published Sunday, April 7th, 2013

Bad News

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 ...

198
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.
Salsa said...

That's what happens when you follow VP Joe Biden's advice and fire a shotgun through your door.

April 7, 2013 at 12:56 a.m.
Pass_it_on said...

How about focusing on the root cause? You know the one about the appalling lack of mental health resources that is a crucible for generating mass shootings. Every incident with the exception of Gabby Gifford was in a gun free zone. Every incident was committed by mentally ill people.

April 7, 2013 at 1:37 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

The white coats are from medical people at abortuaries, which murder babies 50 times as numerous as bigger people murdered in the US, and the suit is from our C-in-c whose pay grade is too low to hinder this, even though black babies get murdered at twice the rate of whites. Repent.

Gun-free zones, AKA target-rich environments.

Miranda of "Miranda warnings" fame got killed in a fight over a card game. The police came and read everybody their Miranda warnings. Nobody was charged. God is not mocked.

April 7, 2013 at 3:56 a.m.
Cactus said...

Most of the gun violence was gang related in the 1920's. Most gangs were financed by the sale of alcohol. Ending the prohibition of alcohol put most gangs out of business. Why are we repeating the mistakes of the past by continuing this stupid war on drugs? Doing the same thing and expecting different results is insane. Drugs would be better controlled if made legal using the same laws that govern alcohol.

April 7, 2013 at 6:22 a.m.
conservative said...

I think Mr. Bennett is out of his rotation. This is his second silliness on guns cartoon without a push for sexual perversion in between.

I had expected a guns in a parking lot shootout cartoon by now.

April 7, 2013 at 6:31 a.m.
Cactus said...

Gangs don't buy their guns at gun stores and gun shows. Any law that's passed will not deter gangs from obtaining guns. Gangs steal guns and stealing is already unlawful. The only thing that will significantly reduce gun violence is by ending the insane war on drugs.

April 7, 2013 at 7:16 a.m.
tifosi said...

Gangs steal guns from law abiding gun owners that do not properly secure their weapons. That was also the cause of Sandy Hook. If Ms. Lanz had secured her firearms properly - we would not be having this discussion. LOCK UP THE DAMN GUNS!!!

April 7, 2013 at 7:50 a.m.
Cactus said...

The more brazen gangs steal guns and ammunition from gun stores. First, they steal a pickup truck. Then they ram the truck through the front door. Next, they load the bed of the truck with guns and ammunition. Now, they deliver their haul to their hideout and discard the truck. This is a more efficient method than breaking in someone's home and stealing a single weapon. Small time crooks steal from homes.

April 7, 2013 at 8:40 a.m.
delmar said...

"Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns – and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?" - Robert Reich

http://prospect.org/article/why-politicians-arent-sensitive-public-opinion-economy

April 7, 2013 at 8:54 a.m.
tifosi said...

The majority of guns that get into gang hands occur from sales at gun stores and "straw" sales through Federal Firearm Licensed dealers. Too bad the NRA refuses to stop this. LaPeirre and the NRA do have blood on their hands.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

April 7, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.
moon4kat said...

The NRA says guns don't kill people, people kill people. So, its "solution" is to sell more guns and ammo while encouraging us to scrutinize, and report on, the mental health of all gun owners. Okay by me, but I wonder how many gun owners could pass a mental health exam. The NRA's "solution" sounds like a worse invasion into individual rights than banning the sale and transfer of assault weapons and mega ammo clips.

April 7, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.
rick1 said...

tifosi, said The majority of guns that get into gang hands occur from sales at gun stores and "straw" sales through Federal Firearm Licensed dealers. Too bad the NRA refuses to stop this.

How do you feel about Fast and Furious where our government allowed firearms to be sold through strawman purchases to Mexican drug cartels that ended up with hundreds injured and killed including a U.S. Border Patrol Agent?

April 7, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
limric said...

Tifosoi,

The tenor of your 7:50 post indicates blame for gang/gun violence lies squarely with law abiding gun owners 'irresponsibility' while negating the criminal or psychotic elements.
I not trying to intentionally broad brush your opinion, but in the context of your statement; I don't buy it.

April 7, 2013 at 9:16 a.m.
dude_abides said...

AndrewLohr said... "The white coats are from medical people at abortuaries..."

Andrew, those are clear sleeves which are put over freshly dry cleaned garments to protect them from particles of dust in the air, as well as particles of dried blood from the cloaks of decency the NRA wrap themselves in.

April 7, 2013 at 9:48 a.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Walking through the neighborhood one day last week with Lakoda, I see a strange sight. Walking toward me in the midday sun is a man swinging a lantern with a super bright LED light that can be seen for several blocks.

"What you doing?" I ask, when he is close enough to hear.

"Looking for ONE Competent Gun Owner," he replies, and moves on down the street swinging his LED powered lantern.

April 7, 2013 at 9:48 a.m.
tifosi said...

Securing a firearm properly will have a significant impact on many tragic results of guns. It is a simple practice that makes sense, just like wearing a seatbelt. Every soldier gets it drilled in their head that you DO NOT leave firearms unsecured. It results in serious repercussions for an offender. Many children die every year because of reckless gun owners that leave guns setting around the house.

A 9-year old boy was with his mom when they visited the apartment of her boyfriend for the first time, an Orlando, Florida police officer. That's when the boy found a loaded, unsecured gun in the officer's bedroom and fired it, hitting a wall.

Luckily no one was injured.

A 4-year old boy was at his Orlando, Florida home with two others (an adult and a juvenile aunt) when he found a loaded, unsecured gun. He then discharged the gun, hitting himself in the head.

He is in critical condition.

It just makes sense to secure firearms.

April 7, 2013 at 9:48 a.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

What seems to get lost in the debate is our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable from the vices of the unscrupulous.

The NRA has the agenda of protecting it's most precious commodity... the gun manufacture. Millions of $$$ are at stake. Innocent children be d.a.m.n.e.d......

I know people who think their right to own a gun, any gun, is inviolable. Protected by the second amendment, which in my opinion, does NO such thing. What is protected by the constitution is "a well regulated militia", operative phrase is well regulated and gun ownership NEEDS, no demands regulation.

It's easier for me to purchase a master blaster multi round firing super duper weapon of mass destruction than it is for me to purchase sudafed at the local drug store.

Responsibility to protect the innocent is of much greater importance than any perceived RIGHT to own a gun......

April 7, 2013 at 9:58 a.m.
Maximus said...

Come on Clay with your pubic hair transplant afro, our guns, including my AR are not going anywhere. On another note, don't you know it would be a wet dream for Barry and the Amazon Lady Michelle if that nutcase over in North Korea took out an American city with a nuke. Ohhhhhhh then we all could reeeeeeeealy see how important guvment really is. We could ALL "come together" as one class, with love and emotion to rebuild our city with love and "shared responsibility" even though it was the guvments ineptitude in protecting our country that allowed for the nuking to take place. Drones like HHS Director Kathleen Sabelias and DHS Director Janet "Big Dike" Janet Napalitano would have their first and only organism if an American city got nuked. As for Hillary Clinton she would immediately call a press conference to state that the North Korean action was our fault and that we deserved to be nuked! €%#

April 7, 2013 at 11 a.m.
Easy123 said...

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you, Maximusty?

April 7, 2013 at 11:45 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Maximus... isn't it amazing, with all the ineptitude and corruption you note, that you guys can't seem to take advantage? It's probably because people see creatures like you to be the alternative, and for that, we thank you!

Hey, tell us what your day is going to consist of! French Riviera? Gonna stick some long horns on your Testarossa? Truck nuts on your Learjet? LMAO, buffoon.

April 7, 2013 at 11:47 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Maxie, your comment belongs in a junior high boys locker room, not on an internet forum. Flagged.

April 7, 2013 at 12:03 p.m.
conservative said...

It is obvious that it is not Wayne LaPierre's blood, Liberals shoot but always miss him.

My guess is the blood is a splatter from the self inflicted wound of Demoncrat Diana DeGette.

April 7, 2013 at 1:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...

If what Degette said was a "self-inflicted wound", then LaPierre and all WingNuts are sadomasochists. How many blatantly ignorant statements, propaganda, lies, misinformation and just plain bullsh!t is posted by WingNuts here everyday? LaPierre was all for universal background checks in 1999. Why would they work then, but not now?

John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, said this: “How much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government? I’m for: NO more.”

Taxation is theft? Has he read the Constitution? Try the 16th Amendment. The man is one of the highest ranking Republicans in government! I bet none of you WingNut jackoffs see anything wrong with that statement. That's because you're terminally ignorant.

April 7, 2013 at 2:23 p.m.
jesse said...

Easy McNasty rides again!!

Probly know more about "Ignorant" than anybody on here!!

That ought to get somethin goin on on here!!SICUM BOY!!

April 7, 2013 at 2:40 p.m.
conservative said...

Rep. Diana DeGette, a Demoncrat from Denver, put on a display of ignorance on the matter of gun magazines (not the kind you read, Liberals) recently :

"Asked why banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette responded:"

"These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

In case you still don't get it, the gun magazines/clips can be reloaded over and over and over again. Furthermore, there are zillions of them out there and readily available. Perhaps I shouldn't have wrote that, Liberals may call for background checks on gun magazines (again, not the kind you read).

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22971620/inaccurate-remarks-gun-magazines-put-rep-diana-degette?source=rss

April 7, 2013 at 2:50 p.m.
tifosi said...

I have heard gun owners make some pretty ignorant statements regarding the rate of fire of their revolver with speedloaders being equal to an AR-15. They were trying to downplay the firepower of an AR-15.

April 7, 2013 at 4:17 p.m.
jesse said...

Here ya go tifosi, read this so ya know what your talking about!

This is not speculation but actually took place!

5 shots in 2/5 of a second w/a S&W revolver!!

McGiverns rate of fire w/a revolver was 750 rnds.per min.

An ak47 on full auto has a rate of 600!!There ya go!!

http://www.edmcgivern.com/didyouknow.html

April 7, 2013 at 4:27 p.m.
conservative said...

Then later on in the day Demoncrat Diana DeGette, after shooting herself passes the gun to her spokeswoman Juliet Johnson who sheds more blood with this statement :

"She simply misspoke in referring to 'magazines' when she should have referred to 'clips,' which cannot be reused because they don't have a feeding mechanism,"

Hello, clips can be reloaded and reloaded and reloaded again, just like gun magazines (not the kind that you read Liberals).

April 7, 2013 at 4:51 p.m.
limric said...

Tofosi,

The people you've heard boasting the ability to get off rounds from a revolver as fast as an AR15 aren't downplaying the power of the rifle. They are (unless they are pros. like in the link below) bullsh!t artists.

Jerry Miculek. The fastest I've ever seen. Ever?

April 7, 2013 at 4:53 p.m.
dude_abides said...

jesse... You're so tame, I doubt you'll get much of a rise out of Easy.

Hey, I hear Connecticut is outlawing dum dums... and fragmentary ammunition, too!

April 7, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Sorry, rick1, doesn't look like tifoso's going to answer your straw purchase, Fast and Furious question.

tifoso, I think everyone agrees with your 'keep the damn guns secured' message. But, how does any gun control efforts at the forefront of the media now going to help that? More accountability and tougher penalties may help.

April 7, 2013 at 6:47 p.m.
tderng said...

Wow,only 31 posts for a hot topic issue...looks like somebody is losing his mojo. The same topic can only be rehashed so many times.

April 7, 2013 at 6:54 p.m.
tifosi said...

I will take the AR-15 any day over any pro with a revolver. When he pauses to reload... his ass is mine. :)

Be responsible. Secure your firearms.

Chatt man said "But, how does any gun control efforts at the forefront of the media now going to help that?"

IMO...None of it helps. Just lipstick on a pig. In my profession I perform root cause analysis all the time. Securing firearms is not the end-all-be-all to the problem, but it is something that gun owners have control over and can easily implement. Just requires a change in behavior. If gun owners would get behind this one issue, it would shut-up a lot of the other initiatives on the table. If the firearm is not on your body - secure it.

April 7, 2013 at 7:26 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Yeah I'm back. 37 years of law enforcement experience, but what do I know. In the case of guns, we're actually talking about a RIGHT guaranteed under the Constitution. And rights don't exist conditionally. You either have them, or you don't. NOTHING could have saved those poor children and teachers in Newtown, except an armed police officer(s), armed staff, double entry security doors, and stricter mental health laws, which is a huge slippery slope. Anyone with common sense knows that 1) there are sick people in this world, and 2) criminals don't care about laws. We have laws on the books, but we just don’t want to enforce them, because that would cost too much money to build more prisons and hire more guards. Oh we can’t lock up these poor victims of the environment, they need help our help and understanding. Obviously, CT and the federal government have NO common sense, no understanding that, unfortunately there will be another incident. It may be in CT or in some other State, but there are enough sick people and criminals who don't care about these "feel-good" laws that do nothing but give the idiots who represent us the chance to pat themselves on the back. This also includes the media that carry their water for them, including Clay, and his ilk on this post site. All you liberals want to do is feel good, even when you know that your plans don’t work, have never work, because you never use logic and common sense. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the progressives/liberal/ status/socialist, who all think they know how to run your life far better than you do. I guess they want us to shut up and listen while they tell you what you need, or don't need, as the case may be. They tell you that you don't need a weapon for self defense, vomit will be just as effective.

April 7, 2013 at 7:52 p.m.
cj85 said...

the ONLY reason democRATS want to take away guns (and we all know obummer and the rest of you libtards have wet dreams about doing just that)is because 90% of criminals getting shot in cases of self defense are what? that's right democRATS. Can't possbily understand how sick i am of you self righteous, two faced, ignorant, libtards i am. You people don't even understand the difference between a magazine, and a clip. Clips are NOT used in modern firearms, magazines are. Dunb a$$ people trying to regulate things they know absolutely nothing about. Just like that ignorant whats her face that said, once everybody uses up all of the magazines there won't be any left, dumb broad doesn't even realize you can re-load mags, but yet she wants to try and regulate them. FU libtards.

April 7, 2013 at 7:56 p.m.
cj85 said...

you know what i'm not done here. You people need to wake up and realize that there is evil in this world and no amount of kumbaya around the camp fire, petting, being understanding, pleading, begging, and reason is going to change that. For the rest of us that live in the real world we need tools to defend ourselves, our famillies, our property, our freedoms, and our country, from all criminals, and/or enimies foreign and DOMESTIC, and just who the hell are you to tell me what tools are best for me to do that, because if some a$$hole is trying to rape my wife or daughter i want them to have the biggest gun, with the most ammo they can get their hands and send that sob straight to hell; instead of trying to vomit or piss on them, or stab them with scissors, as you stupid liberals would have them do. If you have evil in your heart and mind and you intend to act on that evil in the vicinity of me or mine i promise you, you won't leave alive. AND yes i am more than content with the thought of me and other law abiding citizens of this great nation having the exact same small arms as the federal government has, in order to stop any tyrannical act carried out on the population of this country, and that means i will even stand for ignorant liberals if need be. MOLON LABE

April 7, 2013 at 8:16 p.m.
rick1 said...

BobMKE, excellent post,glad to have you back. Bob ever notice the liberals do not want us to have guns but they have no problem keeping theirs. Bloomberg has his armed body guards, Feinstein will not give up her armed guards or her carry permit. How many of the Hollywood elite that want more gun control also have their own armed guards as well.

tifosi, since you will not answer the Fast and Furious question maybe you will answer these:

If you make a law that guns must be secure how will this law be enforced? Will police have the right to come and search your home any time of day or night to make sure your weapons are secure? Don't think this has not been discussed. In the State of Washington they tried to slip it into a bill with regards to people who owned semi automatic "assault weapons" and when it was discovered of course everyone said it was a mistake that it had been put into the law.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

You are at home and with your family and a armed suspect(s) breaks in. Are you going to tell the suspect(s) to stop so you can unlock your gun?

April 7, 2013 at 8:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Thank you, BobMKE and cj85, for thoroughly proving just how correct Mr. Clay Bennett was when he drew this fine cartoon less than two short days ago.

http://tfponline.com/news/2013/apr/06/handle-care-cartoon-clay-bennett-times/?opinioncartoons

Every time you post, every misspelled word, every mention of "socialism/marxism", every time you say stuff like "instead of trying to vomit or piss on them, or stab them with scissors, as you stupid liberals would have them do.", you prove just how maladapted, ignorant, psychotic, and truly insane you really are. Bask in it, boys. You and the Republican party are in the final death-throes.

April 7, 2013 at 8:22 p.m.
cj85 said...

like i said self righteous a$$holes. wow you are so much more intelligent than i..... we'll see.

April 7, 2013 at 8:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"Bob ever notice the liberals do not want us to have guns but they have no problem keeping theirs."

Strawman. Liberals have no problem with sane, competent people having guns.

"Bloomberg has his armed body guards, Feinstein will not give up her armed guards or her carry permit. How many of the Hollywood elite that want more gun control also have their own armed guards as well."

STRAWMAN. No one is trying to take away your guns. You're trying to dispelled an argument that hasn't been made. You're trying to prove hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

"If you make a law that guns must be secure how will this law be enforced? Will police have the right to come and search your home any time of day or night to make sure your weapons are secure?"

Police already have that right as long as they have a warrant. Securing your weapons is the smart thing to do.

"In the State of Washington they tried to slip it into a bill with regards to people who owned semi automatic "assault weapons" and when it was discovered of course everyone said it was a mistake that it had been put into the law."

I thought Republicans were in favor of state rights. Smaller government, remember? How dare you question the rights and decisions of the individual state government!

"You are at home and with your family and a armed suspect(s) breaks in. Are you going to tell the suspect(s) to stop so you can unlock your gun?"

When your child shoots himself or someone else in the face, then you'll wish you had secured your weapon. It's not exactly an enforceable law, it's just the smart thing to do.

April 7, 2013 at 8:29 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"like i said self righteous a$$holes"

It's not my fault you can't spell and you say inane, ridiculous things. I'm stating facts.

"wow you are so much more intelligent than i..... we'll see."

I can name several adolescent children that are likely more intelligent than you considering the content of your last two posts.

April 7, 2013 at 8:31 p.m.
cj85 said...

only to know it all liberals are the things i've said insane. most people in the real world agree with what i've said, just most don't have the balls to say it. Go ahead continue living in your little sheltered world. You're in for a rude and violent wakening at some point in the future. And i always love how democrat "fact" is based solely on opinion or as in the case of decmocrat gun "facts", 30 year old data. but please continue to make yourself feel better with your democrat "facts". I am also very happy that you enjoy as most libs do, attacking me based on something as ignorant as my spelling on a stupid internet forum were i am just typing fast and don't really care all that much, but if it makes you feel superior, please continue.

April 7, 2013 at 8:41 p.m.
tifosi said...

BobMKE said...

"You either have them, or you don't. NOTHING could have saved those poor children and teachers in Newtown, except an armed police officer(s)"

Securing the weapons would have worked and it's far cheaper. As a law enforcment officer you should know this.

The 2nd Amendment can be repealed under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

No where does the 2nd Amendment say you can leave your firearms lying around. We should prosecute those that do.

Be responsible. Lock them up!

April 7, 2013 at 8:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"only to know it all liberals are the things i've said insane."

The majority of sane, rational people would view nearly everything you've said as insane or, at least, very strange.

"most people in the real world agree with what i've said, just most don't have the balls to say it."

They really don't. Even the facts are in disagreement with you.

"Go ahead continue living in your little sheltered world. You're in for a rude and violent wakening at some point in the future."

You're the one living in the sheltered world. You're sheltered from facts, logic, reason, and the truth. You'll never see the truth. You're far too brainwashed at this point. You've bought into the Fox News, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck propaganda. Your brain in compromised.

"And i always love how democrat fact is based solely on opinion or as in gun facts, 30 year old data. but please continue to make yourself feel better with your democrat "facts""

Another baseless statement from you. Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you say stuff that are demonstrably false?

"I am also very happy that you enjoy as most libs do, attacking me based on something as ignorant as my spelling on a stupid internet forum were i am just typing fast and don't really care all that much, but if it makes you feel superior, please continue."

So, in a place where spelling is your only way of communication, you don't care about it? What you have just said is what stupid people say to rationalize their own ignorance. Spelling is important. Grammar is important. Especially in a place where reading and spelling are the only way of expressing yourself. But, if it make you feel less ignorant, please continue. You'll just keep discrediting yourself.

April 7, 2013 at 8:45 p.m.
cj85 said...

again all OPINION from a self righteous democrat. One more fact for the idea of urinating, and vomiting on someone trying to rape you, came from some liberal idiot at a colorado university while they were trying to stop concealed carry on campus. so don't blame me for calling out the stupidity of the left. Oh and it has been PROVEN that 0bummer and most democrats are using gun statistics and data collected in the 70's and 80's, that again has been proven. i'm done with this argument, you can't argue with somebody whose "facts" are democrat OPINION. Again MOLON LABE...... if you got the balls.

April 7, 2013 at 8:52 p.m.
cj85 said...

"And i always love how democrat fact is based solely on opinion or as in gun facts, 30 year old data. but please continue to make yourself feel better with your democrat "facts""

Another baseless statement from you. Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you say things that are demonstrably false?

"I am also very happy that you enjoy as most libs do, attacking me based on something as ignorant as my spelling on a stupid internet forum were i am just typing fast and don't really care all that much, but if it makes you feel superior, please continue."

So, in a place where spelling is your only way of communication, you don't care about it? What you have just said is what stupid people say to rationalize their own ignorance. Spelling is important. Grammar is important. Especially in a place where reading and spelling are the only way of expressing yourself. But, if it makeS you feel less ignorant, please continue. You'll just keep discrediting yourself.

there see if you can find the grammatical errors you made in your post, that i fixed for you in my repost. There Mr. democrat smarty pants, see how easy it is to screw up when your typing fast.You really should proof read your post if you're going to attack someone based on grammar and/or syntax. MORON

April 7, 2013 at 8:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"again all OPINION from a self righteous democrat."

More of a mixture actually. It's better than ignorance from a moronic Republican.

"One more fact for the idea of urinating, and vomiting on someone trying to rape you, came from some liberal idiot at a colorado university while they were trying to stop concealed carry on campus. so don't blame me for calling out the stupidity of the left."

It came from the University. They were "last resort" tips to deter an attacker. It had nothing to do with guns. See how ignorant you are? You don't even know what you're talking about.

"Oh and it has been PROVEN that 0bummer and most democrats are using gun statistics and data collected in the 70's and 80's, that again has been proven."

One statistic about guns being purchased without a background check from the last study done on the subject. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Everything is told with your WingNut spin.

"i'm done with this argument, you can't argue with somebody whose "facts" are democrat OPINION."

I have presented the facts. You haven't. You've presented your WingNut opinion of them. You're just running away because you know you're inept.

"Again MOLON LABE...... if you got the balls."

Your psychosis has been duly noted.

April 7, 2013 at 9:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"there see if you can find the grammatical errors you made in your post, that i fixed for you in my repost."

I'm not talking about small errors. You don't even capitalize words at the beginning of a new sentence. You type like a 6-year old writes.

"There Mr. democrat smarty pants, see how easy it is to screw up when your typing fast."

Again, I'm not talking about small errors, Mr. Republican moron. Why are you typing fast? Are you angry?

"You really should proof read your post if you're going to attack someone based on grammar and/or syntax. MORON"

So, if I'm a moron for making a few errors, what does that make you for failing to capitalize nearly every sentence you've typed here? LMFAO!

April 7, 2013 at 9:07 p.m.
patriot1 said...

So...easy has turned into the grammar police-ette.

April 7, 2013 at 9:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

nope.just pointing out how ignorant it makes you look when you type like this. it's difficult to read long paragraphs that don't have capital letters.i'm just trying to help people out. its really hard to get your point across when you make it nearly impossible to read what you type. everything seems to run together. it doesn't take much effort to type clearly and use proper grammar, capitalization, spelling, etc.but i guess you mouth-breathers just enjoy typing like a 6 year old.

Also, I'm not a female but, you already knew that.

April 7, 2013 at 9:18 p.m.
cj85 said...

yes it had everything to do with guns, that list was put out as things you should do INSTEAD of relying on ccp, just as that wack job Joe Biden suggested you should just fire the ol double barrel through the door or into the air, or as some other democrat suggested you just attempt to stab an armed intruder with a pair of scissors. You and opinions are like a$$holes everybody has one and they all stink. You'll never catch me running from anything big boy. Ooh psychosis, my such a big word, you've convinced me that you are so much more intelligent than i. please feel free to continue your insignificant life staring at your computer screen, waiting on an argument you fundamentally can't win with your "facts" i have a real life and family to tend to. ROT IN HELL

April 7, 2013 at 9:20 p.m.
degage said...

cj85, be careful, Easy doesn't like to be corrected, only he is allowed to do that in his little world.

April 7, 2013 at 9:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"yes it had everything to do with guns, that list was put out as things you should do INSTEAD of relying on ccp"

Wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines

"just as that wack job Joe Biden suggested you should just fire the ol double barrel through the door or into the air, or as some other democrat suggested you just attempt to stab an armed intruder with a pair of scissors."

None of those things have anything to do with the situation at UC.

"You and opinions are like a$$holes everybody has one and they all stink."

It's not my fault you can't handle the truth.

"You'll never catch me running from anything big boy."

You already tried to once.

"Ooh psychosis, my such a big word, you've convinced me that you are so much more intelligent than i."

LMFAO! I apologize for knowing what words mean. We can't all be as ignorant as you. I appreciate you exposing your own ignorance though. It makes it a lot easier for me in the long run.

"please feel free to continue your insignificant life staring at your computer screen, waiting on an argument you fundamentally can't win with your "facts" i have a real life and family to tend to."

You've already lost the argument. The facts aren't in your favor.

"ROT IN HELL"

Run away, little one! You got mad rather quickly. :-)

April 7, 2013 at 9:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"cj85, be careful, Easy doesn't like to be corrected, only he is allowed to do that in his little world."

I've never said such a thing at any point, liar. Would you like to try again? Maybe a little less deceit next time. But, look on the bright side, at least you weren't being hypocritical.

April 7, 2013 at 9:26 p.m.
rick1 said...

easy said "Police already have that right as long as they have a warrant. Securing your weapons is the smart thing to do."

So you are fine with the police coming in to your house to see if your weapon is locked. Sounds like a police state.

If you would have read the link I provided you would see it what they wanted the sheriff's to do is unconstitutional by requiring the sheriff of each county to check peoples homes to see if they still owned an assault rifle. A first year law student knows probable cause is required to obtain a warrant.

April 7, 2013 at 9:29 p.m.
cj85 said...

That's what libtards do when they try to shame someone into shutting up, or agreeing with them. So it's ok for you to make errors no matter how big or how small, but if someone else makes other minor errors, then it's just the end of the world and they are stupid for it. If spelling and grammar really matters to you then, you would proof read all of your post and make NO errors, no matter how big or small. And no i am not angry i just don't have as much time to devote to worrying about correct grammar on a internet forum, i don't collect a government check like you, i am a republican, i WORK for what i have, and i have a family that I take care of.

But, then again all of this is the typical hypocrisy of the left. Please try to remember in the future; what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. As politely as possible ROT IN HELL. That's not anger just my typical parting words for dumbass liberals.

April 7, 2013 at 9:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"So you are fine with the police coming in to your house to see if your weapon is locked."

If they have a warrant, absolutely.

"Sounds like a police state."

No, it doesn't. It happens all the time. It's part of the law.

"If you would have read the link I provided you would see it what they wanted the sheriff's to do is unconstitutional by requiring the sheriff of each county to check peoples homes to see if they still owned an assault rifle."

And? Your party is the one touting states rights.

"A first year law student knows probable cause is required to obtain a warrant."

I never said it didn't, but it doesn't take a whole lot of "probable cause" to obtain a warrant in 2013. Any moron knows that.

April 7, 2013 at 9:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"That's what libtards do when they try to shame someone into shutting up, or agreeing with them. So it's ok for you to make errors no matter how big or how small, but if someone else makes other minor errors, then it's just the end of the world and they are stupid for it."

Wrong. Your errors are far from minor. I never said you couldn't correct me either. Try again.

"If spelling and grammar really matters to you then, you would proof read all of your post and make NO errors, no matter how big or small."

Stawman. I never said such a thing. Small errors are common in a forum like this. You aren't making small errors.

"And no i am not angry i just don't have as much time to devote to worrying about correct grammar on a internet forum,"

That's because you're ignorant and lazy.

"i don't collect a government check like you,"

I don't collect a government check.

"i am a republican, i WORK for what i have, and i have a family that I take care of."

Republicans collect government checks too. You seem to have plenty of time now.

"But, then again all of this is the typical hypocrisy of the left."

You haven't presented one instance of hypocrisy.

"Please try to remember in the future; what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. As politely as possible ROT IN HELL. That's not anger just my typical parting words for dumbass liberals."

LMFAO! Don't flatter yourself. You know it's anger. Run away, little guy!

April 7, 2013 at 9:34 p.m.
rick1 said...

easy said "When your child shoots himself or someone else in the face, then you'll wish you had secured your weapon. It's not exactly an enforceable law, it's just the smart thing to do.:

Why don't you give a direct answer to the question I asked. Here it is again:

You are at home and with your family and a armed suspect(s) breaks in. Are you going to tell the suspect(s) to stop so you can unlock your gun?

April 7, 2013 at 9:37 p.m.
cj85 said...

whoa mr. perfect screwed up and made a double post.

April 7, 2013 at 9:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"You are at home and with your family and a armed suspect(s) breaks in. Are you going to tell the suspect(s) to stop so you can unlock your gun?"

You are at home with your family and an armed suspect(s) breaks in. Are you going to tell the suspect(s) to stop so you can run to the next room to grab your gun that wasn't conveniently sitting in your lap?

I can ask loaded question too.

April 7, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"whoa mr. perfect screwed up and made a double post."

Wrong again. I thought you had a family to take care of? LMFAO!

April 7, 2013 at 9:44 p.m.
rick1 said...

If someone is breaking into my house I want immediate access to the weapon and not have to worry about getting it unlocked.

Tell you what Easy, if you own a gun go ahead and lock it up that is your decision and I will decide how I want to keep my gun in my home.

April 7, 2013 at 9:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"If someone is breaking into my house I want immediate access to the weapon and not have to worry about getting it unlocked."

So, you're going to carry your gun around your house? Where do you live? Colombia? Honduras? Do you have a bounty on your head?

"Tell you what Easy, if you own a gun go ahead and lock it up that is your decision and I will decide how I want to keep my gun in my home."

Typical. I do not give a rats ass what you do with your gun. That's part of the problem with your ilk. If someone offers something sensible about, in this case, gun safety, you act like I'm trying to legislate this or make you do it. It's simply the smart thing to do.

April 7, 2013 at 9:52 p.m.
acerigger said...

cj85! welcome back joneses. Knew you couldn't stay away!

April 7, 2013 at 10:20 p.m.
alprova said...

Clearly, cj85 is a reincarnation of someone. The way he types, it looks like Francis, joneses, or a new nic for Maximus because he knew the jig was up on his claims to be a 1 percenter...

April 7, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Easy's playing Whac-A-Mole tonight!

I've always found that those who cannot spell, punctuate, or construct sentences have thought patterns which are equally chaotic. Impatience and frustration lead to garbled thoughts, inattention to detail, and anger. There is a medication that can cure this mental and emotional volcanism, but their mothers have to take it right after conception.

April 7, 2013 at 10:37 p.m.
rick1 said...

easy said "So, you're going to carry your gun around your house?"

I never said I carried my gun around the house like you implied. I said "If someone is breaking into my house I want immediate access to the weapon and not have to worry about getting it unlocked."

Learn how to read you moron.

April 7, 2013 at 10:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"I never said I carried my gun around the house like you implied."

I didn't imply it. I asked you if you were going to carry it around your house. See: "So, you're going to carry your gun around your house?". Notice the question mark. Learn how to read, dumbass.

The only way to have "immediate" access to a weapon is if you have it on your person. Unless you have the weapon on or near you, you won't be able to access it "immediately". So, I pose the question again, are you going to tell the suspect(s) to stop so you can run to the next room to grab your gun that wasn't conveniently sitting in your lap?

April 7, 2013 at 10:43 p.m.
cj85 said...

no i am not some other person that has already posted on here. i don't give a damn enough about your opinions, or comments to do some bullsh!t like that. i don't need this forum to validate myself like you libtards obviously do, now all of your buddies are here easy123 you ignorant fukers can all have a nice circle jerk and tell each other how smart you are. i hope i get kicked off this stupid fuking forum. oh and please don't mistake this post as anger, take it for what it is, I DON'T GIVE A FUK WHAT YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS, TWO FACED, COCK SUCKING, HYPOCRITICAL, WANNA BE KNOW IT ALL MOTHERFUKERS THINK ABOUT ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. I ONLY JOINED TONIGHT TO GET UNDER YOUR THIN, LIBERAL PUSSY, SKIN AND I SUCCEEDED. AGAIN MOLON LABE

April 7, 2013 at 10:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"no i am not some other person that has already posted on here. i don't give a damn enough about your opinions, or comments to do some bullsh!t like that. i don't need this forum to validate myself like you libtards obviously do, now all of your buddies are here easy123 you ignorant fukers can all have a nice circle jerk and tell each other how smart you are. i hope i get kicked off this stupid fuking forum. oh and please don't mistake this post as anger, take it for what it is, I DON'T GIVE A FUK WHAT YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS, TWO FACED, COCK SUCKING, HYPOCRITICAL, WANNA BE KNOW IT ALL MOTHERFUKERS THINK ABOUT ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. I ONLY JOINED TONIGHT TO GET UNDER YOUR THIN, LIBERAL PUSSY, SKIN AND I SUCCEEDED. AGAIN MOLON LABE"

LMFAO! cj85 is MADDDD!!!

Don't flatter yourself, cj85. You didn't get under anyone's skin. But someone damn sure got under yours!

Such a typical ignorant, delusional Republican whiner and a disgusting little fellow to boot! Don't be mad, just be gone. You've been outclassed, sir. Your bullsh!t will not fly here. Climb off your cousin and go back to your WingNutty bubble

April 7, 2013 at 11:01 p.m.
cj85 said...

yes sir you are just top of the crust better than every one, no assh0le you didn't get under my skin. been posting all night just to fuk with you idiots and you lapped that sh!t up like a dehydrated dog at a sh!t filled toilet bowl. you can deny it but you know i fuked with you LMFAO retard. i am a republican, am not delusional, yeah i can be disgusting just because i like fuking with you liberal idiots bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha good night go fuk yourself.

April 7, 2013 at 11:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"yes sir you are just top of the crust better than every one, no assh0le you didn't get under my skin."

Keep telling yourself that.

"been posting all night just to fuk with you idiots and you lapped that sh!t up like a dehydrated dog at a sh!t filled toilet bowl. "

Keep telling yourself that.

"you can deny it but you know i fuked with you LMFAO retard."

Keep telling yourself that.

"i am a republican, am not delusional, yeah i can be disgusting just because i like fuking with you liberal idiots"

Keep telling yourself that.

"bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha good night go fuk yourself."

Run away, you deluded coward. Watch out though, you might drown in all your bullsh!t.

April 7, 2013 at 11:11 p.m.
songbird said...

Easy123, I'm sorry you were molested as a child. Seriously, I am. It wasn't your fault. But, it wasn't everyone else's fault either. Quit being so angry at the world. You're only making yourself look foolish.

April 7, 2013 at 11:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I'm fascinated at the thought-process of WingNuts when they are totally outmatched and after a thorough bitch-slapping, they act like they were just here to "fuk" with people or they have "better" things to do than post here (after they just got done posting).

It's highly common around here. It just be an idiot defense mechanism. "Before tucking tail and running, act like you were trolling the whole time or like you're too good to post here!"

April 7, 2013 at 11:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

songbird,

"Easy123, I'm sorry you were molested as a child. Seriously, I am. It wasn't your fault."

You've got the wrong guy. You must be looking for Ken Orr.

"But, it wasn't everyone else's fault either. Quit being so angry at the world."

After the exchange between cj85 and I, you think I'M the one angry at the world? RRRRiiiiiggghhhttt! You obviously have a really good dealer.

Why do I get the feeling that you, cj85 and a number of others that formerly posted here are intertwined? LMFAO!

"You're only making yourself look foolish."

You've successfully made YOURSELF look foolish in less than 50 words. Congrats!

April 7, 2013 at 11:26 p.m.
songbird said...

Easy123, no one looks more foolish than when you have another mans ball sack on your face, and you're enjoying it.

April 7, 2013 at 11:35 p.m.
cj85 said...

Bitch slapping, lmao. Yeah thats what I received. Lmao no really you take this alot more seriously than you should. Think about this for 1 second, I've never posted here before, I start of with some seriously inflammatory stuff then I finish by going off. And you think that I wasnt fukking with you. Ok, wink wink. A little parting advice, turn your computer off every once in a while libtard, you are starting to convince yourself this is reality. Good night and good bye for good libby douche bags. MOLON LABE

April 7, 2013 at 11:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

songbird,

"Easy123, no one looks more foolish than when you have another mans ball sack on your face, and you're enjoying it."

See what I mean? You really don't get it, do you? Your middle school humor doesn't go over well here. I understand that you've obviously had some tragic teabagging experience in the past, but you shouldn't project those fears and inadequacies onto others. If you like balls to the face, that's your prerogative. You won't be judged for telling the truth here.

April 7, 2013 at 11:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cj85,

"Bitch slapping, lmao. Yeah thats what I received."

What happened to "good night go fuk yourself."? LMFAO! Maybe I really am under your skin...

"Lmao no really you take this alot more seriously than you should."

You're the one that keeps coming back for more, peckerlips.

"Think about this for 1 second, I've never posted here before, I start of with some seriously inflammatory stuff then I finish by going off. And you think that I wasnt fukking with you."

LMFAO! You're mad and that's plain to see. Tell yourself whatever you want, but you keep leaving and coming back. Maybe it's you that's getting "fuked" with.

"Ok, wink wink. A little parting advice, turn your computer off every once in a while libtard, you are starting to convince yourself this is reality."

This coming from the person that keeps posting after he says he's leaving and has better things to do. Turn your brain on every once in a while. You're starting to convince yourself that you're competent.

"Good night and good bye for good libby douche bags. MOLON LABE"

How many times have you tried to leave tonight? By the way, tell your wife I said "Thanks".

April 7, 2013 at 11:43 p.m.
alprova said...

Easy123 wrote: "Why do I get the feeling that you, cj85 and a number of others that formerly posted here are intertwined? LMFAO!"

Look up the posting history of both. You'll notice that cj85 was created yesterday, and Songbird created last month and seldom used.

Then think about your most ardent foe in here and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's up.

I just don't think I'll ever understand what makes an Internet troll tick...

April 8, 2013 at 3:17 a.m.
alprova said...

Just remember, Wayne LaPierre was for universal background checks before he took a stance against them.

It would be a little poetic justice if he were to wind up on the wrong end of a gun one day.

April 8, 2013 at 3:55 a.m.
Maximus said...

Ole Clay with the pubic hair head implants has beat the gun issue to death. I got news for him, our guns are not going anywhere. On another note, don't you know it would be a wet dream for Barry and Michelle if that nutcase over in North Korea took out a U.S. city with a nuke. Oh my....then Barry could show us just how important guvment is. We would have to coooome together as one in love and "shared responsibility" to rebuild the city because in many ways, we deserved to be nuked even though it was our guvments ineptitude in defending our country that made us susceptible to attack in the first place. A North Korean attack on the U,S, would also give DHS director Janet Napalitano her first and only orgasm. Now that's fuuuuny!

April 8, 2013 at 5:24 a.m.
degage said...

Al, You surprise me, of all people on this site, I would not think you would be the one to think poetic justice on anyone. It appears you wish LaPierre would get shot. Very unlike you.

April 8, 2013 at 7:11 a.m.
delmar said...

alprova said... I just don't think I'll ever understand what makes an Internet troll tick...

http://acidcow.com/pics/20100204/people_of_wal_mart_38.jpg

April 8, 2013 at 7:41 a.m.
degage said...

Max, Please go away.

April 8, 2013 at 7:45 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Thanks, degage. If I wanted locker room talk, I'd go to....a locker room! I'm sure Maxie has money to spend.

April 8, 2013 at 8:01 a.m.
conservative said...

For they sleep not, except they have done mischief ; and their sleep is taken away , unless they cause some to fall . Proverbs 4:16

April 8, 2013 at 8:09 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I could support background checks at gun shows ONLY if they remove all references to the specific gun being purchased.

People need to be careful about supporting background checks and realize that in its current form it is the same as supporting the infrastructure for a national gun registry. Yeah, the information is on paper, but with today's technology it would be easy to OCR all of that paper and turn it into a searchable database.

Anyone that says the NRA ever supported universal background checks is either uninformed or lying. Universal back ground checks would cover EVERY transfer including between family members. The NRA NEVER supported a background check for transfers between private individuals outside of a gun show. The NRA did at one point support expanding background checks to include gun shows. That is a big difference that the gun control liars are saying equates to a change of position.

It may well be that the NRA is no longer supporting the expansion of background checks because they have come to recognize the threat being created by the collection of make, model and serial number on the current federal form.

April 8, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "Just remember, Wayne LaPierre was for universal background checks before he took a stance against them."

Are you, uninformed, misinformed or just plain lying on this point alprova? You do understand the difference between Universal and Expanded, right?

April 8, 2013 at 8:33 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Alpo...Have you ever been to a gun show? If you have been and furthermore purchased a gun at a gun show you would know that background checks are done by all dealers on the spot. I am sure there are a number of BATF agents on site to insure that happens. BRP is correct, what goes on between private individuals is just that, private. This would be no different than a transfer between me and the neighbor, or a family member. The only was to accomplish what you libs want to see is registration. That's not going to happen.

April 8, 2013 at 8:43 a.m.
Maximus said...

News flash the State Department in a move to bring gender equity to passport applications will no longer have the designators Mother and Father on the applications. Now only Parent 1 and Parent 2 will be on the form. Folks you just can't believe how much Barry Obama The Welfare Pimp is trashing our culture. Keep your powder dry.

April 8, 2013 at 8:44 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Any luck getting the crocodile tears stains out Tooney?

April 8, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
alprova said...

degager wrote: "Al, You surprise me, of all people on this site, I would not think you would be the one to think poetic justice on anyone. It appears you wish LaPierre would get shot. Very unlike you."

I don't wish anyone to get shot. I'd prefer to live in a world of pure peace and tranquility, but that is totally unrealistic.

As someone pointed out, the goal of the NRA has shifted somewhat from once it was, to becoming a boom box for the gun manufacturers of the nation and the world.

Gotta sell those guns, no matter what...

So, I was just sayin'...

April 8, 2013 at 9:26 a.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "It may well be that the NRA is no longer supporting the expansion of background checks because they have come to recognize the threat being created by the collection of make, model and serial number on the current federal form."

What exactly is wrong with a registration of all guns? If you own one and do no harm with it, what's the problem?

If it is stolen, you report it to the authorities, just as you would if someone stole your pickup out of your driveway.

If you sell it to someone else, they get cleared to buy it, and the ownership is transfered to them. Just as you would do when selling a car, you fill out a bill of sale, have it signed by both parties, and you keep a copy of it for the rest of your life, just in case something comes up at some point in the future.

No muss, no fuss.

What's the problem?

April 8, 2013 at 9:35 a.m.
alprova said...

I used the wrong word. The call for universal background checks is recent. Expanded background checks have never been made official.

And yes, I have been to gun shows, and purchasing a gun, off the record, between individuals, without a background check is done all the time at gun shows.

And all you folks who say otherwise are playing dumb or are simply full of stuff.

April 8, 2013 at 9:41 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "What's the problem?"

I think you know the problem. Can you think of a single example where a national gun registery was not followed by gun confiscation?

April 8, 2013 at 9:41 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "I used the wrong word."

You have made this same "mistake" in the past.

April 8, 2013 at 9:56 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "purchasing a gun, off the record, between individuals, without a background check is done all the time at gun shows. And all you folks who say otherwise are playing dumb or are simply full of stuff."

I remember seeing a reference to dealers at gun shows. I think you noticed that distinction but choose to ignore the accurate statement and fabricate a statement of your own to use as a tool to discredit someone with an opposing view. Typical.

April 8, 2013 at 10:08 a.m.
tifosi said...

"You are at home and with your family and a armed suspect(s) breaks in. Are you going to tell the suspect(s) to stop so you can unlock your gun?"

Classic statement from reckless gun owners that want to leave guns lying around the house.

If your weapon is in the bedside drawer, while you are channel surfing in the living room, your weapon is completely useless when an armed intruder enters your house. If you are that concerned that an armed intruder is going to enter your house, then your firearm should be on your body at all times. Otherwise it is useless when someone kicks in your front door. It would be a better investment to buy a better front door and lock.

Think before you type.

April 8, 2013 at 10:44 a.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "I think you know the problem. Can you think of a single example where a national gun registery was not followed by gun confiscation?"

Oh brother...

This is the United States of America. Not one leader has called for disarming Americans.

No one wants to confiscate all the guns and you know it.

April 8, 2013 at 10:45 a.m.
tifosi said...

I can just imagine someone showing up to confiscate guns and how that would be received. I guess these gun owners are sheep and wouldn't put up a fight.

Think before you type.

April 8, 2013 at 10:48 a.m.
limric said...

I don't have an issue with background checks (as practiced where I live) and am an avid proponent of safety courses. Registration - not so much.

While gun registration does not in itself automatically lead to confiscation, every country that has confiscated guns used registration lists of gun owners to do so. I believe that Canada and Australia are two of the most recent examples.

And please; let's not overlook the glaring example of brute force confiscation (en)forced (illegally) on licensed, registered, 'legal gun owners' in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

April 8, 2013 at 10:49 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "No one wants to confiscate all the guns and you know it."

That is complete BS and YOU know it.

Again, can you find ONE example of a national gun registry not being followed by gun confiscation. ONE

April 8, 2013 at 10:54 a.m.
tifosi said...

If the U.S. government starts to organize an effort to confiscate guns, it will receive world-wide attention. It would be just a symptom of a much bigger issue in our country. The fear mongers that use this excuse obviously do not have any faith in the U.S. Constitution they so ardently point at all the time.

If gun confiscation were to ever occur, I will be the first to head to the hills and start fighting back. There will be hell to pay. But, in the mean time... let's stop killing children and be responsible gun owners.

April 8, 2013 at 10:56 a.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

"That is complete BS and YOU know it."

You're delusional. alprova is right. Your conspiracy theories are bunk.

"Again, can you find ONE example of a national gun registry not being followed by gun confiscation. ONE"

Obama and the Democrats are not proposing a gun registry. It's against Federal law. Find one example of a non-fallacious argument that you've given. It's all bullsh!t with you WingNuts. You can't argue the topic at hand so you cling to your Red Herrings and strawman arguments.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/24/fact-check-the-gun-registry-red-herring/

But, if you must have an answer, Canada has a firearms registry and they aren't confiscating guns.

April 8, 2013 at 11:03 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Alpo.....have you actually read Feinstein's proposed "Assault Weapons Ban" bill? Ban is used many times in the language of that egg.

April 8, 2013 at 11:19 a.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

You obviously haven't read that bill or you would know that it does not include confiscating any currently owned (legal) weapons. No one is proposing confiscation. No one is proposing banning or taking any guns that are currently and legally in the hands of American citizens. Nope, not even Dianne Feinstein. Not to mention that bill didn't even make it to a vote.

April 8, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.
jesse said...

IF you want a handgun w/no background chack,no registration and NO hassle walk into a gun store and buy yourself a "colt single action black powder replica "JUST like Wild Bill used to kill 15 folks!Blow a hole in your arz the size of a coffee cup!

The only disadvantage is only six shots and LOTS of smoke!!AND instead of "RAMBO" you gotta play like "JOSY WALES"!!

April 8, 2013 at 11:42 a.m.
tifosi said...

LMAO!

April 8, 2013 at 11:57 a.m.
tifosi said...

There are two kinds of law-abiding gun owners: Responsible ones and irresponsible ones. The second is draggin' down the first.

April 8, 2013 at 12:01 p.m.
degage said...

Didn't make to a vote because Reid refused to let it come to a vote. He was backed by the NRA in the last election.

April 8, 2013 at 12:02 p.m.
jesse said...

Sooner or later all you DEEP THINKERS on here are gonna realise the pols. play you like a trombone! They blow smoke where the sun don't shine and you believe EVERY word that comes out of their mouth!It's no WONDER we are in the situation we are in when the voters believe the B/S coming out of the mouths of their HERO'S! They are ALL liers and con men! Alprove and EAsy are classical examples of this!IF Obama says it then it's written in stone! (FOOLS!)Don't THINK just follow the dogma!

April 8, 2013 at 12:13 p.m.
degage said...

On the lighter side! Spring has sprung! Leafs coming out on trees and grass is growing. Saw signs of pollen this morning, not my favorite thing but I will have to deal with it to finally see everything green again.

April 8, 2013 at 12:26 p.m.
jesse said...

THE HIGH LIGHT OF THE YEAR!! I lived to watch anouther "MASTERS"!(if i don't die before sunday night!!)

When this is over i will be workin on anouther "U.S. OPEN!!"

April 8, 2013 at 12:31 p.m.
limric said...

Quote: “Canada has a firearms registry and they aren't confiscating guns”.

Oh yes they are!

Recently (2011 to be exact) Canadian gun owners, fully in compliance with governmental registry, were having a rifle confiscated. Many people who had ‘legally purchased’ the Italian Armi Jager AP80; a junky little .22 cal. plinker and AK47 look alike. These rifles were arbitrarily deemed illegal and must be surrendered. The RCMP then issued confiscation notices for these lawfully-owned rifles.

This is an abridged version of the revocation notice:

“You are required by law to return your firearm registration certificates, without delay, either by mail to the address shown in the top left corner of this page or in person to a peace officer or firearms officers. You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief Firearms Officer or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them,” Link to the full version below:

http://firearmslaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/AP-80-Revocation-notice.pdf

I’m not howling, It’s a conspiracy! They're going to take our guns! - and agree with your statement, ”No one is proposing confiscation.” ”No one is proposing banning or taking any guns currently and legally in the hands of American citizens.”
The possibility of outright door-to-door gun confiscation is extremely unlikely. However, like the Canadian registration/confiscation mentioned above, and not without historical precedence, the phrase, ”Subject to change without notice.” is certainly something to keep in the back of our minds. Well – mine anyway.


Tifosi quote: ”There are two kinds of law-abiding gun owners: Responsible ones and irresponsible ones. The second is draggin' down the first.”

ABSOLUTELY!

April 8, 2013 at 12:43 p.m.
jesse said...

IF you are gonna go on a HUNTIN TRIP from anywhere to Canada you BETTER have all your paper work on your hunting rifles in order AND DON'T even THINK about bringin along a HANDGUN!! As soon as they find a handgun your ass is on the way to JAIL!!periot!(no prisnors!)

Canada is the place the U.S. Senate wants us to be as soon as possible!

April 8, 2013 at 1:08 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

limric said... "Oh yes they are!"

Exactly, I saw that story too (Canada confiscating guns). Anyone who says the democrats are not fully committed to incrementally eroding the 2nd Amendment with the ultimate goal of gun confiscation is lying through their teeth.

They clearly state their intentions. That is why it does not matter that any pending legislation would not have done anything to prevent Newtown. They want the universal background check so they can start the process of collecting data on who owns what guns. Under the guise of the background check they hope to get more compliance, after all it is not a gun registry. Then all they need is another excuse to start consolidating the data to create the registry and many hapless gun owners will be sorry they ever participated in the “innocuous” back ground check for personal transfers.

At that point you are looking at the reality that ALL gun registration has historically led to gun confiscation. Gun owners need to realize this and oppose expanded background checks until ALL references to the make, model and serial number of the weapon are removed from the background check process.

April 8, 2013 at 3:08 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Wow,limric... that piece of info quietened the current topic, two hours of nothing. Crickets...

That's almost as successful at silencing a thread as Easy spouting his arrogant hatred.

April 8, 2013 at 3:09 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Yes it appeared that cj85 and Easy ignored the rules of engagement for the thread. Their language was horrible. I flagged both of them multiple times but it appears to have no effect.

April 8, 2013 at 3:20 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Oh yes, I just saw Chuck Fleischmann speak and he said that Obama, in a closed door meeting, stated that he intends to make gun control part of his legacy for his second term.

April 8, 2013 at 3:20 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

BTW, In that same meeting, Obama was asked point blank if he will work with republicans to balance the federal budget. His answer was a flat NO. Remember that when you see the MSM reporting about how the republicans are refusing to work on a budget compromise.

April 8, 2013 at 3:47 p.m.
timbo said...

Bennett and the rest of you liberals are idiots. If you want to find blood stains look at Obama and Eric Holder for not enforcing the gun laws we have.

The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.

Bloodstains?? How many of those 71,000 murdered, raped, and stole. I'll bet that they murdered a hell of a lot more people than at were killed at Sandy Hook.

The persistence of liberals in denying this type of information while blowing everything else out of proportion pretty much reveals the gun control nuts REAL agenda. In the end they want confiscation, period. They are lying now to get their way. The slippery slope is being hosed down as we speak.

To hell with you liberals. You will never confiscate guns. There would be an insurrection.

April 8, 2013 at 3:54 p.m.
tifosi said...

"To hell with you liberals. You will never confiscate guns.There would be an insurrection."

So what are you worried about?

April 8, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.
timbo said...

tifosi....The attempt will cause havoc and I really don't think an armed insurrection would be something we wanted.

Also, you can't confiscate things if you don't know who has them. There are millions of guns in this country that the government has no idea where they are.

That is why," You will never confiscate guns."

I also see you didn't even address the fact that the background laws weren't prosecuted. Typical liberal....change the subject.

April 8, 2013 at 5:01 p.m.
limric said...

Say Tifosi,

You said earlier there are two kinds of law abiding gun owners, to which I wholeheartedly agreed.

Not to sound too much like a vacuous wisenheimer; do you think the present resident of the White House is a ‘responsible law-abiding gun owner’?

We certainly know George & his boy DICK (or should that be the other way around) weren’t, so I didn’t include them.

;-D

April 8, 2013 at 5:04 p.m.
jesse said...

Chatt-man! Easy ain't picked up on it yet BUT his rhetoric and demeanor has just about renderd him irrevelvalant on here! About the only cheerleader he has left is Alprova and thats because Easy adheres to the gospel according to the Oracle of Altoona!(or Rossville??)

April 8, 2013 at 5:05 p.m.
jesse said...

Hey Limric?? Are you aware of the fact that John (duke) Wayne shot Ward Bond in the ass w/a load of bird shot JUST because Ward missed an easy shot on a quail bird? Maybe Dick had a better reason than that to shoot his BUD!!

April 8, 2013 at 5:14 p.m.
timbo said...

jesse....slEasy321 and Alprova...it could be love...just saying..birds of a feather..

April 8, 2013 at 5:21 p.m.
limric said...

Jesse,

Ha ha…whoo boy! No I didn’t know that. He he he, damn that’s funny.

Um, Oh wait! Ahem...that's NOT a laughing matter Mr.Jesse! Ha ha hee hee snort.

But I’ll bet Ward Bond DID NOT apologize to John Wayne the way Harry (the big pussy) Whittington did to Dick. And I’ll wager Ward popped the ‘ole’ duke upside his kisser for it.

BOP!!

April 8, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
jesse said...

Limric, needless to say there WAS some payback down the road BUT nobody knows what it was!!

Friends havin fun in the outback!! BUT i ain't never been shot in the ass! Not yet anyhow!!

April 8, 2013 at 6:24 p.m.
degage said...

Still no Easy? Way to go limric.

April 8, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
jesse said...

Heres a song fotr all you folks that have ALL the answers! The bottom line is "there are no answers"there are just people that think they have them! The 60's had the answers but no one would listen!

April 8, 2013 at 6:42 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

rick1 said... "Must see video"

http://townhall.com/video/cuban-communism-survivor-gives-powerful-testimony-at-gun-control-hearing

Thank you for sharing that video.

“I’ve been through it. I’ve been there. You people do not know what freedom is… because you have never lost it”.

April 8, 2013 at 7:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"Still no Easy? Way to go limric."

Am I missing something? Limric agreed with me and gave an example of ONE gun that was made illegal to own in Canada.

April 8, 2013 at 7:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"Easy ain't picked up on it yet BUT his rhetoric and demeanor has just about renderd him irrevelvalant on here!"

LMFAO! How ironic coming from the most "irrevelvalant" person here.

April 8, 2013 at 7:14 p.m.
tifosi said...

I have not seen anything to indicate that President Obama is not a responsible law abiding gun owner. If he were leaving loaded firearms laying around the White House, I am sure the Secret Service would advise him otherwise.

Timbo - I believe before there is any action that would result in a significant and justified armed insurrection, there will be a strong attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If American support and the democratic process were to result in a repeal, I will support it.

I would likely treat insignificant insurrections as traitors.

April 8, 2013 at 7:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"I also see you didn't even address the fact that the background laws weren't prosecuted. Typical liberal....change the subject."

They were. Just not all of them. If they had prosecuted all of them, you would call it a "police state". Take a look at the real facts. Everyone that makes a mistake on a background check form doesn't deserve to be prosecuted. I'm sure you would agree. The cases that weren't prosecuted were reviewed and deemed "unworthy" of further investigation.

http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion/columns/fact-checker-claim-that-no-fugitives-have-been-prosecuted-after/article_42ef4fdf-7f4e-5c72-8ffd-3b1c2a8cc63a.html?comment_form=true

Your argument is fallacious. Try again.

April 8, 2013 at 7:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

nurseforjustice,

"Yes it appeared that cj85 and Easy ignored the rules of engagement for the thread. Their language was horrible. I flagged both of them multiple times but it appears to have no effect."

Other than the word "moron" and "bullsh!t', how was my language anywhere close to this?

"now all of your buddies are here easy123 you ignorant fukers can all have a nice circle jerk and tell each other how smart you are. i hope i get kicked off this stupid fuking forum. oh and please don't mistake this post as anger, take it for what it is, I DON'T GIVE A FUK WHAT YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS, TWO FACED, COCK SUCKING, HYPOCRITICAL, WANNA BE KNOW IT ALL MOTHERFUKERS THINK ABOUT ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. I ONLY JOINED TONIGHT TO GET UNDER YOUR THIN, LIBERAL PUSSY, SKIN AND I SUCCEEDED."

Show me what I've said on this thread that would lump me into the same category as that psychopath. Who do you think you're fooling?

April 8, 2013 at 7:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"That's almost as successful at silencing a thread as Easy spouting his arrogant hatred."

Nothing arrogant or hateful about anything I've said on this thread. Shall I dig up some hatefulness of yours? Two can play this game.

April 8, 2013 at 7:33 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "That is complete BS and YOU know it."

Are there people who imagine a world without any weapons? Of course there are. But the United States, and most individual states have Constitutions that would not permit the confiscation of ALL weapons from private owners.

Should military and/or police style weapons be taken from their civilian owners? I personally would not have an iota of reservation is going along with that. But that's me.

No one, and I do mean no one...NEEDS an assault type weapon for personal protection or for hunting. So, I would be just fine if every one of those type weapons were taken from private hands forever.

Now I know that there are many people who would have great disagreement with me over that, and that's fine. I say seize all weapons that have the capability to discharge more than ten bullets without the need to reload.

That is nothing but my personal opinion. I don't offer it to tick anyone off or to start a bunch of arguments.

"Again, can you find ONE example of a national gun registry not being followed by gun confiscation. ONE"

I don't care. I'm for mandatory gun registration, no matter what anyone thinks about that too. People who do not lock up their guns and have their homes broken into, and have weapons stolen by street thugs, who then do nothing more than throw up their hands in response, are contributing to the Saturday night special problem...big time.

If they knew that a gun that was stolen was linked to them personally, they would do one of two things; They would secure the darn things when they leave their homes, making them all but impossible to steal, or they would doggone sure notify the police whenever they have weapons stolen.

I'm sick to death of gun owners treating the instance of stolen weapons with another stanza of "Que sera sera..."

I find it funny...or quite sickening to hear a Republican speak about personal responsibility or accountability, but completely do a 180 degree turn when it comes to guns.

They welcome anonymity and loathe an ounce of accountability, and personal responsibility when it comes to the gun issue.

I own three guns. I would immediately register them if it were required. If I could, I would volunteer to register my firearms, but Georgia law prohibits any entity registering any firearms not outlined in NFA - 1934.

My opinions are simply that. I have not an ounce of power to set forth national policy. Those of differing opinions are just as powerless to prevent it, if it comes down the pike.

We'll just all have to wait to see what happens.

If some of you truly believe that you could stand your ground against the Government, if they do come after your military style weapons, well...it's been nice knowing you. I'll be sure to think about you from time to time.

April 8, 2013 at 7:36 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...
April 8, 2013 at 7:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

"A warning from our friends to the North…"

A warning about a gun registry that hasn't even been proposed and is against Federal law? You like your Red Herrings and strawman arguments today, don't you, little guy?

http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/24/fact-check-the-gun-registry-red-herring/

April 8, 2013 at 7:55 p.m.
jesse said...

Easy ., your navigating under a misconception!

I know i ain't relevant and have no illousions about it!

You on the other hand have this idea that you have not just an answer BUT all the answers! Down the road in 10 or 15 years you will git a grip on the fact that you could not find your ass w/a huntin dog!!

April 8, 2013 at 8:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"your navigating under a misconception!"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're wrong. That would be YOU, sir. Your entire view and image of me is a misconception. Nothing you say about me is congruent with reality. It is all made up in your mind.

"I know i ain't relevant and have no illousions about it!"

Then what in the hell are you talking about? If you know you're irrelevant, then why do you think people will view your opinion as relevant? Shouldn't you be chastising others for actually listening to you? LMFAO! I call bullsh!t on you viewing yourself as irrelevant. That's just your strange self-depricating narcissism. I'm not buying it. If you truly thought you were irrelevant, you wouldn't post here.

"You on the other hand have this idea that you have not just an answer BUT all the answers!"

I have facts. I've never claimed to have any answers. Try again.

"Down the road in 10 or 15 years you will git a grip on the fact that you could not find your ass w/a huntin dog!!"

This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. You're the tough-talking coward that couldn't answer an email. Maybe in a few years you'll find your nuts when they drop. I know where my ass is. And I know where your yellow-belly is too. Hiding behind that computer screen.

April 8, 2013 at 8:07 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Alpo....it just so happened I was purchasing a gun from Academy at the same time news was breaking about Newtown. The gun I purchased was manufactured by Ruger and is now traceable to me. You see, Ruger knows exactly where and to what liscensed dealer that weapon was shipped. The FFL (dealer) maintains a record as to who that weapon was sold. That record must be maintained as long as they're in business and must be surrendered to BATF if they cease doing business. How is this not a registry?

April 8, 2013 at 8:17 p.m.
jesse said...

well easy, you and i both know there never was an email BUT now that you know where i work all you have to do is show up!Come by and see me some time!We can go out out and play nine or do sumpin to pass some time!!LOL!

April 8, 2013 at 8:23 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

With all due respect Easy, 1 is 100% more than 0. Or,as you said - they're NOT confiscating guns in Canada. They did, you were wrong. No biggie. Your response to Dégagé however was a dance & diversion.

April 8, 2013 at 8:26 p.m.
dude_abides said...

jesse... why you wanna bring that heat on yourself? Now you have to retreat into your "I didn't mean no harm" or your "I'm just a good ole idjit boy, just a funnin'" profile. You really do have a mean streak when you think you got somebody on the run, don't you? Seeing you strive for revelvalance (LOL!) is wince educing.

April 8, 2013 at 8:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"you and i both know there never was an email BUT now that you know where i work all you have to do is show up!"

You and I both know there WAS an email. You have my home address. All you have to do is show up.

"Come by and see me some time!We can go out out and play nine or do sumpin to pass some time!!LOL!"

Come by and see me some time. We can drink a beer or shoot guns like real men. LMFAO!

April 8, 2013 at 8:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

MickeyRat,

"With all due respect Easy, 1 is 100% more than 0. Or,as you said - they're NOT confiscating guns in Canada."

I should have been more specific. I was referring to all guns, like BRP was implying. But, if you want to get technical, guns (plural) weren't confiscated. It was a single model. But I'm not trying to argue semantics here.

"They did, you were wrong."

Not exactly. One type of gun was deemed illegal and owners of that weapon were asked to turn them in. I was referring to ALL guns, just as BRP and timbo were alluding to.

"No biggie. Your response to Dégagé however was a dance & diversionary."

In what way? Did limric agree with me or not? Is Canada confiscating all guns as BigRidgePatriot was implying would occur in the event of a gun registry?

April 8, 2013 at 8:32 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The intentional lack of precision of expression seems to run rampant with the left. It is so pointless to try to have a conversation with someone who intentionally modifies meanings or uses substitution of words with completely different meanings to avoid getting caught by the truth. Yawn.

April 8, 2013 at 9:50 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Oh Easy Easy Easy,

You’re dancing, moving the goalposts, being a tad hypocritical and trying to revise the crux of the arguments subject matter by diverting it to fit ‘your’ narration.

A) You danced around BRP’s request: ”Again, can you find ONE example of a national gun registry not being followed by gun confiscation. ONE.” With: ”But, if you must have an answer, Canada has a firearms registry and they aren't confiscating guns.”

B) Moving the goalposts with: "They did, you were wrong." With: ”Not exactly." "One type of gun was deemed illegal and owners of that weapon were asked to turn them in." "I was referring to ALL guns, just as BRP and timbo were alluding to.” YES, EASY – EXACTLY. They weren’t ‘asked’ to turn them in, they were ordered to turn them in!!

C) And by addressing Degage’s needling: "Still no Easy? Way to go limric."
With: ”Am I missing something? Limric agreed with me and gave an example of ONE gun that was made illegal to own in Canada.” you’re using a diversion; ie A is actually not relevant to B. Attempting to change or revise a topic or findings don’t count as validity against a claim.

D) Hypocritical: ”But, if you want to get technical, guns (plural) weren't confiscated.”It was a single model.”But I'm not trying to argue semantics here.” In the same breath you said you’re not trying to argue semantics here…But that’s EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID!!

Slippery Easy – very slippery. You are - “Out there, past them trees, “I seeeee youuuu…”*

April 8, 2013 at 10:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

MickeyRat,

"You’re dancing, moving the goalposts, being a tad hypocritical and trying to revise the crux of the arguments subject matter by diverting it to fit ‘your’ narration."

I beg to differ. You're taking the comments out of context. You've missed the fact that BRP and others here are not talking about the confiscation of a gun or two. They are talking about disarmament. It is clear by their comments. And I think I'm entitled to clarify statements that I said. I am not trying to make anything fit. It is simply what I meant in the context of the rhetoric that was being posed by others.

"You danced around BRP’s request:"

The question wasn't posed to me. I just happened to answer it. There was no dancing either. I answered the question as directly as possible.

"Moving the goalposts with:... YES, EASY – EXACTLY. They weren’t ‘asked’ to turn them in, they were ordered to turn them in!"

That isn't moving the goalposts. They were, in fact, asked (BY MAIL) to turn them in and/or deactivate the weapon. They didn't, necessarily, have to turn the weapons over.

"Deactivating the firearm so that it is no longer a firearm. You may contact the Chief Fireanns Officer in 3. your jurisdiction to obtain instructions on deactivation."

"you’re using a diversion; ie A is actually not relevant to B. Attempting to change or revise a topic or findings don’t count as validity against a claim."

There was no diversion. I reference both A and B separately. Limric did, in fact, agree with the rest of my post. I attempted to clear up the issue of confiscation because, apparently, you didn't grasp that BRP and other are referencing confiscation of all guns. I emphasized the "ONE" in the statement to degage because I assumed people knew I was referencing a total gun confiscation. Again, I should have been more specific. But, the clarification of my comments DO count as validity against the claim.

"In the same breath you said you’re not trying to argue semantics here…But that’s EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID!!"

No, I didn't. I'm not arguing that point. I just mentioned it. I have based nothing I've said on those facts or attempted to use semantics to support my argument. I didn't even attempt to delve in to the semantics side of that argument. That is very clear. Again, I just mentioned it. I already stated that I was referring to banning all guns because that is precisely what BRP was referring to.

"Slippery Easy – very slippery."

Hate to burst your bubble, but no. Let's go another round.

April 8, 2013 at 10:32 p.m.
alprova said...

[atriot1 wrote: "Alpo....it just so happened I was purchasing a gun from Academy at the same time news was breaking about Newtown. The gun I purchased was manufactured by Ruger and is now traceable to me. You see, Ruger knows exactly where and to what liscensed dealer that weapon was shipped. The FFL (dealer) maintains a record as to who that weapon was sold. That record must be maintained as long as they're in business and must be surrendered to BATF if they cease doing business. How is this not a registry?"

It's not a true registry because the record only exists at the dealer.

Imagine if all automobile registrations only existed at automobile dealers. A car mows down a pedestrian. Someone gets the make, model and a tag number, but where do you go to try and trace the vehicle to it's owner if the vehicle is not there?

Do you start knocking on dealer doors? Sure, you could contact the manufacturer, but what good would that do?

A gun recovered at a crime scene can be traced rather easily to you if you purchased it at a dealer, but in the event that you sold the gun a year ago to someone that you did not personally know or identify, even if you can prove it with some documentation that may or may not be accurate, it kinda leads detectives into a brick wall, if that person was not who he claimed to be.

How many people casually sell guns and never even identify the person they sold a gun to?

Your version of a registry leaves a great deal to be desired and it illustrates the need for a better way to trace weapons.

I own a dealership that sells motor vehicles. I am required by law to document EXACTLY who I sell a motor vehicle to. If a verifiable state driver's license cannot be produced at the time of sale, I am prohibited by law from selling them a motor vehicle.

A national or state registry for guns would assist gun owners if ever a weapon they owned falls into bad hands.

How many of you have any weapons that you purchased from someone you do not know very well? Can you cite the name, address, and the exact date that you acquired each and every one of your firearms?

What if your weapon is discovered to have been used in a crime a decade ago but you bought it two years ago? Can you definitively prove whom you bought it from?

A centralized registration system can be used to exonerate the innocent as well as assist law enforcement track down the guilty.

April 8, 2013 at 10:59 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

DUDE! You shot down your own argument in one sentence with purely disingenuous ‘semantics’. And you don’t even know it.

”They were, in fact, asked (BY MAIL) to turn them in and/or deactivate the weapon. They didn't, necessarily, have to turn the weapons over.”

"Deactivating the firearm so that it is no longer a firearm. You may contact the Chief Fireanns Officer in 3. your jurisdiction to obtain instructions on deactivation."

“You are required by law to return your firearm registration certificates, without delay, either by mail to the address shown in the top left corner of this page or in person to a peace officer or firearms officers. You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief Firearms Officer or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them,”

Does the above sound like an invitation for tea? The above is an ORDER. There is no ambiguity. No ‘semantics.’

By denying your use of semantics, while using it to defend yourself by saying you’re not using it (excuse by false clarification) - your credibility collapses like an old Russian apartment block.

You’re done. Game over. You ran out of quarters.

April 8, 2013 at 11:12 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "The intentional lack of precision of expression seems to run rampant with the left."

Really? Then Sir, will you point to any person with the power to do so who has called for ALL guns owned by private individuals to be confiscated?

"It is so pointless to try to have a conversation with someone who intentionally modifies meanings or uses substitution of words with completely different meanings to avoid getting caught by the truth."

It's also very hard to stay on track with people who are running around, flapping their wings all the time, attempting to intentionally misrepresent facts and the intentions that are on the table.

The Canadian example used is rather lame. I suspect that the NRA or some other gun rights group is squarely behind the content and assertions in the posted video.

I would be quite delighted to see nothing short of a demand that anyone who has a military or police style weapon be demanded to turn every single one in, without a penny's worth of compensation.

Do I believe that it will come to pass? Nope. But I can wish, can't I?

April 8, 2013 at 11:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

MickeyRat,

"DUDE! You shot down your own argument in one sentence with purely disingenuous ‘semantics’. And you don’t even know it."

I wasn't arguing semantics. The specific statement I made about semantics wasn't even about the quote you're referencing.

"Does the above sound like an invitation for tea? The above is an ORDER. There is no ambiguity. No ‘semantics.’"

No one said there was any ambiguity. I'm not arguing semantics. What part of that don't you get? No one said it was an invitation for tea either. But there was no force. The government did not come to take the weapon. You could actually keep the weapon as long as you deactivated it. They were not confiscating ALL of the weapons. Just one model. I already clarified my statements about that.

"By denying your use of semantics, while using it to defend yourself by saying you’re not using it (excuse by false clarification) - your credibility collapses like an old Russian apartment block."

I haven't used semantics to defend anything. My credibility is intact because you fail to see the fallacy in your own argument. You're moving the goalposts now and creating a strawman. I'm not arguing semantics. My reference to semantics had nothing to do with the quote wording of the letter and I wasn't arguing that fact in the first place. I simply mentioned it.

"You’re done. Game over. You ran out of quarters."

Sorry, pal. But I'm still here. With rolls of quarters. Let's go another round.

April 8, 2013 at 11:31 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.