published Sunday, December 30th, 2012

Barriers to sensible gun laws

  • photo
    Illustration of of a handgun painted to look like an American flag.

The task force established by President Barack Obama to recommend ways to reduce gun violence and sales of assault rifles has a lot of ground to cover.

It must prescribe ways to restrict sales of guns to criminals and the mentally ill, who now can dip into the vast stockpile of unregulated purchases. And to do that, it must improve the reach, quality and timeliness of the data that underlies background checks.

These goals are achievable, but only on two conditions: First, states must be persuaded, or coerced by Congress, to cooperate with the federal government efforts to sensibly control gun sales. Secondly, Congress must also must unshackle the federal agency responsible for policing illegal gun sales — the Bureau of Alcohol, Tax, Firearms and Explosives — and expand its budget and manpower. To meet these challenges, it must confront the gun lobbying industry head-on.

Recent reports by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns and The New York Times, among others, reveal the enormity of these challenges, and especially the willful political hobbling of agencies charged with enforcing reasonable gun-control laws already on the books.

Though the government began requiring background checks for gun buyers nearly two decades ago, large and growing gaps remain in the FBI's database of criminal and mental health records. These gaps annually allow thousands of people with criminal or mental health illness to buy guns.

Why? States are not required to participate in the federal background check system or to share criminal and mental health records with the FBI and ATF. That is voluntary under a 1997 Supreme Court ruling. Hence the background check database is a patchwork system at best.

Many states routinely ignore submittal of mental health records to the FBI database. The bulk of the mental health records on file come from just 15 states; most of the others — including Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama — submit few, if any, such records. A Government Accountability Office report in July documents that. It found that 30 states were not providing noncriminal records to the FBI, nor were many states providing criminal records in a timely and comprehensive way.

To make matters worse, the FBI is also required to act within three days of a request for a background check for a pending gun purchase. If it fails to do so, gun store owners are allowed to proceed with a sale. That provision annually allows thousands of criminals, felons, fugitives and mentally ill people to purchase a gun in a gun shop that attempts to comply with the background requirement.

Such gaps can be devastating. Prior to the mass murder at Virginia Tech in 2007, a Virginia state judge had declared Seung-Hui Cho mentally ill. But since his record had not been forwarded to the FBI, he was allowed to purchase the rapid-fire weapons that he used to shoot and kill 32 fellow students and wound 17 others. Virginia subsequently became the leader among states that submit mental health records, turning in a 2,254 records per 100,000 population.

Most other states failed to follow suit. Tennessee has submitted just 82 per 100,000 population, according to a survey of all 50 states by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns association. Fourteen states have submitted fewer than one mental health record per 100,000 population, a mere blimp on the chart, compared with the 15 states that account for the bulk of such records.

Though the FBI estimates that it is able to complete an estimated 90 percent of background checks within three days, its records show that 22,162 guns were purchased under the three-day rule that would not have been allowed if the background check had been completed. But it is unable to determine how many of those guns were used in crimes, because Congress, pressured by the gun lobby, barred tracking of that useful information.

The biggest loophole is the lack of any requirement in most states for a background check of gun purchases from private owners, including many such purchases at public gun shows. This gross loophole accounts for an estimated 40 percent of all the nation's gun purchases.

Following the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, Congress allowed the federal government to provide grants to states to improve relevant reporting on background checks. The National Rifle Association, however, got Congress to dilute that effort by limiting the grants only to those states that established an easy way for people to petition their state government to restore their right to purchase a gun. Not many have managed to cross that barrier, so the grants have done little to improve record sharing.

The legislative hobbles on the ATF are equally pervasive. NRA-subservient senators have refused to confirm a new director for the agency for six years. A New York Times report found that congressional legislation constricting the ATF and successfully pushed by the NRA: prevents the bureau from performing more than one unannounced inspection per year of licensed gun dealers; reduces the falsification of records by licensed dealers to a misdemeanor; fuzzes up the legal language of allowable gun-trade business without a dealer's license; limits the bureau's ability to share gun sales records with local and state law enforcement agencies; prohibits sharing of anything but aggregate data to the public; prohibits the bureau's use of tracing data in some cases involving gun dealers' licenses; and requires information on background checks to be destroyed within 24 hours of use.

Such onerous barriers severely undermine comprehensive efforts to contain illegal gun trading and record sharing at all levels. That serves the NRA and the profits of its brethren gun manufacturers, which have made the United States the world's largest gun market, and home to half of the world's individual sales of firearms. But these industry-favored restrictions needlessly kill thousands of Americans every year.

40
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.
Pass_it_on said...

Bravo! A rational, coherent and practical discussion that can bring both extremes together to solve this horrific issue!

Kudos also to Joan Garrett's very well written and researched article. Lets try to be part of a solution, instead of exacerbating the problem.

Thank you ,

December 30, 2012 at 7:22 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Adam Lanza's mother chose to protect herself with an arsenal of legal weapons and ammunition that she kept in a secure place. She was a responsble gun owner. Because the law of unintended consequences so often prevails, she and many others is dead today.

Far more friends and family are killed by legal weapons purchased to defend, than successful defenses by legal weapons. That uncomfortable fact alone argues that gun ownership puts your loved one more at risk than by not owning a gun.

As paradoxical as it may seem, a family without a gun is statistically safer than a family that has guns.

Unfortunately we cannot legislate that wisdom into our collective psyche. We want our guns and only a new awareness from within is likely to change that.

December 30, 2012 at 8:18 a.m.
jesse said...

All this is strategic thinking that will have no effect for years!

What is needed is tactical ideas that will have immediate results.like armed security in the schools next week!!

December 30, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
joneses said...

NBC news reported that four handguns were found in the school and the rifle was in the car. Since then the Main Stream Liberal Media is staying silent on what exactly was involved with the weapons or re-worked the story trying to contradict the report. It's a naked purge of your rights. It's about people control, not guns. Obama and the dummycraps will use this to continue their decimation of our rights.

December 30, 2012 at 3:47 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Tell us more joneses, sounds like you have discovered a dastardly conspiracy. Those liberal devils! We won't let them get away with it this time,eh?

December 30, 2012 at 6:01 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

'Barriers to sensible gun laws' (There is a way to get sensible).

Jesus Christ>>>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life..."

Jesus Christ proclaimed that He Is Creator God of The Universe (All existence)! He proclaimed that since He Is God, then, He Is the only Way to come to God, or, to know God.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press readers are 'here & Now' individuals who know the value of being currently informed about the events of their world! This is intelligence/wisdom.

"New Year's Eve". I wish all a Happy and Prosperous New Year in The Lord Jesus Christ. In 2012 43 Million humans had to leave their homes due to conflict and violence. There were 73 Million Forced Migrants (46% Children, 49% Women). Natural and Technological Disasters displaced 15 Million humans in 2012. And on, and on. 2011 was the worst year for natural disasters and now 2012 may top that. Suffering Humanity.

Now, please 'hear' this. Do we want Jesus Christ to be our Saviour, or, our Judge only, who meets out deserved chastisement/discipline? Multiplied times we see one tiny Christian village blessed when there is poverty, warfare, and, disasters all around them. Chattanooga has been comparatively blessed due to a host of praying Christians (And a Newspaper that is not afraid to post regular Bible Scripture). Please know that the Holy Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." Those who know virtually nothing, except that they don't want to live by Christian morality, would have us go the way of the old Soviet Union! So, for my New Year's Eve proclamation, I give to many a resounding 'Thank You' for Your Christian prayers and witness. Our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ is allowing Chattanooga, Tennessee to prosper because of You.

You are few in number, but, Christ Jesus said, "Straight is the gate, and, narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and, few there be which find it." Finally we are beginning to plainly see the 'Sheep' separated from the 'Goats'. And, by this, we are understanding more completely what Jesus said, "...few there be which find it."

Ken ORR

December 31, 2012 at 9:05 a.m.
timbo said...

Nucanuck......your smug answer was right. It is a conspiracy to eliminate weapons in private hands. Some of your left wing buddies have admitted it. Why don't you be honest enough to do the same.

December 31, 2012 at 9:09 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Timbo,

You're a liar. Be honest enough to admit it.

December 31, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
braggon said...

So your answer to gun violence is to give more power and free reign to the Government agency that willfully and illegally mandated gun stores to sell firearms to straw buyers to bring to Mexico.

Get a real job will ya.

December 31, 2012 at 1:36 p.m.
Sailorman said...

This article is as full of holes as my granny's colander. Loaded with hyperbole, scare words, and flawed statistics quoted from sources Like Mayors Against Guns; it's all the NRA's fault, assault rifles, criminals can buy guns from any FFL and on and on. Such a pathetic collection of tripe would be laughable if not so transparent. "Recent studies"? Like the debunked and biased 1997 study done by Bloomburg which generated the 40% statistic quoted? Who actually wrote this - one of Bloomie's minions?

Does something need to be done about access to weapons OF ANY KIND by the mentally ill? Absolutely. Do we as a nation need to address the whole violence issue? Absolutely. Articles like this do nothing to further the discussion. I would suggest they, in fact, have the opposite effect by shifting the focus from a real issue, mental health and the consequences, to the emotional, agenda driven arguments and counter-arguments that always surround the firearm issue.

Who will define "mentally ill" for purposes of this? Are you doomed if you ever talk to mental health professional? About what? If you seek treatment for claustrophobia, does it count? DHS already says military veterans are potential terrorists. How far do you want to go? What about privacy laws (HIPAA)?

There are many questions that need to be asked and answered. Screeching about "assault rifles" isn't going to get it done.

December 31, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Excellent post, Sailorman. Happy New Year to all!

December 31, 2012 at 6:36 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The barriers to firearm ownership we should be challenging are the National Firearms Act and other legislation that infringes upon our right to keep and bear arms. We need a concerted effort to eliminate laws that make it difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to ownership of firearms.

People who support restrictions on firearm ownership are short sighted and do not understand the importance of the rights recognised in our Constitution.

December 31, 2012 at 8:27 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Here is a perspective from a country that allowed itself to be disarmed in the past...

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

History always repeats itself.

December 31, 2012 at 9:06 p.m.
conservative said...

In case you don't know by now that Liberals are flaming hypocrites.

These Liberal spokesmen's words and then their actions:

January 1, 2013 at 8:53 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Spend more money on mental health that is the real problem. We should not relinquish any gun rights.

Stricter guns laws would not have prevented the act of murder by a mentally ill person. Let's face it, anyone that kills their parent or children has something amiss in brain chemistry, and anything that is illegal to possess can be purchased illegally. The government is horrible at regulating, as it is.

Our country's citizen gun possession is also a protection mechanism. Keep your guns at all costs is my opinion. Rendering yourself completely vulnerable is a terrible idea. I want no gun controls except carry permits.

January 1, 2013 at 2:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049.

"anything that is illegal to possess can be purchased illegally."

So you're against laws, correct?

"The government is horrible at regulating, as it is."

So, since the government is horrible at regulating, laws are useless, correct?

"Our country's citizen gun possession is also a protection mechanism."

A protection mechanism of the mind only.

"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

January 1, 2013 at 9:47 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123, a basic study of WWII indicates that rendering citizen populations vulnerable, without weapons is a bad idea. Armed citizens were a great asset in slowing Hitler down. The benefits of being armed citizens far out weigh the risk.

Further, most gun crimes are caused by factors that legislation will not impact at all.

I am not against reasonable regulation, but oppose over regulation that infringes on the fundamental basis of my right to bear arms.

Your right to oppose me having a gun, STOPS, where my right to protect myself begins.

January 1, 2013 at 9:59 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"a basic study of WWII indicates that rendering citizen populations vulnerable, without weapons is a bad idea."

No, it doesn't. The populace of a country is vulnerable either way. Our government has tanks, drones, missiles, an army, etc. We are vulnerable to our government if it were to "go bad" whether we all had guns or not.

"Armed citizens were a great asset in slowing Hitler down."

No, they weren't. Armies were great assets in slowing Hitler down. However, this isn't Nazi Germany or Europe during the 1930's.

"The benefits of being armed citizens far out weigh the risk."

Based on what evidence other than your own opinion?

"Further, most gun crimes are caused by factors that legislation will not impact at all."

This is false and based on zero evidence. You debunked your own argument in your previous post.

"and anything that is illegal to possess can be purchased illegally. The government is horrible at regulating, as it is."

Therefore, if the government was better at regulation, then legislation WOULD impact gun crimes.

"I am not against reasonable regulation, but oppose over regulation that infringes on the fundamental basis of my right to bear arms to protect myself."

You just made an argument against laws. Not gun laws, but EVERY law. I assume you like laws. Why should gun laws be treated differently? Speeding laws aren't regulated fully. Should we get rid of those?

"Your right to oppose me having a gun, STOP, where my right to protect myself begins."

No one is opposing you having a gun. NO ONE! That's what Conservatives don't understand. You're fighting a strawman. I'm simply pointing out how illogical and unreasonable your argument is. However, you're wrong. You don't have a "right to protect" yourself. You have a right to bear arms. Your legal "right" to protect yourself is only realized if someone physically threatens you.

January 1, 2013 at 10:09 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123,

You state, "You don't have a "right to protect" yourself. You have a right to bear arms."

Your comment is absolutely absurd, bearing arms is a personal protection mechanism, anyway you dice it.

A federal committee has been formed with a mission to strengthen gun regulation, "strawman" indeed. Pres. Obama admits that is an objective, last night in a speech.

January 2, 2013 at 6:28 a.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"Your comment is absolutely absurd, bearing arms is a personal protection mechanism, anyway you dice it."

Your logic is asinine. You have just proven my point. The right to bear arms IS NOT a "right" to protect yourself. The two are not the same. Believing so is ignorant. The amount of imprecision in your posts is off-putting.

"A federal committee has been formed with a mission to strengthen gun regulation,"

Again, no one is opposing you or anyone having a gun. You can keep your gun. Certain guns, however, would and certainly should be more strictly regulated.

"strawman" indeed.

I've already stated that and you have done nothing to prove otherwise.

"Pres. Obama admits that is an objective, last night in a speech."

A gun ban has never and will never be the objective. You are being dishonest by saying so.

January 2, 2013 at 6:43 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123,

If I understand your misguided logic, you believe that the "right to bear arms," has no connection to a protection mechanism.

Funny.

I don't support any additional gun regulations, carry permit only. Too much encroachment, over regulation, by gov.

Knee jerk reaction by Obama to establish gun regulation committee, due to action of mental health patient in not needed.

It is just that simple.

January 2, 2013 at 10 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

aae1049 said... "Knee jerk reaction by Obama to establish gun regulation committee..."

It is more likely that Obama and the rest of the gun control crowd was laying low on gun control up until now and is using the Newtown incident as an excuse to try to implement restrictions they have been eager to implement for a very long time. They are using the wave of emotion resulting from Newtown in the hope they can overcome reason and logic.

That is not a knee jerk reaction, it is cold, calculated politics.

January 2, 2013 at 11:33 a.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"If I understand your misguided logic, you believe that the "right to bear arms," has no connection to a protection mechanism."

Wrong again. I said the right to bear arms is not a "right to protect" yourself. I've said that numerous times and you still can't grasp it. The two are not the same.

"Funny."

I tend to giggle when I take in just how illogical you truly are.

"I don't support any additional gun regulations, carry permit only. Too much encroachment, over regulation, by gov."

Wouldn't every law be considered "too much encroachment" using your logic?

"Knee jerk reaction by Obama to establish gun regulation committee,"

It would be "knee-jerk" if this was the first time this has happened. Obviously, it wasn't. Sandy Hook was around the 5th or 6th such massacre since Obama first took office.

"due to action of mental health patient in not needed."

He's only a mental patient after the fact. Lanza should have received better care and been more closely monitored but there are plenty of children and adults that live full lives with many of the mental, physical, and social problems as Adam Lanza and never hurt a fly.

"It is just that simple."

Far from it.

January 2, 2013 at 12:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

Or maybe the current administration just got tired of seeing all these massacres happen and finally took the initiative to do something about it. You're the one that wants to make it about politics. What does Obama or anyone that supports more gun regulations get out of this? They certainly aren't getting tons of support and lobbying from groups like the NRA.

What the GOP has done is "cold, calculated politics". Finally, someone with a conscience and reason has come into the position of POTUS. The only illogical/unreasonable people in this debate are on your side. Your ilk can't even talk about this issue.

January 2, 2013 at 12:25 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Easy123 said... "What does Obama or anyone that supports more gun regulations get out of this? "

The gun control they have wanted for a very long time, obviously. The recent incidents are just an opportunity for them.

There are reasons that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically recognised in the Constitution. Those reasons are vastly more important than more emotionally motivated feel good gun legislation.

If laws were the answer to our problems we would be out of problems by now. The federal government is turning out 200 pages of new laws and regulations every working day. Most of them are useless bureaucratic garbage.

January 2, 2013 at 12:35 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Gun crimes will not be reduced by more legislation. We will still have mentally ill people and criminals that will by guns, which will be as available to them. Instead, we need a committee to deal with mental health issues.

Reasonable.

January 2, 2013 at 12:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

"The gun control they have wanted for a very long time, obviously."

The Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004. I didn't hear of any more gun control during that time. Is 8 years "a very long time".

"The recent incidents are just an opportunity for them."

There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban over the 8 years it's been expired.

"There are reasons that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically recognised in the Constitution."

No one is trying to deny anyone that right.

"Those reasons are vastly more important than more emotionally motivated feel good gun legislation."

Since you have provided none of those reasons, I deny your claim.

"If laws were the answer to our problems we would be out of problems by now."

Laws are not the only answer to the problem. That is just one answer to the mounting problems this country has with guns.

"Most of them are useless bureaucratic garbage."

Have you read them all? Stop talking out of your ass.

January 2, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"Gun crimes will not be reduced by more legislation."

You could not possibly know this for a fact. More regulation works to lessen gun crimes in other countries.

"We will still have mentally ill people and criminals that will by guns, which will be as available to them."

That should be part of the legislation.

"Instead, we need a committee to deal with mental health issues."

Why can't we do both? Why are you substituting one thing for another? Do you really feel that legislating mental illness will solve all our problems? Why can't we consider every option?

"Reasonable."

Not at all. You and your ilk are incapable of even discussing gun control. You wouldn't even consider it. You dismiss it like a fool. We should be open to every potential answer when it comes to gun crimes.

January 2, 2013 at 12:59 p.m.
timbo said...

I haveI said this before in this forum that gun violence is a cultural phenomenon. According to FBI statistics the rate for homicides per 100,000 people for whites is 2.0. That is comparable with some of the European countries and Canada for total murder rate. For blacks the rate is 14.0 murders per 100,000. Seven times the white murder rate. This is something you liberals don't like to talk about. Ironically, these people are not killing white people, they're killing black people.

Instead of taking guns away from people who aren't a problem you should concentrate on where the problem lies. That is obviously in the minority community. If there is a gun culture it is in that community.

Now you liberals, go ahead and make the same excuses for blacks you always do. It is this, it is that, blah blah blah blah. Liberals don't think anybody should take responsibility for their actions, except conservatives of course.

January 2, 2013 at 1:02 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123 Accommodating your distaste for gun violence associated with crime, by relinquishing any of my gun rights is not a viable option for any reasonable people.

Why should I render myself vulnerable, because you oppose guns. So you don't own guns, and I will? There, problem solved.

January 2, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Here you go Easy, take this argument, line by line, and come up with an irrational argument against every point made. We all know that you think you are smarter than the founding fathers and that you think that your emotionally driven mind generates thoughts that are worth sharing with anyone that will listen.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/01/02/why-the-2nd-amendment-n1476632/page/full/

Enjoy!

January 2, 2013 at 2:20 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

A thought for the evening...

What is more likely to result in a violent teenager, a firearm in a home or a broken family?

Google those stats and try to use them to make the case that the most effective thing to do in the wake of Newtown is to regulate guns.

January 2, 2013 at 8:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"Accommodating your distaste for gun violence associated with crime, by relinquishing any of my gun rights is not a viable option for any reasonable people."

Again, no one is asking you to relinquish any of your gun rights.

"Why should I render myself vulnerable, because you oppose guns."

I don't oppose guns. You're arguing with your strawman. However, you're vulnerable with or without a gun.

"So you don't own guns, and I will? There, problem solved."

Far from it.

January 3, 2013 at 12:26 a.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

"take this argument, line by line, and come up with an irrational argument against every point made."

Why would I do that? I could come up with a rational argument but it wouldn't matter. I've already voiced my opinion. You'll just keep arguing with the strawman you've built.

"We all know that you think you are smarter than the founding fathers"

You'd be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time though.

"and that you think that your emotionally driven mind generates thoughts that are worth sharing with anyone that will listen."

Nothing I've said is driven by emotion. Everything I say is, however, driven by logic. You're the one reciting the emotional arguments. I'm the only one being reasonable. You won't even consider anything but your own side of the debate. That's irrational. You continue to skirt the blame from mental illness to school security to media to video games to whatever else you can think up. You won't even consider guns as even part of the problem.

January 3, 2013 at 12:30 a.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

Don't you have a Klan meeting to go to?

January 3, 2013 at 12:32 a.m.
timbo said...

slrEasy123.....I knew it....don't even address the UNDENIABLE statistics , you predictably played the race card. I said it was a CULURAL phenomenon. You are a racist for ignoring the data.

You are a sick individual who get's worse with every post. You are a serial socialist who doesn't give a damn about facts, the Constitution , Bill of rights, or fiscal responsibility. You are not a liar because you actually believe this venom you spit out. You are a typical lemotioal liberal who is full of crap.

January 3, 2013 at 8:29 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Queen timbo,

"I knew it....don't even address the UNDENIABLE statistics"

I don't have to. The statistics you provided are irrelevant. I'm sure they're probably incorrect as well but I don't care to check them.

"you predictably played the race card."

No, YOU played the race card. This isn't the first time either.

"I said it was a CULURAL phenomenon."

Murder isn't a "culural" (sic) phenomenon. Every race commits murder. Every race uses guns. We are all Americans. Separating things into race is how segregation started.

"You are a racist for ignoring the data."

You're an idiot for typing illogical, ignorant sentences.

"You are a sick individual who get's worse with every post."

You're a moron that thinks "gets" needs an apostrophe.

"You are a serial socialist who doesn't give a damn about facts,"

False and false. Keep ranting, Wingnutter.

"the Constitution , Bill of rights, or fiscal responsibility."

False, false, and false. It must feel good for you to talk out of your ass. You'd rather argue with the strawmen you build than have a real debate with real human beings.

"You are not a liar because you actually believe this venom you spit out."

You're correct, I'm not a liar. Thanks for pointing that out. However, the only one that is "spitting venom" is you. This little rant serves as proof. You're a whiner.

"You are a typical lemotioal liberal who is full of crap."*

You're a typical, "lemotional" (sic) WingNut that can't spell or form a cogent argument/sentence without making yourself look even more ignorant than you already come off. No one is more full of sh#t than you and people that think like you. You would rather rant and spew illogical ignorance than even consider being reasonable.

Would you like to keep arguing with your strawman? Or are you going to be a big boy and actually characterize me accurately when you speak to me? Which will it be, moron?

January 3, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123,

You refer to posters here as "wingnuts." Does that make you a socialist leftnut?

January 4, 2013 at 6:50 p.m.
aae1049 said...
January 4, 2013 at 8:17 p.m.
mhbraganza said...

Using your arms against the agents of government (i.e. law enforcement and the military) will only result in your immediate death and save them the trouble and expense of your imprisonment and trial.

January 13, 2013 at 6:23 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.