in public, get in their face, and make them listen to everything that person thinks is sacred.

          Your right to free speech stops when you interfere with the rights of others, trespass, or behave in a threatening manner.

          However legal it may be to open carry unloaded rifles in public in Texas right now, mark my word, anti-government, anti-social gun nuts “peacefully” demonstrating against private citizens in armed groups long enough against a sufficient number of private citizens in public is going to make it much harder for them to get what they want. Most Americans want better background checks, better child safety technology, and even the ability to have a reasonable amount of trust in our social order not to have to worry about their children being one of 20 or more children gunned down in a matter of minutes in an elementary school, or their whole family gunned down in a theater or restaurant. Such things will always, but they don’t have to happen in such numbers and with regularity.

          Our society and our government doesn’t exist for the sole purpose of giving you everything you want. Win some, lose some— deal with it. There are legal channels you can go through to lobby for you want. Even though the NRA has deep pockets and is spending like nobody’s business to stop regulations from being put into place so that they will be able to sell more guns more quickly, it apparently thinks it also needs goons to intimidate the opposition.

          The MDA is peacefully using their First Amendment rights to freely associate and assemble in order to lobby for what they think is important. They aren’t getting in the face of private citizens to do so.

          When extremist gun culture goes to Sandy Hook, for instance, after 20 elementary school have been killed by a mass shooter, then they are acting without regard to the concerns and suffering of their fellow citizens. Demonstrate long enough that you don’t give a shit about your fellow citizens and that you will dance to any tune the NRA plays, and trust me, you’ll lose support.

          I am absolutely in favor of people’s right to defend their homes. Anyone who breaks into your house is not owed the benefit of a doubt. But walking around in public, in groups, with rifles and expecting people to trust you and to assume your guns aren’t loaded in the land of mass shootings is asking too much. Especially since a large extremist gun culture has been busy demonstrating that they are anti-social and obsessed with unfettered gun ownership to the degree that they have demonstrated that they are not responsible gun owners, cannot distinguish themselves from any other murderous shooter, and won’t accept reasonable limits that are perfectly constitutional.

          Here’s some statistics concerning the effects of gun ownership.

          http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

          I doubt you’ll take it seriously because of the source and because it doesn’t say what you want it to say about guns and gun owners.

          • DRangedinaz says:

            Thanks Felonious! Check out the question at end of their comment…

            “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

            ..it’s like asking someone to prove that God doesn’t exist or asking for hypotheticals but in the past….there’s some kind of logical fallacy in there I am not up on that kind of thing though. Where is a lawyer when you need one? LOL

          • DRangedinaz says:

            Don’t be obtuse. We aren’t talking about guns in the home. We are talking about people walking around in public. And you keep ignoring the fact that study after study shows extremely high approval, almost unheard of high support, for improved gun laws. The problem is that the NRA has all the money (from conservative billionaires and the gun manufacturers) and fanatical and deluded foot soldiers like yourself who spend every waking hour harassing groups like the MDA. Talk about tyranny of the minority.

            No we don’t trust molesters and thats why we have not only laws but policy and procedure to help prevent such abuse. We don’t trust food workers and thats why we have TONS of regulations about how they must handle and prep food. We dont trust other drivers and have TONS of regulations (licensing with photo ID, the very thing you oppose for guns, thanks for bringing that up), not to mention safety devices in those cars (how are state regs requiring good tires any different than requiring trigger locks?).

            And your fetish over the ability to do what you want with your weapon wherever and whenever you want does not trump our rights to be out in public, secure in our persons. I keep telling you this and you keep ignoring it…none of our Constitutional rights are unrestricted. NONE. This is truly becoming tedious.

        • DRangedinaz says:

          “What we want is less government intrusion in the exercise of the right; “

          If that is so why is the NRA and local groups like OCT always trying to get rid of gun laws, trying to expand where we can carry guns, or pushing to keep the ineffective laws we have now in place? I could write a book on the number of initiatives and attempts they have made to expand gun rights over the last 20 years.

          “no body needs a permit to have free speech in their homes but some states require a permit to even own a firearm”

          You really don’t understand the Constitution. There are limitations on every right we have including freedom of speech in our own homes and most certainly in public or on private land on which we don’t have permission to be. I’m not going to waste more time trying to educate because you don’t really want to understand.

          “No body needs a permit to speak in public yet most states require a license to carry a gun in public. “

          Same response as to your last point.

          “Yet the states that don’t require a less have similar or lower crime rates and firearm related deaths and injuries then the states that do.”

          This one is almost too easy to debunk–causal oversimplification. Guns from locales with little regulation flow into those locales with lots of regulation. For example, Mexico has strict gun control laws but the majority of murders in Mexico’s latest drug cartel war were committed using guns bought in US border states like Arizona and Texas who have very lax gun laws. Same is true for Chicago, IL. Gun nuts like to point and laugh at the gun violence there because they think it is proof that gun laws don’t work. If all the states and cities had similar gun laws gun violence would go down everywhere. Don’t bother arguing this point further…I have a bachelors and masters in Criminal Justice not to mention professional experience working with crime data. You clearly don’t understand crime stats or patterns.

          Regarding the cost of concealed licenses..since most people only want hand guns for home defense, poor or otherwise, the costs for concealed licensing is moot if you want to argue about who can afford guns and who can’t.

          “We don’t see the sense in saying it is okay to have a magazine that holds 10 rounds but not 11. Are gun control advocates like you saying “It is okay to kill 10 people without reloading but not 11?”

          We would always rather that legislation and regulation be based upon scientific data. For instance it should be possible to look at the types of guns, clips, magazines, etc used in violent crimes and then determine what the reasonable cutoffs should be. Except we can’t because the NRA and their Congressional lackeys in the 1990s made it so that the CDC was not allowed to gather gun crime stats (a non-legislative ban on funding through the budget process). Furthermore universities who received federal funds were prohibited from doing research too and were often pressured by the NRA to stop any research when they tried anyway. So we don’t have enough data right now. Thankfully the President has authorized that funding so we can gather data and no longer be crafting laws in a vacuum.

          If someone is going to murder a person does it make it better if they use a knife or baseball versus a firearm? No, it is still murder.

          Do you know the difference between a burglary and a robbery? Threat of force. Simply the presence of a gun, fired or not, ups the pre-sentencing report score, which is what determines sentencing. So robbery with a gun is considered more serious than a baseball bat. Our legal system does this for obvious reasons. But you are right dead is dead. Unfortunately for you and other gun advocates it isn’t that simple. I wonder how many kids the Sandy Hook shooter would have killed and how fast he could have done it if he had only had a knife or a bat? What about the Navy Yard shooter who fired down on a crowd of people eating lunch in an open air food court a floor or more below him? To argue that a gun is no more dangerous than a knife or a bat is not illogical but it’s just stupid.

          And a final point before I end this conversation with you. To answer your poorly worded question, every single person who was clinically depressed and/or suffering from PTSD and/or paranoid schizophrenic, etc, etc who committed suicide with a handgun (whether they shot themselves or committed “suicide by cop”). All those people who might have lived, who might of received help instead were able to use a handgun because they are far too available in this country. This stat alone compared to the rest of the world’s rates of suicides by gun should give us all pause enough to recognize that we have a problem. And something needs to be done. But you can’t and won’t discuss any solutions nor do you acknowledge the problem. There is room for rational discussion and compromise on gun control but only if gun advocates join the rest of the country in Saneville and start acknowledging reality. Otherwise you won’t get a seat at the table and we will make the gun laws without you.

          • 3boxesofbs says:

            If that is so why is the NRA and local groups like OCT always trying to get rid of gun laws, trying to expand where we can carry guns, or pushing to keep the ineffective laws we have now in place? I could write a book on the number of initiatives and attempts they have made to expand gun rights over the last 20 years.

            Less government — less laws restricting our rights — that shouldn’t be hard to figure out. The laws keep people from carrying firearms; the state of Texas specifies areas were people can’t carry firearms — and also has a section that lets businesses know what the business — not the state – needs to do if they don’t want firearms in their location.

            What ineffective laws are you talking about — the ones against murder, rape, armed robbery??

            , Mexico has strict gun control laws but the majority of murders in Mexico’s latest drug cartel war were committed using guns bought in US border states like Arizona and Texas who have very lax gun laws.

            Talk about easy to debunk

            As we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).

            According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

            This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

            Sorry but simply not true —

            f all the states and cities had similar gun laws gun violence would go down everywhere. Don’t bother arguing this point further…I have a bachelors and masters in Criminal Justice not to mention professional experience working with crime data.

            I suggest you seek a refund from your college/university.

            Regarding the cost of concealed licenses..since most people only want hand guns for home defense, poor or otherwise, the costs for concealed licensing is moot if you want to argue about who can afford guns and who can’t.

            Care to cite any evidence on your contention or did you read everyone’s mind?

            Among gun owners surveyed, 48% said they own them for protection, while 32% said they own a firearm mainly for hunting purposes.

            From USA Today — says nothing about home defense. I hope you don’t think criminals only attack people in their homes.

            You do know what the word “average” means, right?

            o answer your poorly worded question, every single person who was clinically depressed and/or suffering from PTSD and/or paranoid schizophrenic, etc, etc who committed suicide with a handgun (whether they shot themselves or committed “suicide by cop”).

            Because your answer doesn’t seem to indicate that. The average person isn’t suffering from PTSD, depression, paranoia.

            Try again please

          • DRangedinaz says:

            Less government — less laws restricting our rights — that shouldn’t be hard to figure out.

            Typical conservative BS. You presume less government is a good thing. Our rights are always restricted in some fashion. As I’ve said a million times before. Some of the restrictions on guns are silly and many of them are ineffectual. We need gun law reform and just saying “less is better” is not a solution.

            What ineffective laws are you talking about — the ones against murder, rape, armed robbery??

            Background checks–this could be vastly improved. They’re pretty much useless right now. The exception for gun show and online sales is a big loophole that needs to be closed.

            This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

            Once again, oversimplifying AND you didn’t read what I said. I said “in Mexico’s latest drug cartel war”. I didn’t say in all the crimes in Mexico that year nor all the guns seized in Mexico that year. Plus confiscated guns does not mean they were confiscated due to criminal activity. Countries like Mexico confiscate all kinds of things all the time that have nothing to do with commission of a crime.

            Care to cite any evidence on your contention or did you read everyone’s mind?

            No need, you gave the stat. According to you 48% use their guns for self protection. The rest for hunting. Since most people usually feel safe in public, it’s not rocket science to conclude that most want them for home defense. A Harvard study found that guns are used to threaten and intimidate in public during minor altercations far more often than they are used in true self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal. So yeah, they want it for defense. In the home would be better than their use in public where studies show they are most often used improperly. Concealed carry laws make the likelihood of this kind of illegal brandishing all that much easier. Furthermore, we pay pretty high fees to register our cars. Is that system biased against the poor? No, because we aren’t forced to buy a new expensive car that has high registration costs. Same with guns. If you want to register it and get a special license for it, you have to pay. We could make it based on the cost and age of the weapon just like we do with cars. Funny how you conservatives love the Free Market until it gets in the way of your narrative and THEN you want to argue “but what about poor people”. Spare me your hypocrisy.

            You do know what the word “average” means, right?

            Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. 1 in 4 (26.2%) adults have mental disorders. But if that’s not average enough for you, then what about their families? The families of the suicide victims rank in the millions and if they aren’t ill, then they’re average. Did you know the likelihood that the child of a parent who committed suicide will also commit suicide is statistically and significantly higher than other kids? Their kids would be safer. Furthermore, if that’s still not “average” enough for you. How about the more than 7,500 children who are admitted to hospitals for gunshot wounds each year? They would be a hell of a lot safer if their idiot parents didn’t have a handgun. And finally on this point, I should never answered the question in the first place. You asking me to prove something that didn’t happen AND the definition of “average” is far to subjective. It’s a dumb question that sheds no light on the debate.

            I suggest you seek a refund from your college/university.

            You’re quite the comedian. I can say that gun violence and the number of deaths would go down with considerable confidence based on very real evidence. It is well known that aggravated assault rises when right to carry laws are adopted. There is no such thing as a drive-by knifing. Furthermore, accidental shootings, particularly in situations where someone is using them to intimidate in minor altercations (see comments above) would be reduced.

            Ultimately the number of households with guns is declining but there are more privately owned guns than ever before, meaning people who already own guns are purchasing more and more of them….let’s call it the “gun nut hoarding” factor….the presence of a black man in the White House really scared you guys…gun sales spiked…how many more weapons did you buy when the President was elected in 2008? 2012? Be sure to buy extra tin foil hats to go along with your gun hoard.

        • dbtheonly says:

          “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

          In the “Old West” the Earp Brothers routinely seized the guns of all those in the towns they were cleaning up & seized the guns of all those entering the town. Do you need specific dates?

  4. Arrgh. No edit button. such things will always happen

  5. 3boxesofbs says:

    And your fetish over the ability to do what you want with your weapon wherever and whenever you want does not trump our rights to be out in public, secure in our persons. I keep telling you this and you keep ignoring it…none of our Constitutional rights are unrestricted.

    You are right none of our rights are unrestricted….the Right to Keep and Bear Arms– that means carry, even in Public — is Constitutionally Protected.

    Your right to be ‘secure in our persons’ only extends to what you can do to secure yourself. It creates no burden on my part .

    You have the right to call yourself a Martian, doesn’t mean I have to think you are Green or come from Mars. You have the right to ‘feel’ however you want – doesn’t mean I have to do anything to protect your precious feelings.

    • DRangedinaz says:

      the Right to Keep and Bear Arms– that means carry, even in Public — is Constitutionally Protected

      You STILL don’t get it. It’s Constitutionally protected only insofar as it is regulated (“well regulated militia” clause) and where it doesn’t interfere with our other rights. This is true for ALL of our rights. That’s the part that you keep disregarding. And my “feelings” have nothing to do with anything EXCEPT when it comes to being harassed, stalked or otherwise intimidated by someone with weapons. And that “fear” that you scoff at is judged by the “reasonable person” standard. Any “reasonable” person, which you have demonstrated you are not, would have been afraid and worried if 40 people showed up with rifles while they were having lunch. Our law is very definitive about this. There is ALWAYS a burden on EVERY citizen to EVERY OTHER citizen. It’s called the social contract. So once again we’ve come full circle.

      You refuse to acknowledge the “militia” clause. You refuse to accept any limits for the purposes of ensuring other peoples’ rights and safety. And that view is increasingly in the minority, thank goodness. So keep on being extreme. You can and will ride that crazy train all the way to obscurity. We will eventually break the “tyranny of the minority” you and the NRA have established.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s