published Tuesday, December 25th, 2012

The Directive

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

154
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed)."

I highly doubt the parents that sent their children to this school did so because of their security guards.

"and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own."

Since when is President Obama preventing anyone from sending their children to schools with security guards? Another huge load of copy-and-paste crap from you, sTUpid.

"His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."

If you would like to send your kid to a school where security guards are present, YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT. Did you not know that? How is it that any serious human being could buy in to the ridiculousness of what you have just copy-and-pasted. Oh wait, you're a WingNut douchebag. That's what you idiots do. You lost the election so now you're trying to act like President Obama is using our children as meat shields for his own kids.

Any one of these Hamilton County schools would meet that criteria:

http://www.hcsheriff.gov/uniform_services/sro_staff.asp

You and your ilk are PITIFUL, IGNORANT, EVIL, HYPOCRITICAL, MORONIC...should I go on? I could cite examples if needed.

December 25, 2012 at 2:06 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Fear of inanimate objects? That's a mental disorder Mr. Bennett.

December 25, 2012 at 6:37 a.m.
degage said...

Yup! easy is back in rare form, he just can't help himself. name calling is his only thing.

December 25, 2012 at 6:45 a.m.
timbo said...

slEASY123......Tu Makes a great point. Rich Liberals will have their protection. As usual they are just a bunch of hypocrites, do what I say not do what I do.

I will give up my gun when the police, the Secret Service, The FBI, And private security people give up theirs. Let the liberal elite take the same chances is the rest of us. They should become examples for the rest of us. They should be our examples and lead the way. If gun-control is the answer they don't need to be armed anyway.

I know, I know you only want "Sensible" gun control. You just want to take high-capacity magazines, and then assault rifles,.......FOR NOW. After the next tragedy occurs it will be handguns..... Shotguns..... Hunting rifles....etc.,etc,ect. Then it will be a lot easier for the oppression of the minority.

In reality, this debate is already over. Those who need to be armed already are. The only thing you liberals can do is to confiscate weapons. To come into peoples homes and search. Doing that will bring this thing to a head very quickly. It might just solve the "Liberal"problem once and for all. Merry Christmas slEASY123

December 25, 2012 at 7:13 a.m.
anniebelle said...

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

December 25, 2012 at 7:28 a.m.
rolando said...

Perhaps, anniebelle, perhaps. Truth is, that reformation was taking place under the terms and procedures of that very same Virginia Constitution...and not through the courts in violation of our national Constitution.

Big difference.

You want to change the Constitution, do it right. The method is described therein. You have the 47%ers on your side so it should be a snap.

December 25, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.
rolando said...

By the way, the only "Safe Handgun" is a brick...or maybe a rock since bricks have rough edges.

Then again, all handguns are "Safe Handguns" so long as you don't pull the trigger.

December 25, 2012 at 7:47 a.m.
timbo said...

Anniebelle.....this obscure quote about a state issue has been cherry picked to suit. You or Obama or any of the rest of you emotional retards will never get our guns. If you try, you will find out just how powerless you really are. Amendments to OUR constitution were passed in order of importance. Free speech and the right to bear arms protects our PERSONAL freedoms. The group is secondary to those personal rights. The Constitution would never have been ratified without the Bill of Rights included.

The "Living" constitution Is a liberal invention To establish group rights and diminish individual rights. We need are guns to protect us from you and people like you and the rest of you liberal idiots.

December 25, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security." - Thomas Jefferson.

anniebelle, you tree-hugging liberals never like to tell, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story."

December 25, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

THE FREEDOM TO DO NOTHING

Looks like this Congress and this President will once again fail to lift a finger to address the bloody cost of American freedom. The NRA insists that everyone has the right to PURCHASE a gun. I guess it's our right to find cover when the bullets start flying.

Don't we have a right as citizens to live in country without a real chance of getting shot to death? Why do 10,000 Americans every year have to pay with our lives for one interpretation of the Second Amendment?

Good grief, look how our government responded to 9/11 when only 3,000 Americans died: the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, intrusive airport security, and two wars, one of which is still on-going.

Why can't we look at the entire problem? Violent video games, violent movies, violent music lyrics, poverty, mental and social problems, easy access to fire arms, so on and so forth. Right now when liberals say, 'gun control' conservatives say, 'rap music!' And when conservatives say 'video games,' liberals say 'assault weapons!'

Which leaves our political leaders free to do nothing.

And 'nothing' is what our government is really good at doing.

And doing nothing just cost 20 children their lives.

December 25, 2012 at 10:53 a.m.
rolando said...

The less our government does, the better. We can certainly get along just fine without about 1/2 of it.

The old saying applies; "Neither my future nor my fortune are safe while the Congress is in session."

OK, I'll bite where does the 10,000 deaths a year due to the 2nd Amendment come from? And how may 10s of thousands were saved?

December 25, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.
MTJohn said...

rolando said...The less our government does, the better. We can certainly get along just fine without about 1/2 of it.

Personal responsibility is the flip side of the personal freedom coin. The more that our government does to prevent libertarians, constitutionalists, teabaggers, etc. from infringing the civil rights of other citizens the better.

December 25, 2012 at 12:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"Yup! easy is back in rare form, he just can't help himself. name calling is his only thing."

I like to call them factual characterizations. Do I need to cite examples?

Being irrelevant is your only thing.

December 25, 2012 at 12:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"Rich Liberals will have their protection."

False. You can send your kid to a school with "protection". Are you a "rich liberal"? Didn't think so. Everyone has that right. You're being dishonest by stating otherwise.

"As usual they are just a bunch of hypocrites, do what I say not do what I do."

Nothing hypocritical whatsoever. No one is telling you not to send your kid to a school with security. That is the only way it would be hypocritical. Again, you are being blatantly dishonest or stupid. Which is it?

"I will give up my gun when the police, the Secret Service, The FBI, And private security people give up theirs."

No one is asking you to give up your gun. What fantasy world do you live in?

"If gun-control is the answer they don't need to be armed anyway."

Gun control isn't a gun ban. Democrats want more strict laws on large clips and assault rifles, not all guns. What you are saying is illogical.

"FOR NOW"

Your slippery slope argument is baseless. It's all conjecture with you WingNut conspiracy theorists.

"After the next tragedy occurs it will be handguns..... Shotguns..... Hunting rifles....etc.,etc,ect"

CONJECTURE.

"Then it will be a lot easier for the oppression of the minority."

A slippery slope straight to the Gulag! You're a fool.

"In reality, this debate is already over."

Wrong again.

"The only thing you liberals can do is to confiscate weapons. To come into peoples homes and search. Doing that will bring this thing to a head very quickly. It might just solve the "Liberal"problem once and for all."

CONJECTURE. You would like to see that happen. You are one of those "I wish they would!" people. Nothing you say is factual. NO ONE IS ADVOCATING A GUN BAN! Can you read? Why can't that fact penetrate your skull? LMFAO!

"Merry Christmas slEASY123"

Happy Festivus, MORON. Or should I say TOES?

December 25, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rolando,

"We can certainly get along just fine without about 1/2 of it."

Based on what evidence?

"OK, I'll bite where does the 10,000 deaths a year due to the 2nd Amendment come from?"

Gun deaths in the United States. Look it up.

"And how may 10s of thousands were saved?"

Any answer to that question would be an estimate and far less than the total number killed.

December 25, 2012 at 1:04 p.m.
EaTn said...

When I was a kid my Christmas wish was receiving two cap pistols in holsters, and like the movie, a Red Ryder BB gun. These wishes were fulfilled but after a few years I out-grew the need to play with guns and found things more suited for adults. Too bad some of the gun lovers on here didn't get to play out their childhood dreams like I did.

December 25, 2012 at 1:14 p.m.
miraweb said...

Sadly, if a man can kill his grandmother, get out of prison then get his hands on a .233 caliber Bushmaster, a .38-caliber revolver, and a 12-gauge shotgun - and then set a fire to trap and shoot volunteer firefighters on Christmas Eve, then - yes - even on Christmas Day the editorials, including editorial cartoons, should begin talking about weapons again.

Kind of the way it works, really.

December 25, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"You or Obama or any of the rest of you emotional retards will never get our guns."

No one is trying to take your guns, dumbass.

"If you try, you will find out just how powerless you really are."

What imaginary "power" do you think you have over the government? LMFAO! If the government wanted to take your guns away, they could do it very easily. Then you would find out just how powerless YOU are.

"Amendments to OUR constitution were passed in order of importance."

False. The Bill of Rights was amended collectively, that is, all 10 at the same time.

"Free speech and the right to bear arms protects our PERSONAL freedoms."

No. Free speech and the right to bear arms ARE our personal freedoms. The government protects those personal freedoms.

"The Constitution would never have been ratified without the Bill of Rights included."

False. The Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights included. The Bill of Rights wasn't even proposed until months after the Constitution went into effect. The Bill of Rights didn't go into effect until a few years after the Constitution.

"The "Living" constitution Is a liberal invention To establish group rights and diminish individual rights."

Actually, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson proposed the original intent of a "living" Constitution. Those evil, "liberal" Founding Fathers!

"We need are guns to protect us from you and people like you and the rest of you liberal idiots."

No, you don't. You need your guns because you're afraid. But no one is trying to take them away. You still haven't grasped that. And it's spelled "our". IDIOT.

December 25, 2012 at 1:18 p.m.
miraweb said...

The gaming community is owed kudos for an action it took in August.

It seems EA has official partnerships with gun manufacturers for product placement in games like Medal of Honor: Warfighter. The partnerships went so far that links went directly from the gaming websites to the gunmaker's catalogs.

In an editorial in Gameological Ryan Smith wrote:

Like the way the gun drops terrorists or racks up headshots in multiplayer? Feel free to visit Warfighter’s official website and click on a sponsored link that will take you to McMillan, the manufacturer of the gun. There you may purchase a real-life TAC-300 to your own specification (night-vision kit is optional!) and have it shipped to your local federally licensed gun dealer for pickup.

In response to the objections from the gaming community, EA dropped the cross-linking to gun manufacturers, though they still have close partnerships with the industry.

http://gameological.com/2012/08/partners-in-arms/

December 25, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
Reardon said...

Someone define "high capacity magazines" for me.

30 rounds... 15 rounds... 8 rounds?

If our goal is to restrict magazine capacity to 8 rounds... shouldn't the logical follow-up restriction be to limit the number of magazines we can own? Because I bet the skilled shooter can release, reload, and cock his AR-15 faster than the time it took me to type this sentence (much less grab one of his multiple side-arms he's carrying to compensate for the smaller clip size).

December 25, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
miraweb said...

Much of Europe and Australia restrict magazines to 3 rounds.

December 25, 2012 at 1:51 p.m.
MTJohn said...

tu_quoque said...New York already has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation. Felons, like Spengler, are already barred by law from owning guns according to federal law.

The obvious conclusion is that, either we are not enforcing the laws that already are on the books, or the laws on the books are not enforceable. In either case, the solution could well be more regulation.


miraweb said...Much of Europe and Australia restrict magazines to 3 rounds.

We also restrict magazines in this country to 3 rounds...but only for waterfowl hunters. Somehow it is acceptable to restrict the "2nd amendment rights" of hunters, but heaven help us if we try to compromise the "rights" of those who would use guns to kill people.

December 25, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.
Reardon said...

Neither of you attempted to answer my follow up question.

Would you please?

December 25, 2012 at 2:58 p.m.
Rebus said...

There IS no answer. Evil doers will always have guns. The govt can restrict all they want, but not much will change. Knee-jerk bans simply make the anti-gun people feel better.

December 25, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
GameOn said...

Worth repeating. Some fail to grasp the reason for the Second Amendment.

December 25, 2012 at 3:28 p.m.
Oldhickory said...

Blackwater, “Looks like this Congress and this President will once again fail to lift a finger to address the bloody cost of American freedom. Why do 10,000 Americans every year have to pay with our lives for one interpretation of the Second Amendment?”

Fair enough, because 10,000 deaths per year is a lot of people. But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause 443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) with 49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure."

The CDC also reports that "excessive alcohol use, including binge and underage drinking, is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. This dangerous behavior is responsible for more than 79,000 deaths annually and a wide range of health and social problems. On average, for each death due to alcohol, an individual's life is cut short by 30 years. Excessive alcohol use also costs the United States about $185 billion each year in health care and criminal justice expenses, as well as lost productivity."

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/alcohol.htm

I’d say that since so many in the nation believes it’s time for sweeping gun control and the repeal of the 2nd Amendment that it’s also time for the nation to implement sweeping prohibitions on tobacco and alcohol production, trade, possession, and use including the repeal of the 21st Amendment.

December 25, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
nucanuck said...

When everyone over the age of 15 is armed, will we finally be free? Should we then ramp up the discussion about upgrades in firepower and kill ratios.

The world is be watching as America kills its own in a hail of gunfire. Maybe the NRA's secret agenda is population reduction.

December 25, 2012 at 5:59 p.m.
fairmon said...

We are depending on 537 people to reach a logical conclusion. Unfortunately too many of them are like the representative from Georgia, Hank Johnson. his sincere response to Admiral Robert Willard regarding adding to the number of servicemen stationed on Guam “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” This guy still works in Washington which further proves that most voters are completely clueless to the fact that those elected are rarely honorable or sane.

Hank Johnson is still enjoying the spoils of bureaucracy saying really, really stupid things At the Annesbrooks HOA Candidate Forum in Georgia, Johnson declared the benefits and salary members of Congress receive are “earned.” It's not elaborate, it's just a bunch of poppycock that a lot of people have spread around trying to cause people to hate our own government and our government representatives.

December 25, 2012 at 7:23 p.m.
raygunz said...

fairmon,the stupidity of Hank Johnson (and others of his ilk),is far out-weighed by the stupidity of those who vote to put(and keep) him in office.

December 25, 2012 at 7:38 p.m.
GameOn said...
December 25, 2012 at 8:35 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Will someone please help me understand, or, discover the 'ergo' within this information?

Now, first of all, I will invoke the earliest major newsflash I could find:

William Spengler: William Spengler: William Spengler:

Armed with a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolver, a Mossman 12-gauge shotgun, and the Bushmaster, Spengler killed two firefighters, and injured two more as well as an off-duty police officer at the scene. As a convicted felon, Spengler 'could not legally own a firearm' and police are investigating how he obtained the weapons.

Well, if the readers/commenters of the Chattanooga Times Free Press has a life-or-death emergency.......Just Call a Hippie! Or, Just Call A Neighborhood Gang Leader! Or, Just Call A Convicted Multiple Felon Who Continues In That Life! Yeah, maybe I just discovered the 'ergo' to the above tragic news flash.

December 25, 2012 at 8:41 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Revisiting Newtown, Connecticut:

Hey, novel idea...LIBERAL DEMOCRATS! Maybe, if we just ban the assault weapons, and, maybe handguns, then we could just observe what happens when an Adam Lanza tosses several Molotov Coctails into a Sandy Hook classroom, instead. I ASSURE YOU TREE HUGGER ABORTIONISTS THAT THE DEATH TOLL WOULD EXCEED WITH EXTREME NUMBERS THE NUMBER WHO WOULD BE BURNED ALIVE.

The same would go for a movie theater, or, quiet suburban home.

I am personally issuing an urgent wake-up call to the Liberal Democrats of this United States of America!

Ken ORR

December 25, 2012 at 8:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Ken Orr,

You're the most illogical human on earth.

December 25, 2012 at 10:43 p.m.
raygunz said...

Ken ORR, you seem especially "fervent" tonight. Have you been drinking?

December 25, 2012 at 11:06 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Hi raygunz,

Yes I am drinking in the 'New Wine' of the Holy Spirit of YHWH. I am drinking the Water of Life so that I shall never thirst again. Thanks for asking! Jesus Christ said, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

By-the-way, if You hear from Dayton's 'D', please let him know I have added a notation to my Youtube video. On the frame with my Brother and me it reads: "The two 'Cowboys' are: My Brother and me. He was my hero when he was alive. He was my Best Friend, mentor and consultant. I miss him beyond word’s ability to describe."

Video Link Follows:

http://youtu.be/oqt2G9ywa2s

December 26, 2012 at 12:21 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

NOVEL IDEA ORR WHAT?

Novel idea... TEA BAGGERS! Explain why it's okay to have 20 children gunned down one morning. Explain why it's okay to have 10,000 Americans gunned down each year.

You don't want gun control? Fine. Since 10,000 annual shooting deaths is ACCEPTABLE to you, would you ever draw the line? Would 15,000 be too many? 20,000? 100,000?

Every other country in the world has access to the same violent video games, violent movies and violent music lyrics. Every other country has socially outcast and mentally challenged individuals. Every other country has poverty and pornography.

But no other country in the world has access to as many guns as we do.

Instead of just criticizing why don't you suggest a way to protect school children from being gunned down in the future?

December 26, 2012 at 1:04 a.m.
Easy123 said...

blackwater,

You're a clever genius. I applaud your last post.

December 26, 2012 at 2:22 a.m.
alprova said...

ORRMEANSLIGHT wrote: "Hey, novel idea...LIBERAL DEMOCRATS! Maybe, if we just ban the assault weapons, and, maybe handguns, then we could just observe what happens when an Adam Lanza tosses several Molotov Coctails into a Sandy Hook classroom, instead."

Let's see...how would he gain entry through locked school doors armed with nothing but Molotov cocktails?

"I ASSURE YOU TREE HUGGER ABORTIONISTS THAT THE DEATH TOLL WOULD EXCEED WITH EXTREME NUMBERS THE NUMBER WHO WOULD BE BURNED ALIVE."

Not likely at all. Fire takes time to spread, allowing victims more than enough time to flee the attack. But I go back to my initial challenge. How many Molotov Cocktails can one man hold at a time? How does he gain entry to a locked steel door with reinforced glass at a school armed with nothing but a Molotov Cocktail?

Your theory needs a little work, if you ask me.

"The same would go for a movie theater, or, quiet suburban home."

I don't know about you, but I would absolutely make a dive to tackle a man with a Molotov Cocktail in his hands. It's not as if he could hide it.

Back to the drawing board...

December 26, 2012 at 5:38 a.m.
Reardon said...

Al, Easy, Blackwater? Can someone respond to my question above?

December 26, 2012 at 6:53 a.m.
fairmon said...

When you want more of something reward and celbrate it. When you want less of something criticize and tax it. Tax guns enough to pay for whatever is needed to protect the innocent from them, making them prohibitively expensive. Do the same with ammunition. Make the penalty severe for being in possession of any gun without a permit and training.

December 26, 2012 at 7:14 a.m.
fairmon said...

The world is full of deranged crazies, terrorist and criminals that will not hesitate to harm or kill others. Anyone not capable and prepared to defend themselves will be vulnerable. Laws or actions to improve protection may help but will not prevent future incidents. There are more Tim McVays (sp?) to repeat something like the Oklahoma City bombing but how do you detect them before they strike? How much liberty and freedom are people willing to give up?

December 26, 2012 at 7:28 a.m.
jesse said...

your standard bolt action hunting rifle has a mag. capacity of 4 or 5 rounds,depending on the caliber! Revolvers hold 5 or 6 rounds! Using that as a base line lets say anything over 8 rounds is high capacity!I could live w/that!

Back when i was into guns and shooting i owned 10 or 12 varmint rifles and 6 of them were single shots!

December 26, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.
conservative said...

One thing I agree with Liberals on and disagree with Conservatives is the issue of who should own a gun. Liberals should never own a gun, they will only shoot their eye out.

December 26, 2012 at 8:39 a.m.
timbo said...

slEASY123 HAS BEEN BUSTED......I wrote the following: "The Constitution would never have been ratified without the Bill of Rights included."

slEASY123 said: "False. The Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights included. The Bill of Rights wasn't even proposed until months after the Constitution went into effect. The Bill of Rights didn't go into effect until a few years after the Constitution.

Here is the truth: In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html

This shows what a bunch of LIARS liberals are. Liberals hate the Bill of Rights

Conjecture is your answer. Conjecture is the base of creativity. Someone used "conjecture" to see the computer revolution. The used "conjecture" to predict market direction, economic activity, etc. etc. etc. It is not conjecture that's bad it is who is using it.

slEASY123 is a liar.

December 26, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Once again Dems show they will never settle for a ban on assault rifles or high capacity magazines. These morons didn't learn from Gore. Gun control is a losing issue and will only alienate moderates like me.

December 26, 2012 at 9:31 a.m.
Rebus said...

There are few things sadder than a progressive hipster doofus wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt.

December 26, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
jdavid said...

Jesse's right-- The big magazine is a "compensation" for perceived shortcomings elsewhere. If you think you need need 30 at a time, just maybe the 2nd amendment shouldn't really apply to you.

December 26, 2012 at 9:38 a.m.
jesse said...

Rebus?

How about a wingnut in a U.S.M.C. tee w/ "one shot one kill" on it! Or "killum all and let god sortum out"

BTW:Back in my hunting days an adage that fit was :"one shot,one deer,two shots maybe one deer,three shots NO deer!

December 26, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.
davisss13 said...

"There are few things sadder than a progressive hipster doofus wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt."

How about a whacked-out, teabagging Christian with a 'Obama's not a citizen' sign?

December 26, 2012 at 9:41 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...One thing I agree with Liberals on and disagree with Conservatives is the issue of who should own a gun. Liberals should never own a gun, they will only shoot their eye out.

Conservaative, is your first name Ralph? For the record, I own 5 rifles, 4 shotguns and a handgun. Except that I am old enough that I need reading glasses, my vision is 20/20.

December 26, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Rebus said... "There are few things sadder than a progressive hipster doofus wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt."

Or an opinionated man who 'reinvents' himself. Pathetic.

December 26, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.
dude_abides said...

fairmon said... "How much liberty and freedom are people willing to give up?"

Some people are willing to give up their identity (and integrity) for a fresh start. Pathetic.

December 26, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
davisss13 said...

"jdavid said... Jesse's right-- The big magazine is a "compensation" for perceived shortcomings elsewhere. If you think you need need 30 at a time, just maybe the 2nd amendment shouldn't really apply to you."

Blah, blah, blah. My penis size has nothing to do with any desire to own guns.

You gun control idiots are every bit as bad as abortion shriekers.

December 26, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
jesse said...

I ain't sure that rebus IS jack BUT if he is then what Joe Lewis told Billy Cohn holds true,"you can run BUT you can't hide!" lol

December 26, 2012 at 10:57 a.m.
gjuster said...

Several people have mentioned the 10,000 killed by guns every year, but haven't broken down the figure. Much of that is gang related - gun bans will make no difference there. If you go to the cities with the most restrictive gun laws, you'll find the most deaths by gun - Chicago and DC

December 26, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.
timbo said...

Blackwater48 brilliant? slEASY123 must be related to Blackwater..That is nuts...

In "Novel Idea or What" Blackwater is not "novel" but is "or What."

First of all these "novel" arguments are old hat. They have been used over and over again.

The difference between the US and other countries is that our population is not homogeneous. Over 50% of murders are committed by an ethnic group that makes up 15% of our population. That is Afro-Americans.

Statistics and science are foreign to liberals ruled by emotion but to look at murder rates you have to look at murders per 100,000 people. The stats for 2010 are as follows:

90% of blacks are murdered by blacks, and 83% of whites are murdered by whites. There are 14.82 murders per 100,000 by blacks versus 2.17 per 100,000 for whites. These are FBI statistics, before you liberal lunkheads have a duck.

When we compare the per 100,000 murder rate for whites in the US with the rest of the world we compare favorably.

The overall murder rate in the US is 5.76 per 100,000, for whites it is 2.17. It is not even close to any of the top ten murder rates with Honduras at 82 per 100,000 and Uganda at 36 per 100,000. 5 of the top ten have a black majority of over 80% and the other half have majority Hispanic population. No majority white population country is even close.

The white murder rate in the US compares with Canada at 1.5 per 100,000, Great Britain at 1.73 , Belguim 1.6, Israel 2.6. etc. etc.

On the other hand, all African countries, Russia and the old USSR are much higher per 100,000 rates than the United States. These countries have very strict gun laws. Mexico's rate is 10.9 and is twice as high as the total US murder rate of 5.9. Mexico has strict gun laws and only the regular citizen isn't armed. Thugs and drug kingpins rule and the regular citizen can't even protect himself.

In most of the world including this country, murder is a racial and cultural phenomenon. To ignore these facts because of political correctness is racist in itself. Our murder rates are way down the list when total murder rates around the world are considered.

That slEASY123 is a "novel" way to look at things. Not the biased lies told by you liberals.

This makes me think that since liberals have access to these same statistics, they know that the guns aren't the problem in the US. That means they have another agenda and that is to disarm the population in order to consolidate control without any risk of resistance.

As far as "tea baggers," go. You guys talk about it so much it makes me wonder just how much of a metro-sexual you are versus homosexual. You liberal sissy s make me sick.

December 26, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
timbo said...

Although these statistics point to a racial component being a factor in murder rates. I think it indicates that some cultures are more likely to murder than others . This is a cultural problem in certain communities and should be addressed as such. It is not a problem in the white community and shouldn't be portrayed as such. Communities that don't have this problem shouldn't be punished or ridiculed for a problem that rest in another part of our community. Even you stupid liberals should be able to understand that.

December 26, 2012 at 11:24 a.m.
jdavid said...

davisssetc- I was referring to intellect, social accceptance, perceived success-- but, hell whatever you want to think about- that's your right.

December 26, 2012 at 11:40 a.m.
jesse said...

Bottom line in my mind is if gun control worked there would be two firemen in New York who would be alive today BUT instead are dead!

December 26, 2012 at 12:33 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The federal government should set an example for the state and local governments which would be to require armed guards at every "gun free zone" they create. When a government bans the use of guns for personal protection they should step up and provide the protection.

They might also consider giving concealed carry permit holders a tax deduction in recognition of the service they provide to the community.

December 26, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Homeowners that keep a loaded firearm in their home should also be given an annual payment for the service that they do for local law enforcement.

December 26, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Concealed carry permit holders, like this old man, that take care of business for the police should get cash payments.

http://video.ocala.com/video/1737866652001

December 26, 2012 at 1:07 p.m.
miraweb said...

Israelis to NRA: You're Way Off Base

Israel never had “a whole lot of school shootings.” Authorities could only recall two in the past four decades.

Automatic weapons of the type Lanza used to gun down his victims are banned for private ownership in Israel. It is also rare for a person to be authorized to own more than one firearm, Amit said.

Eighty percent of the 10,000 people who apply yearly for licenses are turned down, he said. In the US, people can purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check or a license of any kind.

In Israel, applicants must undergo police screening and medical exams, in part to determine their mental state, Amit said.

Many Israelis receive weapons training in the military. But to be licensed to receive a weapon outside the military, they must undergo at least two hours of additional training, then repeat the training and medical exams every three years before they can renew their licenses.

Anybody who possesses a legally acquired gun waives the right to confidentiality, and authorities cross-reference for new information about the gunholder every three months.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-dismisses-us-gun-lobbys-inaccurate-claim-about-gun-laws/

December 26, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.
miraweb said...

Here is a breakdown of the statistics. Note that there are twice as many gun suicides as gun homicides.

Here are the 2010 numbers:

Gun suicides - 19,304

Gun homicides - 11,015

Gun accident deaths - 600

Firearm injuries - 200,000

The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries.

A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

December 26, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.
jesse said...

If you are diligent and dedicated you can root around and find numbers to back up almost anything!

December 26, 2012 at 1:48 p.m.
Rebus said...

My question is: Other than total confiscation, what does the left propose? Or is it confiscation?

December 26, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
miraweb said...

That's why the U.S. Census bureau exists. All of those sources are cited. You can check the accuracy for yourself. There are very good numbers on gun violence.

The Census numbers show that white males are about 3 times more likely to take their own lives than black males and 2 times more likely that Hispanic males and 4 times more likely to take their own lives than white females.

The vast majority of gun deaths are whites, if you really dig into the numbers.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0128.pdf

December 26, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.
miraweb said...

Who on "the left" has proposed "total confiscation." I think I missed that somewhere.

December 26, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.
jesse said...

AND THAT WON'T GETTER DONE EITHER!!!

There are NO simple answers to complex questions!

We been gittin where we are for 300 some odd years and we ain't gonna come up w/ a 10 year solution!Maybe there is NO solution short of tearing down the Gubment and starting over from scratch! New gov.,new constitution , new laws> of course for that to work you got to NUKE the populace and start over w/ NEW PEOPLE!!

December 26, 2012 at 2:03 p.m.
miraweb said...

The funny thing is we do have real power when we use our pocketbooks. What got gun manufacturers to drop their links on game websites?

Offended game players.

What got Cerberus to drop Bushmaster from its portfolio?

Offended investors.

Even massive corporations can be controlled when consumers start acting together.

Divide and conquer doesn't apply just to governments.

December 26, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.
Rebus said...

Miraweb: Are you serious? Do you not think confiscation would be considered? I said "other than", soooooo other than, what is the solution?

December 26, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"The federal government should set an example for the state and local governments which would be to require armed guards at every "gun free zone" they create." - BRP

It wasn't too long ago that everywhere we went was a "gun-free" zone. That used to be the norm. But the NRA and the dummies who support it have been calling for - and succeeding - in pushing to get bills passed whereby we allow more and more guns into more and more places. If you put armed guards at every "gun-free" zone, you are talking about nothing other than a perpetual police state. That would mean that we're not the least bit concerned with how to establish peace but are content to just relegate ourselves to the violence that has become the trademark of this country. But that would be perfectly fine with you gun freaks, wouldn't it? The very sight of a high-powered weapon makes you orgasm. You guys would be in hog heaven if everybody was packing heat and we had armed guards on every street and in every building. You don't care the least bit about how to have a truly peaceful society, you just want more reasons to justify playing with your guns and living out your fantasy of being some kind of gun-slinging hero.

December 26, 2012 at 2:17 p.m.
miraweb said...

My favorite is a ban of assault weapons for the general public, a well-funded buy-back to reduce the number of legacy weapons, limiting magazine sizes and ammo sales, and placing the remaining assault weapon firearms allowed for use by professionals and advanced weapons enthusiasts into locked gun clubs or professionally controlled facilities.

If a weapon is used in a crime and it can be shown that it was improperly stored, then I think the property where it was located should be forfeited. The victim's family should also have the right to sue the gun owner even if the owner was not the shooter.

December 26, 2012 at 2:18 p.m.
Rebus said...

Thank you, madam.

December 26, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
miraweb said...

I would guess even the NRA would sweeten its tune a bit if a million envelopes with torn up member cards showed up in its mailbox next week.

December 26, 2012 at 2:24 p.m.
jesse said...

Mira!

When white crows fly in flocks!

Time for my nap!see ya later!

December 26, 2012 at 2:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"This shows what a bunch of LIARS liberals are. Liberals hate the Bill of Rights"

THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED WITHOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS. That just shows how ignorant Conservatives are. Conservatives hate facts.

"Conjecture is your answer."

No.

"Conjecture is the base of creativity."

Again, no.

"Someone used "conjecture" to see the computer revolution."

No, they didn't.

"The used "conjecture" to predict market direction, economic activity, etc. etc. etc."

Again, no.

"It is not conjecture that's bad it is who is using it."

Wrong. You obviously don't know what the word means. Very, very few things are done by guesswork. But, like most Conservatives, you argue in favor of your own ignorance.

"slEASY123 is a liar."

timbo is markedly ignorant and highly illogical.

December 26, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
miraweb said...

You just have to follow the money.

I am sure that right now there is a marketing team meeting in a nice conference room working on "rebranding" Bushmaster. Bring on the colorful markers, white boards, and Powerpoint!

December 26, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"The difference between the US and other countries is that our population is not homogeneous."

Many developed countries like Great Britain, France, The Netherlands aren't homogeneous either. Try again.

"When we compare the per 100,000 murder rate for whites in the US with the rest of the world we compare favorably."

This is a logical fallacy called irrelevant conclusion. Try again.

"In most of the world including this country, murder is a racial and cultural phenomenon."

Murder is not racial or cultural. People have been murdering for centuries, regardless of skin color.

"Not the biased lies told by you liberals."

Most people just call them facts and/or truth.

"they know that the guns aren't the problem in the US."

It is very obvious that guns are, at least, part of the problem.

"That means they have another agenda and that is to disarm the population in order to consolidate control without any risk of resistance."

CONJECTURE. You're a conspiracy theorist. Your premise can be rejected just as easily as you have posed it. No facts support your claim.

"You guys talk about it so much it makes me wonder just how much of a metro-sexual you are versus homosexual."

As opposed to the Tea Bagger/Conservatives that actually talk about homosexuals 24/7? Nobody talks about gays more than your ilk. Try again.

"You liberal sissy s make me sick."

You Conservatives dumbasses are great for a laugh.

December 26, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"I think it indicates that some cultures are more likely to murder than others."

That fact doesn't hold true throughout history.

"This is a cultural problem in certain communities and should be addressed as such."

No, it isn't. You're trying to make this a race thing. It isn't.

"It is not a problem in the white community and shouldn't be portrayed as such."

Yes, it is. YOU'RE A RACIST.

"Communities that don't have this problem shouldn't be punished or ridiculed for a problem that rest in another part of our community."

Every community has a murder problem.

"Even you stupid liberals should be able to understand that."

You're too ignorant to understand almost anything. You have proven that over and over again with your incessant racism here today.

December 26, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus or Jack_Troll,

"Do you not think confiscation would be considered?"

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Do you understand now? This isn't your WingNut fantasy world. NO ONE IS ADVOCATING A GUN BAN.

December 26, 2012 at 2:49 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Good ideas in your 2:18 post, miraweb. Unfortunately there are too many gun nuts, from the NRA on down, who think that they actually have a "right" to the types of weapons that most sane, rational people view as weapons of mass destruction and have no business being in the public domain. As long as our legislators keep bowing to the dictates of the lunatics who have so much influence defining what they think our gun rights ought to be, then we will be at their mercy, suffering the consequences. It's not just the gun laws that need to change and be more strictly enforced but our perception of guns in the first place. And frankly I don't have a clue how to bring about a change like that. Sadly, we are a country that is comprised of way too many gun loving loonies who think that the cold hard steel objects of their affection are as sacred as their Bibles and their God.

December 26, 2012 at 3:03 p.m.
rolando said...

Based on what evidence, easy? About 200 years of our history.

December 26, 2012 at 3:35 p.m.
rolando said...

mirabel -- Did you see this Associated Press article, too? Maybe we should be "talking about weapons again", all right. Including axes, huh?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/26/ny-man-killed-friend-hid-body-in-closet-da-says/

This quote from the report caught my eye:

"Barth initially told detectives he was worried about a potential death sentence, Kurtzrock said. After Barth was told that couldn't happen -- the death penalty has been ruled unconstitutional in New York -- he made a videotaped confession and told police they could find the ax behind the bedroom door, the prosecutor said." [Emphasis mine]

December 26, 2012 at 3:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rolando,

"About 200 years of our history."

How does that serve as evidence that we could get by with only half of our government? This isn't 1780 or 1880. I'll cite the past 50 years as evidence that we COULD NOT get by on half of our government.

December 26, 2012 at 3:54 p.m.
rolando said...

"When I was a kid [I wanted] a Red Ryder BB gun."

EaTn, I suspect all boys did. I didn't get one because they weren't making them at the time...they were too busy making real guns for use against The Axis...better known as WW2. Once the war was over and the Japs and Nazi's stopped trying to kill us with guns, BB Guns again became available.

I was about 6 or 7 when I got mine. I used it to shoot tin cans, coke bottles ["coke", like "mother" was a nice word, then]and the occasional -- although rare -- mourning dove. That's how we became some of the best shots in the world.

'Course, that lack of a BB gun didn't stop us from making "rifles" and "machine guns" out of 1x4s and 4x4s, respectively. Add a few spikes [big nails] to the 4x4 block and you had a "machine gun". We used them to mow down the enemy with much fervor.

December 26, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.
fairmon said...

Easy said...

I'll cite the past 50 years as evidence that we COULD NOT get by on half of our government.

I don't know what led to that conclusion. A short period of adjustment and we could get by with less than half the government but would not have to give up half of what they do.

December 26, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Ever since the first law regulating guns the gun lovers have been crying about that imaginary slippery slope of gun regulation and how it will lead to the government eventually coming to confiscate all of our guns. Yet nothing of the sort has ever happened or even come close to happening. When Obama was elected the NRA and the gun lovers whined about how he would destroy our freedoms and would take away all of our guns. Yet, for his entire fist term he was completely silent on gun control and in fact more laws were passed that put more guns in the hands of more people. Not until this latest mass killing has Obama even talked about gun control, and now even some former die-hard conservative pro-gun advocates are talking about the need to ban or heavily regulate the high-powered military style weapons. But even so, nobody is talking about the government coming to take away your guns. The only place where that scenario is taking place or will probably ever take place is in the psycho minds of you gun nuts.

December 26, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
Rebus said...

could NOT get by on half our govt.?? Now that's conjecture.

December 26, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"Only someone brain dead, like you, would “not be able think” … that security guards at their children’s school would not be a consideration."

Again, I highly doubt the parent's sent their kids their for that reason. Learn to read all the words.

"Thus they are reducing the chances that a greater number of school systems will opt for security as they will take the cheap way out of addressing the problem by relying on federal gun control to save their children."

This is a non sequitur. Schools can take whatever action they want. Gun control debates does not reduce any chances of schools opting for security. Try again.

"Only about 25% of public schools have SRO’s so it is not widely available but you could send your kids to private schools that do have guards."

Not in Hamilton County. The majority of schools in this county have one. Where are you getting your figures?

"Is there really a right for parents that live where security is not broadly addressed or they are not financially able to send there kids to guarded private schools."

Yes, send them to public schools with SRO's. Problem solved.

'Not everyone has access to those schools … Idiot !!"

Yes, they do, DUMBASS.

"If you have’em .. smoke’em !!"

I cite every post you've ever posted here as evidence. LMFAO!

December 26, 2012 at 5:10 p.m.
miraweb said...

Funny when a Texas Democrat says something damn stupid its breaking news.

When a Republican does, it's Tuesday. Or Wednesday. Or Thursday . . .

December 26, 2012 at 5:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"Although the Constitution was ratified before the Bill of Rights it most likely would not have been so if the promise of “including” them had not been offered”."

You just proved my point.

"your response is idiotic in that you have absolutely no way of supporting that claim."

I didn't make the claim. I rejected timbo's claim based on no evidence. That's how this works.

"In fact a sane person would know that it is likely they can find a constituency for about any proposal."

And, still, no evidence has been provided to support timbo's claim. Would you like to try again?

December 26, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.
dude_abides said...

fairmon said... "A short period of adjustment and we could get by with less than half the government but would not have to give up half of what they do."

Or, we could rename half of it and pretend that it's not there! Kinda like Jack_Dennis and Harp3999 did! Or would that seem too slippery and cheap?

December 26, 2012 at 5:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

fairmon,

"A short period of adjustment and we could get by with less than half the government but would not have to give up half of what they do."

Based on what? Which half could we get by without? Conservatives won't cut the military and that is the biggest portion of the budget. Which half could we get by without? How much federal money do you think the states could go without and "get by"?

December 26, 2012 at 5:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

I've provided my insight and exposed flaws. Can't you read? LMFAO!

December 26, 2012 at 5:18 p.m.
rolando said...

miraweb -- Your 2:18 post had some ideas worth considering, although they are a bit intrusive.

Take your entire post and substitute the words "motor vehicle" and "engine" for all occurrences of "firearm", "weapon", "assault weapon", "ammo", "magazine", et al.

That would put your suggestions in perspective and might even stop the senseless slaughter on our highways...slaughter that outnumbers by 6 to 1 the claimed loss of 10,000 lives a year due to the 2nd Amendment.

One thing, the lack of enforced gun laws now has allowed all those gang-related shootings to multiple...by some lights, one could consider that lack of enforcement a good thing. Let the gang-bangers kill each other off...maybe make entire communities plagued with those shootings into gun-free zones, or even free-fire zones. The Obama and his cronies are helping in that regard by making it even easier for aliens to buy firearms...makes one wonder why.

December 26, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
miraweb said...

The big four of the federal budget are the Pentagon, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Everything else - put together - is small change.

So - pick any two.

December 26, 2012 at 5:20 p.m.
miraweb said...

Rolando -

We also don't let any fool drive a big-rig. Assault weapons are our big rigs. It's time to take those triple-trailers off the highway and get the "drivers" some training.

December 26, 2012 at 5:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus/Troll_Dennis,

"could NOT get by on half our govt.?? Now that's conjecture."

Much less so than the other side of the argument. All of the evidence is based on our current situation. We will never be able to live our current way of life on half of our government. How many would be in poverty with half of the government? How many fewer police officers, teachers, schools, hospitals? That's how this thing works. We have grown up as a country. As we have grown, our government has grown. More people requires more jobs, schools, police, firemen, roads. hospitals, etc. But you Conservatives think we could get by with HALF of our government. Could public schools get by on half of their budget? How about police? Teachers? Let's cut the budget in half for road work too. See how this works? Your WingNut fantasy world is a pipe dream. WingNuts just think we can get by without the "half" they don't like i.e. Welfare, food stamps, etc.

December 26, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"Really ?!? What was that B.S. about no one is suggesting that citizen’s guns being taken from them?"

Confiscation of ASSAULT WEAPONS. Why did you leave that part out? Those weapons wouldn't be legal under an assault weapons ban.

December 26, 2012 at 5:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"It’s just wonderful to see someone espouse their political belief so gleefully."

It's not a political belief. It's the truth.

"You seem so delighted (you did LYFAO! after all) to point out the fact the typical U.S. citizen has such little power over their government"

You didn't sense any delight. It was a factual statement. I was LMFAO at the belief that citizens with guns have some sort of power over the government. You can't win a gun fight with the government. They have drones, tanks, an army, etc. Believing that your guns will protect you against a government-gone-bad is asinine. Try again, sweetheart.

December 26, 2012 at 5:36 p.m.
miraweb said...

Here is the general outlay of the Federal Budget. I've brought in two years FY2003 and FY2010.

Pick your poison:

Budget Area - 2003 vs 2010

National Defense 17% - 19%

Social Security 22% - 19%

Medicare 11% - 12%

Medicaid 7% - 8%

Debt Servicing 9% - 8%

All the Rest 34% - 35%

December 26, 2012 at 5:40 p.m.
rolando said...

Once again, miraweb, any semi-automatic firearm -- long or short -- is, or can easily made into, an assault weapon by your non-defined definition. The only differences between all such semi-auto firearms is appearance...how emotional is *that.

December 26, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rolando,

"any semi-automatic firearm -- long or short -- is, or can easily made into, an assault weapon"

Not ANY semi-automatic firearm.

"The only differences between all such semi-auto firearms is appearance"

There are bigger differences e.g. rate of fire, magazine size, etc. Not all guns are the same. Some semi-automatics and assault weapons are similar but not all of them, as you are trying to suggest.

December 26, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.
rolando said...

miraweb, the only difference between the drivers of 45-ton 20-wheelers and a Smart Car is in licensing and training.

BTW, I chose "motor vehicle" rather than "automobile", "SUV", et al for ease of typing...your example is a good one, although off hand I would say our "big-rigs" in firearms would be tanks, HumVees, etc. That analogy would probably stand up better.

December 26, 2012 at 5:48 p.m.
miraweb said...

The Supreme Court has been very clear that the right to bear arms, like all constitutionally protected rights, is balanced against other rights:

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

( . . . )

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

Justice Antonin Scalia - Majority Opinion - D.C. vs. Heller

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

December 26, 2012 at 5:53 p.m.
rolando said...

So change it to "most* any" easy.

Please expand and give us some examples of hand-held semi-automatic firearms that cannot be made "scary" and therefore "assault weapons".

December 26, 2012 at 5:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rolando,

Any semi-automatic handgun. "Assault" doesn't mean scary.

Your slippery slope argument isn't working.

December 26, 2012 at 6:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"The "Beltway Snipers" held one of the most fortified cities on the face of the Earth in complete terror for months."

And?

"They tied up vast amounts of heavily armed officials and yes they were eventually caught."

Proving my point.

"Then they tied up vast amounts of the judiciary's time."

Irrelevant.

"I wonder what it would be like with thousands of such occurances across the country."

I doubt a "government-gone-bad" would take the humane approach if it decided to turn on it's citizens.

"Just think of all the "Colleral Damage" that could be inflicted on anyone within the blast radius of the drone strike or tank shell."

That's the point. You can't fight a government as big as ours. You're getting good at proving my points.

December 26, 2012 at 6:05 p.m.
miraweb said...

I don't want to be misleading on the percentages of the total budget. It is true that the budget is larger now than it was in 2003. Here is the budget growth at the last 4 elections (taking 2000 as the starting point). This is not corrected for inflation.

2000 $3.2 trillion

2004 $4.1 trillion (+ 32%)

2008 $5.3 trillion (+ 22%)

2012 $6.2 trillion (+ 15%)

December 26, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
rolando said...

Add a 30-round magazine, easy. Add picatinny rails with lights, optics, etc all over it. Looks really scary...

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/116453/glock-magazine-generation-4-glock-17-19-26-34-9mm-luger-33-round-polymer-black?cm_vc=sugv1538434

December 26, 2012 at 6:15 p.m.
miraweb said...

A Tribute to Fearless Americans

Note: There is substantial bad language. At your own risk.

December 26, 2012 at 6:21 p.m.
rolando said...

easy --

So what is the difference between a .223 Ruger mini-14 Ranch model with a conventional wooden stock and a .223 Ruger mini-14 Tactical? Better yet, the difference between a Ruger NATO [aka .223 Rem] Model M-14/5GBCPC [standard stock] and the Ruger 5.56 NATO Model M-14/5GBCPC?

Look 'em up here: http://ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

December 26, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rolando,

"Add a 30-round magazine, easy. Add picatinny rails with lights, optics, etc all over it. Looks really scary..."

So what?

"So what is the difference between a .223 Ruger mini-14 Ranch model with a conventional wooden stock and a .223 Ruger mini-14 Tactical? Better yet, the difference between a Ruger NATO [aka .223 Rem] Model M-14/5GBCPC [standard stock] and the Ruger 5.56 NATO Model M-14/5GBCPC?"

Take your own advice and "look 'em up here": http://ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

Are you going to get to your point or just keep comparing similar guns?

December 26, 2012 at 6:33 p.m.
rolando said...

easy --

Thank you. In essentially always referring to "semi-automatic weapons" as "assault weapons", you have pretty much stated that you are opposed to all semi-automatic weapons -- long guns and handguns -- for cosmetic reasons only; i.e., changing a conventional-appearing firearm into an assault weapon is merely a matter of changing the stock or removing "offensive" but non-essential parts.

Now we are getting into the meat of your[pl] arguments for full confiscation of all semi-automatic firearms...because they look bad.

December 26, 2012 at 6:38 p.m.
rolando said...

easy

The point, which you so transparently choose to ignore, is there IS no difference between the two models, other than cosmetic. So -- which is the "assault rifle"?

So. To you, what is the basic visual difference between an AR-15 and the Ruger Tactical M-14/5GBCPC? If you consider one an assault rifle, it follows that you consider the other as one.

I don't need to look them up...I know what they look like.

December 26, 2012 at 6:44 p.m.
jesse said...

UH tu,not that it matters BUT the beltway sniper used a .223 Bushmaster fitted w/a scope sight,not a single shot bolt action!!

Just sayin ya know!!

December 26, 2012 at 6:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rolando,

"In essentially always referring to "semi-automatic weapons" as "assault weapons"

I haven't done that.

"you have pretty much stated that you are opposed to all semi-automatic weapons -- long guns and handguns -- for cosmetic reasons only"

No, I haven't.

"changing a conventional-appearing firearm into an assault weapon is merely a matter of changing the stock or removing "offensive" but non-essential parts."

Not exclusively.

"Now we are getting into the meat of your[pl] arguments for full confiscation of all semi-automatic firearms...because they look bad."

I'm not in favor of that nor have I implied or hinted at that whatsoever. Would you like to try again?

December 26, 2012 at 6:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rolando,

"The point, which you so transparently choose to ignore, is there IS no difference between the two models, other than cosmetic."

Just because two guns happen to be similar doesn't mean EVERY gun is similar and/or the same.

"So -- which is the "assault rifle"?"

I don't know, nor do I care.

"So. To you, what is the basic visual difference between an AR-15 and the Ruger Tactical M-14/5GBCPC? If you consider one an assault rifle, it follows that you consider the other as one."

Again, I don't know, nor do I care.

I am not going to fall for your pedantic arguments. I am not making any laws. I think law makers should look at each gun or classification of guns and make an informed decision. There are things about the previous assault weapons ban that I like and others that I didn't. But there should be an assault weapons ban of some kind. Your argument that some guns are similar does not make your case against an assault weapons ban. Some guns are similar. Some are considered assault weapons and others aren't. That isn't an argument against an assault weapons ban no matter how much you think it is.

December 26, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.
jesse said...

Easy, the rate of fire is the same on all semi automatics!

"Just as fast as you can pull the trigger!!"

You got a FAST FINGER ? you got a fast shooting weapon!

The weapon will cycle faster than you can work the trigger!

December 26, 2012 at 7:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"Because you didn’t mention “ASSAULT WEAPONS” when you made all of these claims."

I guess you're oblivious to the fact that the whole debate is over assault weapons. Do I need to spell everything out for you? Are you stupid or just oblivious? Maybe both? LMFAO!

"BTW ... WHY DO YOU THINK THAT YELLING AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS MAKES YOU SILLY ARGUMENTS ANYMORE VALID?"

Maybe the BIG letters will get your attention. It isn't yelling. It's called capitalization.

Also, the arguments happen to be very valid. Your's, on the other hand, not so much. It's not my fault you're a pedantic twat.

December 26, 2012 at 7:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse.

"Easy, the rate of fire is the same on all semi automatics!"

No, it isn't. Some have a three round burst. Some don't. Try again.

December 26, 2012 at 7:08 p.m.
jesse said...

That's for a FULLY automatic weapon easy!

A semi auto requires a trigger pull for each shot!No way to get a 3 rnd.burst from a single trigger pull!

December 26, 2012 at 7:27 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Semi automatic weapons DO NOT have three round bursts. A semi automatic needs the trigger pulled as Jesse says each time the weapon is fired or else it is not a semi automatic. The M4, AR-15 types have a cyclic rate of fire at about 800 rounds per minute.

To say "no one" is advocating a gun ban, check out what Gov Cuomo has been saying lately. He has been mentioned as a possible candidate for POTUS.

December 26, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"That's for a FULLY automatic weapon easy!"

No, it isn't. It's an intermediate level between the two.

December 26, 2012 at 7:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"Wrong on several levels … You Loon!!"

No. Every semi-automatic fire arm does not meet those requirements and some are not capable of having those attachments.

December 26, 2012 at 7:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

MORON!

"Select-Fire and Fully Automatic weapons are not classified as Semi-Automatic."

An AR-15 is the semi-automatic version of the M16. They are essentially the same gun. The M16 just has a 3-round burst and a fully automatic setting. Both can be legally obtained in some places. The 3-round burst function IS NOT the same as fully automatic.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/fully-auto_vs_semi-auto_the_di.php

"You always sh!t your own bed ... don't you ??"

That's your sh!t, not mine, sweetie.

December 26, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.
jesse said...

If it fires a 3 round BURST it's firing fully automatic and the A.T.F . will BUST your ass for owning one!

I'm not gonna list my bona fides on here other than to say i wrote the training manual and set up the course of fire for the c.p.d. here for the Thompson .45 sub. and the Swedish k 9mm sub!I do know what i,m' talking about !(4 years as a "firearms instructor!)

BTW: the ar15 is the civilian version of the military M16 IF your ar15 will fire a 3 round burst you are going to JAIL if you get caught with it!PERIOT!

December 26, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"If it fires a 3 round BURST it's firing fully automatic"

Wrong. It's not the same as fully automatic.

"and the A.T.F . will BUST your ass for owning one!"

Wrong again.

"do know what i,m' talking about !"

Obviously not.

December 26, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"If you knew the weapon that would give you a three round burst was a level between Semi and Full Automatic then why did you answer Jesse this way."

Because it isn't fully automatic.

"It couldn't be that you were B.S.ing your way through that detail until he corrected you and you tried to disingenuously spin it ... could it ??"

Not at all. But keep trying. :-)

"LMFaO !!"

I AM!!!

December 26, 2012 at 7:53 p.m.
jesse said...

Easy ,my last on this i promise!

IF your weapon fires a 3 round burst from a SINGLE trigger pull then it fired those 3 rounds fully automatic!A weapon that will do that is illegal for you to own! go to jail and do not collect $200.00

December 26, 2012 at 7:59 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"A weapon that will do that is illegal for you to own! go to jail and do not collect $200.00"

You're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National...

December 26, 2012 at 8:04 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"I didn't say that it was ... Idiot !!"

Jesse did, MORON.

"Can't you read you mental cripple."

Can't you? You're the one arguing in favor of his position.

"I gave three classifications ... Semi ... Select Fire ... Full Automatic"

Jesse didn't. And I made it clear that burst fire is not the same as fully automatic.

Would you like to try one more time?

December 26, 2012 at 8:09 p.m.
patriot1 said...

A three round burst with a single pull is considered a fully automatic weapon by BATF. It requires a Class 3 license and you can't get that in one day. Jesse is correct, without the proper license you could land in jail and/or have the weapon confiscated.

December 26, 2012 at 8:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"A three round burst with a single pull is considered a fully automatic weapon by BATF."

True. But fully automatic and burst are not the same in function. That is what I'm referring to.

"It requires a Class 3 license and you can't get that in one day."

Still legal and not that hard to obtain if your record is clean.

"Jesse is correct, without the proper license you could land in jail and/or have the weapon confiscated."

Jesse didn't say "without the proper license you could land in jail and/or have the weapon confiscated", he said it was illegal. Jesse IS NOT correct.

December 26, 2012 at 8:13 p.m.
jesse said...

Now you are wrong Tu!

an M16 has a selector switch on the left side of the receiver, it had (when i carried one in Nam) two positions "auto " and "semi"!

Thas all, newer versions may have a 3rd position to fire a 3 round automatic BURST, all that does is cut off the automatic fire at 3 rounds so you don't empty the clip in a panic!BUT that 3 round burst is 3 rounds at automatic fire!

Patriot,i was havin enough hassle w/easy w/o gittin into permits and lic. and highdolla fees and such!

December 26, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"BUT that 3 round burst is 3 rounds at automatic fire!"

It still isn't fully automatic.

December 26, 2012 at 8:16 p.m.
jesse said...

Easy ,i knew you were an arshole now i know you are either stupid or hardheaded,prob.the former!

HaHA i just checked out your link easy and it states in NO uncertain terms "Burst fire is considered to be a feature of MACHINE GUNS!"IE: a fully automatic weapon!!You need to get over yourself first chance you get!!LMFAO!!!!!

December 26, 2012 at 8:20 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Not sure just how difficult it would be to get a Class 3, but don't think you can own a fully automatic weapon just because you want to......maybe have to become a dealer or such? not sure

December 26, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.
jesse said...

You have to have a ffl and post a bond!back when i was into all of this the bond was $5,000.00 and the lic . was pretty steep to.I never bothered to get a F.F.L. because we had a Sgt. on the pistol team that had one so we got all our stuff thru him!

A lot more hassle now than then i would think!I haven't owned a firearm in 30 years and don't intend to!

December 26, 2012 at 8:52 p.m.
Rebus said...

3 round bursts are products of a fully automatic weapon. (with selector) 1 squeeze, 3 shots. Not rocket surgery.

December 26, 2012 at 8:58 p.m.
jesse said...

Try tellin EASY that!!

December 26, 2012 at 9:02 p.m.
dude_abides said...

If only Jack_Dennis were here... he would know about these things, but he's apparently in jail for child molestation or some other disgusting offense. That's about all we're left to assume. Oh, well.

December 26, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.
Sailorman said...

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/assault_weapons.pdf

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, “assault weapon” means: (1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the other following specified semiautomatic firearms:

Parts 1 & 2 deal with what are normally referred to as "assault rifles" except that they specically included some semi-auto arms by name

Part 3 defines the cosmetic or specific mechanical features that make them scary

An "assault weapon" is whatever the bill says it is. I.e. a "politically correct" definition

For a clear, concise discussion, even including the differences between a clip and a magazine (with pictures) Go here - truth is often found in the strangest places

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112659/-Firearms-101-the-Assault-Rifle-Capabilities-and-the-Militia-Concept

December 26, 2012 at 10:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse, "Easy ,i knew you were an arshole now i know you are either stupid or hardheaded,prob.the former!"

I knew you were a moron but burst fire and fully automatic fire ARE not the same.

""Burst fire is considered to be a feature of MACHINE GUNS!"IE: a fully automatic weapon!!You need to get over yourself first chance you get!!LMFAO!!!!!"

"A feature". I have already stated that the two are entirely separate functions yet you continue to argue that they aren't. I'm still trying to get over your ignorance. LMFAO!

December 27, 2012 at 3:11 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rebus,

"3 round bursts are products of a fully automatic weapon."

Yet the 3 round burst function isn't the fully automatic function. Apparently, that is difficult for you to grasp.

December 27, 2012 at 3:12 a.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"Try tellin EASY that!!"

One more time for you, sweetie: 3-round burst IS NOT the same as fully automatic.

I repeat:3-round burst IS NOT the same as fully automatic.

Try telling yourself that. Then you might understand.

December 27, 2012 at 3:14 a.m.
alprova said...

In automatic firearms, burst mode or burst fire is a firing mode enabling the shooter to fire a predetermined number of rounds, usually 2 or 3 rounds on hand held weapons and 100+ on anti-aircraft weapons, with a single pull of the trigger.

This firing mode is commonly used in submachine guns, assault rifles and carbines. Other types of firearms, such as machine pistols (e.g., the Beretta 93R) may also have a burst mode.

The burst mode is normally employed as an intermediate fire mode between semi-automatic and fully automatic, although some firearms lack a "full auto" capability and use a burst mode instead.

For instance, the M16A2 (the standard-issue service rifle of the U.S. military) has, in addition to the semi-automatic mode, a 3-round burst mode, which replaced the fully automatic mode of the previous M16A1. The reason for this replacement was the massive waste of ammunition and very poor performance of soldiers who fired their rifles in fully automatic mode during the Vietnam War.

The number of rounds fired in a burst is almost universally determined by a cam mechanism that trips the trigger mechanism for each shot in the burst. Some designs, as employed on the M16A2, will terminate the burst if the trigger is released before the burst is complete, while others will reset the cam position, so the next burst will fire a full number of rounds.

So...boys and girls, the fact of the matter is that burst fire can be included on some fully automatic weapons, but it is not a feature that is included on all fully automatic weapons. Further, it is a feature found on some semi-automatics as well.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_(weapon)

December 27, 2012 at 7:33 a.m.
jesse said...

All i can tell you is go up to the "AMMO DUMP" on 58 hi way and ask Hal Shaw to sell you a weapon the will fire 3 round bursts and see what he tells ya!!

Or better yet call the local office of the B.A.T.F, they can get you up to speed on this in short order!!

December 27, 2012 at 8:33 a.m.
rolando said...

So, easy, how do you defines an "assault rifle"? According to that law cited above, in the case of the two Rugers I cited, one of the mechanically identical rifles is an assault weapon, the other isn't. The ONLY difference is the stock.

So what say you? If you're gonna give another waffling, sakte-around-the-issue, BS answer, don't bother...in which case we will know you have no answer.

I'll remind you of this question on The Bennett's next toon.

December 27, 2012 at 2:45 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.