published Saturday, March 23rd, 2013

Gun-free zones don't work: Shootings are more likely where weapons are banned

Recent shooting incidents in Connecticut and Colorado broke the hearts of millions of Americans. They also brought out the gun-control zealots in force. One common solution many anti-gun activists propose is expanding gun-free zones.

Gun-free zone laws, which prohibit guns in schools and other public areas enact stiff penalties on those carrying guns. But they turn out to be feeble efforts to minimize or eliminate gun violence.

They may prevent a high school student from bringing a handgun to school to show a friend. A deranged assailant with the conscious objective to commit murder, however, would not change his murderous intentions just because he encounters a "no guns allowed" sign on the door.

Dubbing an area as "gun free" provides a false sense of safety at the cost of jeopardizing the actual safety of students and other citizens. In reality, gun-free zones create an optimal environment for a mass shooter looking for a place where he would meet no resistance from his defenseless victims. What better place to open fire than a place where the victims will not be able to fire back?

What did Sandy Hook Elementary School, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theaters in Colorado have in common? They were all the sites of massacres that ended innocent lives. And they all were gun-free zones.

John Lott, an economist and gun rights advocate who authored the book "More Guns, Less Crime," recently examined mass shootings. He discovered that: "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

In other words, not only are gun-free zones ineffective at preventing mass shootings, shootings are actually more likely to occur in gun-free zones because the shooter knows there will be less resistance.

In 1997, according to CNN contributor John Bennett, a scene similar to those well-known tragedies played out at a high school in Pearl, Miss., but it yielded a far different outcome. After stabbing his mother to death, a high school student drove to Pearl High School and shot and killed two students. As he got in his car to continue his killing spree at Pearl Middle School, the assistant principal got his gun from his car and aimed it at the gunman, causing him to surrender, and putting an end to his violence.

It was only because the assistant principal broke the law and brought a gun into a gun-free zone that the killings of innocent students was minimized.

In a misguided effort to prevent heinous mass shootings from occurring in public places by increasing and expanding gun-free zones, gun control fanatics are increasing the likelihood that more of these shooting occur.

No one can fault lawmakers and activists for trying to prevent mass shootings. But with their inability to protect innocent people and their proclivity to do more harm than good, gun-free zones are a terrible solution.

128
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.
nucanuck said...

Soon enough gun crimes may not even make the evening news. We are becoming acclimated to gun violence as it slowly becomes part of our daily experience. As guns more and more become problem solvers, as more and more of our friends decide to arm themselves, more and more gun deaths will be registered.

Laws won't stop it and the police can't do much. Only public revulsion at the carnage can begin to reverse what we have started.

March 23, 2013 at 12:36 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Carrying a gun is a choice. It always has been. Gov needs to stay out of that personal choice of citizens.

When governments disarm citizens people die. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW15CG...

March 23, 2013 at 12:54 a.m.
Easy123 said...

No one is trying to disarm citizens.

That same government you demonize actually created and gives you the right to bear arms. Government gave you the ability to make that personal choice legally.

Keep your ignorance and anti-government rhetoric out of adult converstation. It's non-sensical and shallow.

March 23, 2013 at 1:28 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123

Gun free zones are indeed forms of regulatory citizen disarmament. I am pro good government, which never opposes citizens options to carry a gun, not anti as you have suggested.

As expected, the name calling is the best you can do for a response.

March 23, 2013 at 1:52 a.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"Gun free zones are indeed forms of regulatory citizen disarmament."

No, they are not. You're deluded for believing such a thing. You might want to look up the word "disarmament" before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

"which never opposes citizens options to carry a gun"

What about automatic weapons? Should any citizen be able to carry a gun? What about children? Mentally ill people? Never is a strong word, lady. Might want to clarify your severely imprecise remarks.

"As expected, the name calling is the best you can do for a response."

I haven't called you a name. I characterized you and your beliefs accurately. As usual, you cannot support your strange claims and beliefs so you feign indignation and mischaracterize what I've said. My response stands on its own and did not include any name-calling.

March 23, 2013 at 3 a.m.
191145 said...

yo 123... Law abiding people should be able to own "automatic" weapons. Children ? Well I started mine out shooting at 7 years old ! as far as carrying, in our state it's 18. Your comment of the government "gives you the right" I might suggest you read the SCOTUS ruling on that ! SCOTUS ruled it's a God given right . Wouldn't want to go against God and country now would we ? Intelligent people don't necessarily know the answers, however intelligent people do know where to find the answers. I trust you will be digging a little more into this. Long Live the Republic !

March 23, 2013 at 5:44 a.m.
joneses said...

In an earlier post I misstated the pellets in buckshot.

00 ("double-aught") .33" (8.4 mm) 8-9 pellets in each shell and is the equivalent to shooting 8-9 32 rounds at someone at the same time. There is not 40 in a double aught buckshot round. That would be a different shell. I was looking at something else.

I do not feel bad as everything you liberals say and believe is a lie and you have not even the courage to admit it.

March 23, 2013 at 8:26 a.m.
conservative said...

Soon enough people who commit crimes may not even make the evening news. We are becoming acclimated to violent people as it slowly becomes part of our daily experience. As violence more and more becomes problem solvers, as more and more of our friends decide to be violent, more and more violent deaths will be registered.

Enforcement of law could stop a lot of it if the police were not hamstrung by Liberals. Only public revulsion of Liberalism can begin to reverse what Liberals have started.

March 23, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
shen said...

SCOTUS ruled it's a God given right . Wouldn't want to go against God and country now would

Depends heavily upon of which God you speak. Even the Christian bible speaks of multiple gods, great and not so great. They're just compiled under one heading. That's why the Christian bible appears to constantly contradict itself. It's not one god lording over and ruling man, but several at various intervals in history.

You have the God of:

  1. Abraham

  2. Saul--a most dangerous and deadly god.

  3. David

  4. Mary & Joseph

The list can go on and on seemingly forever.

March 23, 2013 at 8:41 a.m.
joneses said...

Nothing will change as long as the misdirected liberals continue to demonize the law abiding gun owners and give the murderers a pass.

March 23, 2013 at 9:25 a.m.
hambone said...

There's no such thing as an illegal gun. All the guns in criminals hands started out as legal guns.

To think that more guns in the "RIGHT" hands will deter criminals having guns is just plain stupid!

March 23, 2013 at 9:49 a.m.
joneses said...

hambone,

If what you say is true then why does the Secret Service that protects obama have guns? do you not think that a deterrent?

March 23, 2013 at 10:18 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Neither I nor my neighbors have any rights to own or carry handguns. For that I am very grateful. Gun crime here is very rare...almost never happens.

Restricting handguns seems like a conservative move to me. I guess it all depends on how you define conservative values.

How can guns be conservative?

March 23, 2013 at 11:07 a.m.
jjmez said...

joneses said... hambone, If what you say is true then why does the Secret Service that protects obama have guns?y

That's really a dumb, childish and immature comparison but, considering the source, not at all surprising. Does any of your crowd of wingNUTS ever act and think independently? Or do you all just sit around in groups continously regurgitating one another's nonsense?

March 23, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
rick1 said...

No matter how many speeches a politician gives in favor of gun control, it's a safe bet that his own bodyguards are
still packing heat. Even if he's giving a speech at a
school or post office or other gun-free zone. The Secret
Service and other professional-bodyguard types apparently
don't trust the ability of "No guns allowed" signs to keep
shooters from hitting their targets.
That's the difference between public servants and the
public they serve. Our servants' lives are considered much
too valuable to risk in a gun-free zone.

Jennifer Abel "Who has advantage in a gun-free zone?" Middletown Press

March 23, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
rick1 said...

It is also interesting to note that the top officials of
Handgun Control Institute are gun owners themselves. They
also intend on keeping them. It's other people's guns that
bother them...
Mark Urbin

Gun Control is not about guns;
it's about control.
Anonymous

Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them."
Walter Mondale

Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only
reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you
weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you
wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.
L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.
Mao Tse Tung

March 23, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
rick1 said...

And for those you still there and say no one wants to take your guns away, I guess you forgot about the comments made by Reno when she was AG and Diane Feinstein

Waiting periods are only a step.
Registration is only a step.
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
Janet Reno

If I could have banned them all...I would have!
Diane Feinstein (b. 1933) Gun owner with concealed carry permit
Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995

March 23, 2013 at 11:22 a.m.
conservative said...

Seems posted gun free zones work about as well as posted speed limits.

March 23, 2013 at 11:46 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1,

No one with any power to do so wants to take away your guns.

March 23, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.
nowfedup said...

Ok gunnies, wanna be rambo, swat, spl ops, camo draped disillusioned vigilante's. A few questions, that of course will be dodged as usual 1.What is MINIMUM requirements to safely carry a concealed weapon. 2.What exactly is being violated in 2nd Amd now, or proposed. 3.Should CCL be required to carry liability ins in case of "opps" 4.What nation beside USA has or wants to arm ALL it's schools 5.If mental or arrest records precludes buy guns, should government then have right to take all the guns in that household, why not? 6.Since other then underground sales/theft, ONLY Place felons can buy guns is via no background check "private sales", 6.5 million sold there, how many end up in criminal hands. 7.How does 100% background check on ALL gun sales impact honest citizens or impact 2nd Amd. NOTE the "if they do this I know they will next confiscate etc etc" is by the same bunch of fools that four or five time in past decades rushed down and cleaned out gun/ammo shops, and one more time, Not one such law passed. So if nra lemmings who rush to buy as "guvurmunt is't gunna take ur guns" was again wrong, and this paranoid bunch can predict major changes in laws to take guns? Lastly how come gun injury rate has gone up year after year and USA leads industrial world in gun violence and supposedly more guns would make it better? HOW?

March 23, 2013 at 12:49 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

It wasn't too many years ago that almost every place you went in this country was a gun-free zone. Nobody even thought of taking a gun to school or church or the mall or movie theater or restaurant or football game or any other public place for that matter. It's only the past few years that the term "gun-free zone" has become part of our vocabulary. And guns and gun violence have become so commonplace that the gun nuts are trying to convince us that "gun-free zones" are the reason we are having so much gun violence in the first place. By their logic, we all should pack heat everywhere we go and then the gun violence will magically disappear and we will all become more polite and civil, the criminals will cower in fear, and peace will reign supreme. What BS! We've got guns coming out our butts, eyes, and ears in America and they just want to throw more guns on to the fire as their "fix" for the problem. BTW, I own a gun myself and I am not in any way opposed to gun ownership. But I don't want to live in a country where you have to think about packing a pistol everywhere you go. An armed society is not a peaceful society. That is called living in a war zone. Or the Wild West. Neither of which should be acceptable to any sane person or to any society that considers itself civilized.

As for you people saying that owning a gun is a "God-given" right: the only right that is given by God is whatever nature gives you, alone in the wilderness. If you have been raised in a society - any society of humankind - every right you have has been bestowed upon you by the laws of humankind, not God. To say that owning a gun is a "God-given" right is just nuts.

March 23, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
Lr103 said...

conservative said... Seems posted gun free zones work about as well as posted speed limits.

Being gun free had nothing to do with the shootings, and everything to do with them being public establishments where anyone can enter, regardless of mental capacity, psychological and emotional problems, or even just some gun nut with a grudge.

March 23, 2013 at 2:20 p.m.
Lr103 said...

Easy123 said... Rick1, No one with any power to do so wants to take away your guns

The above is what these individuals will never get. They've become so accustomed to allowing others to think for them that they take every letter, every word, every sentence that's being fed to them as fact.

March 23, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
gjuster said...

Rickaroo

March 23, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
gjuster said...

Rickaroo

If our rights come from man - then they can be taken away by man - which makes them a permission, not a right. Driving a car is permission, owning a gun is our right, given to us by the creator - could be my creator - or yours, doesn't matter - in the US - our Constitution grants us rights that can not be taken away by man - otherwise we would be living in a Democracy - which is probably the most dangerous form of government.

March 23, 2013 at 2:34 p.m.
gjuster said...

To those of you who say no one wants to take away our guns - that's what was said many times over throughout history, much to the dismay of the millions then killed by their own government as they had no way to protect themselves after their guns were confiscated. Please read what is actually said by people like Feinstein.

March 23, 2013 at 2:37 p.m.
FreedomJournal said...

EXCERPT: The Fable Of The Gun Toting Snakes (17 January 2 February 2013)

All snakes were not good and all snakes were not snakes. But the guns had no name. A deer gave a hungry man one shot. But an advancing enemy platoon offered many targets that should not have been available.

Throughout the great forest and the jungles of the world the animal kingdom was outraged at the senseless slaughter of helpless birds in their nests. The Albatross was a big flying bird. While resting and breeding in the cold Arctic islands in the north some ruthless drunken human subjects who were sailing on a fishing vessel came ashore. Some of these rebellious human subjects we bear witness were also seen in larcenous possession of several military style weapons used for warfare.

Sun Smooth the leader of the Albatross clan tells the following story:

“We were taking turns sitting over the nests of our young when we heard a great amount of noise in the area of the sea shore. I had just come back from a long ride and glide of more than a thousand miles over many great and wide streams of water with much food for our young. We were nesting along our favorite ridges which were near the sea. Suddenly Silent Wind my mate cried out saying… “The mean, the bad and from our experiences wicked human subjects have come to rob and kill us.”

“She then said… “They are coming to take our babies from their nests.”

Sun Smooth continued his discussion and said….“We had wandered to this place from our southern resting place in the Bird Island known as the South Georgia Colony. We were defenseless as the human subjects had a few guns but all of them had some sort of club or knife. They murdered our babies in their nests and tried to kill us but we flew over their heads and tried to swipe them with our wide wing-span.”

King Cobra always the narrator resumed the discussion. King Cobra was also one of the good snakes as most of the snakes had gone rogue and often assisted the human subjects who were obsessed with trying to kill any member of the animal kingdom. We also remember that these snakes since Creation had an initial time of rebellion. They thus were reduced to moving upon their bellies as some sneaked and crawled around looking and searching for mischief.

But suddenly Sun Smooth insisted on making the following comments and concerns regarding the narration of King Cobra about the gun toting snakes. He said…. “King Cobra I hope you tell us about the coalition that the evil snakes made with the rebels among the human subjects. We know also of some human subjects that rose to the leadership ranks trying to help the animal kingdom and the human subjects. We know Sully the friend of the scorpion was one. John the great peace-keeper who continued on a mission of bringing all of the animal kingdom and the human subjects to peaceful co-existence in love was also murdered and killed by a gun.

Brother Carl, FreedomJournalPress

March 23, 2013 at 2:58 p.m.
joneses said...

jjmez,

Is that the only response you can come up with? You are just another weak, minded, foolish, childish, hate filled liberal who blindly follows O'Bastard like the lemming you are. LOL!

March 23, 2013 at 3:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

gjuster,

"If our rights come from man - then they can be taken away by man - which makes them a permission, not a right."

Wrong. The Constitution of the United States was written by men. Our government created those rights. Our government protects those rights.

"Driving a car is permission, owning a gun is our right, given to us by the creator"

Show me in your or any holy book where your or any "creator" specifically mentioned that humans have the right to bear arms.

"our Constitution grants us rights that can not be taken away by man"

Correct, our Constitution, not "creator". However, man can take away those rights. That's why we have laws. Murder, theft, and many other offenses are illegal because they do exactly that: impede on your rights.

"- otherwise we would be living in a Democracy - which is probably the most dangerous form of government."

You might want to rethink that. Surely, that was a mistake on your part. You can't be that stupid.

"To those of you who say no one wants to take away our guns - that's what was said many times over throughout history, much to the dismay of the millions then killed by their own government as they had no way to protect themselves after their guns were confiscated."

I repeat, NO ONE WITH THE POWER TO DO SO IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. Just because you're afraid of the rise of imaginary Hitler, doesn't mean our government is trying to take away anyones guns. It doesn't matter how many times you say it or how many examples you point to throughout history, it simply is not true for the United States of America. Our Constitution, our government and our citizens would not allow that to happen. You obviously have little clue how our government works, much less how impossible it would be to even begin to start a fifth column effort to subvert the Second Amendment.

"Please read what is actually said by people like Feinstein."

What power does Dianne Feinstein have? She is 1 of 100 Senators. Do you even know how our government works? Checks and balances?

Please educated yourself and give up your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Join us in the real world, WingNutter!

March 23, 2013 at 3:17 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

gjuster, "God" did not write the Bible, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. They were all written by MEN. Even if you think the Bible was divinely inspired, it was still written by MEN. It is nothing but a compilation of stories and myths passed down through the ages and put in book-form by MEN. Nor did God create the second amendment. That was put in the Constitution by the framers of the Constitution (again, MEN). A God-given right would be one that should be a right for ALL people of the world, not just Americans. If the second amendment is a "God-given" right, then why don't the other countries have it? There are plenty of Godly people in other countries, not just in America.

Every law or right that has ever been thought of or put in the books as a right or a law has been devised by mankind. God has always been and forever will be silent in the affairs of us humans. Now, you might think that God literally handed the Ten Commandments to Moses on a tablet on Mt. Sinai, but if you are one of those Bible literalists, then I'm wasting my time trying to talk sense with you because you don't have any sense to begin with. Bible literalists are all blind-faith buffoons with a diminished capacity to reason. Even the name "God" is an invention of MEN. Everything that has ever been put into the written word is the work of MEN. The only true God-given rights are the laws of nature. Go live alone in the wilderness, completely isolated from human contact, and without benefit of technology (including a gun, which is a man-made invention) for even a short time, and you will quickly see what your "God-given" rights really are.

March 23, 2013 at 3:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

You're a moron. All of the adjectives you have just used actually fit your entire online persona to a T.

You are weak minded, foolish, childish, hate-filled, ignorant, etc. ad infinitum. You blindly suckle WingNut teat and believe every piece of propaganda and every lie that comes down the pike.

You have no credibility here. Nothing you say even resembles a thoughtful, intelligent remark.

March 23, 2013 at 3:21 p.m.
rick1 said...

There are those who believe the government has no intention of taking away our guns. Let me ask you this do you believe everything our government tells you? A majority of you have said Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq. So if you believe a U.S. President will lie about going to war why will you not believe that politicians are lying when the say they do not want to take our guns away?

Did any of you ever think we would live a country where our government is telling us what type of light bulb we can burn or what type of toilet we can use?

When Obama Care was passed we were told our rates would go down and we could keep our same doctor. For those of us who researched Obama Care we knew this was not true and now more and more people are realizing this as well. Obama has always been for a single payer system and with Obama Care this is what we will eventually have. Obama Care is designed to fail so it become a single payer system.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi knew this, but they also knew there was no way they could get Obama Care to pass if they were honest with it becoming a single payer system.

The same is true for gun control. Politicians are smart enough to know they can not do a complete power grab all at once. They will slowly take away our rights to bear arms through different regulations and then one day our rights to bear arms will be completely gone.

March 23, 2013 at 4:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1,

Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING you just said makes sense. It's all conspiracy theory, conjecture, baseless opinion, and lies.

You have no clue how our government works. It is all but impossible to subvert the 2nd Amendment.

It doesn't matter how much you say it, your WingNut insanity will never be fact.

March 23, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
gjuster said...

Rickaroo
I am not religious - I am not a Christian, not sure whether god is there or not - and its not pursuant to my comments. Our Constitution says that our rights are endowed by our creator - that means that Man - meaning the people and the politicians can not take them away. You can believe in how we got here how ever you want - but the meaning of our unalienable rights means just that. They can not be taken away on the whims of people or politicians.

Easy - you are the main reason I rarely post here. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with the likes of you. Not because your comments are correct or incorrect, but because you make your arguments with malice and slander which is a sure sign of someone who either thinks too much of themselves, or are so wrong they can only argue by shouting louder and louder.

Easy - do you know what a Democracy is - it's mob rule. Want to kill all the Jews or Blacks or any particular group? - simply have 51% of the votes to do so and its done. We don't live in a Democracy, and I am thankful of that. We are a nation of laws - but those laws can not limit the rights given to us by the constitution. Our country was founded on the principle of government protecting the rights of the people, especially those in the minority - its a main reason we broke away from England.

As for knowing how the government works, unfortunately, I know it all too well. Money and power dominate and ruin what should be a just and good system of government. One Senator can do a lot of damage - especially with the help of the media

March 23, 2013 at 6:06 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy, said "You have no clue how our government works. It is all but impossible to subvert the 2nd Amendment."

Is The Patriot Act the way government is suppose to work? How about how the Fourth Amendment is being violated. Under the Patriot Act the gov't can do warrantless searches without even informing the property owner they were there. No probable cause needs to be proved, no oath taken, and no limit to what can be searched or seized.

Fifteen years ago would have ever thought that young children would be getting their crotch grabbed by federal employees when they went to the airport to get on a plane?

How about your right to a speedy and public trial? Under the Patriot Act there are no charges much less trial, jury, witnesses, or counsel.

The Patriot Act supersedes rights of states and people.

Easy, you are the one who has no clue as to what is happening in this country. You call those who disagree with you as being wing nuts, and all we post is conspiracy theory, conjecture, baseless opinion, and lies. I guess I should not expect anything less from someone who believes the government is superior to that of the people.

March 23, 2013 at 6:40 p.m.
TirnaNOG said...

Easy - you are the main reason I rarely post here. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with the likes of you. Not because your comments are correct or incorrect, but because you make your arguments with malice and slander which is a sure sign of someone who either thinks too much of themselves, or are so wrong they can only argue by shouting louder and louder.

But you see nothing wrong with a poster referring to the president as O'Bastard and other demeaning and derogatory remarks coming from others as long as they posting suit your argument? feigned values you have there, sir!.

March 23, 2013 at 6:56 p.m.
gjuster said...

TirnaNOG

I have the same problem with them as I do with Easy - I was answering to Easy because of his/her comments to me.

March 23, 2013 at 7 p.m.
TirnaNOG said...

But you've never objected, g, regardless

March 23, 2013 at 7:37 p.m.
gjuster said...

Actually, I have Tirna.

March 23, 2013 at 8:18 p.m.
acerigger said...

So,the wingers are suddenly worried about the "Patriot Act",warrant-less surveillance,indefinite detention,drone strikes,killing American citizens.After cheering on the fascists who brought it,are concerned that the current administration finds that, "hey,this sh*t works pretty good"!

Would be smart if we put away the "gay marriage",abortion,DEFICIT,"muslim-kenyan" Bull-Sh*t and started asking about the REAL problems of the good ol' USA!

March 23, 2013 at 10:42 p.m.
aae1049 said...

conservative said...

Seems posted gun free zones work about as well as posted speed limits.

Very true Conservative, there are only 15,000 gun permits for Hamilton County. This low number of permits, tells me that alot of people carry guns without permits. The safest neighborhoods in Hamilton County have the greatest number of gun carry permits.

Gun free zones will not mean a thing to people that believe it is their right to carry a gun. I cannot imagine not having access to a gun to protect yourself. Why would I voluntarily render myself completely vulnerable. If a person chooses to render themselves vulnerable fine, that is their personal choice and I respect that. Don't impose your fear of guns on me.

March 24, 2013 at 12:14 a.m.
TirnaNOG said...

It's not necessarily the number of guns or gun ownership in a neighborhood that gives the appearance of being a safe community, but that the individuals usuallly have ties to the courts and authority who sometimes help to downplay criminal activity in those safe communities {underage drinking, domestic violance etc). Especially, crimes committed by friends and neighbors.

On the other hand, in some poor, and especially minority poor, neighborhoods, just the simple task of leaving your house or apartment to visit a next door neighbor can result in a stop, frisk and even a possible arrest based on the discretion of the officer alone. Bad and even dirty policing have contributed greatly to the escalation of crime and deterioration in many poor neighborhoods.

March 24, 2013 at 8:29 a.m.
jesse said...

IF gun free zones worked all we would need to do is declare East Chattanooga a gun free zone and watch the gun crime rate drop to zero!!( OR how about e.lake courts??Just tell all them bangers "O.K. YALL beez needin to check all them 9's at the exxon at 23 rd and 4th ave!")

March 24, 2013 at 11:38 a.m.
TirnaNOG said...

jesse, you and others mock the intent of gun free zones. No one ever implied that just because area is declared gun free that guns could not or would not still come into the area. However, the penalty for brining guns into gun free zones is higher.

March 24, 2013 at 11:45 a.m.
nowfedup said...

Still waiting for you nra and gunnies to feel it is perfectly safe and sane to issue CCL to folks whom never attended one class on gun law, uses, parameters, etc and NEVER have fired one shot, or as in FL< NO Background checks. We await your usual dodge ball response. Bonus question, why is USA ONLY nation that feels it must arm ALL it;s schools, more so since "Every one must pack" fools feel that makes us safer. Another bonus question, how come USA gun wounds/injury on increase last ten years. Well? And for the really paranoid, where is PROOF, that there is any chance "all guns will be confiscated". Please show how 100% background check, except among family mmembers (exempted) will in any manner violate 2nd, as whom is NOT being checked to buy 6.6MILLION guns each year, might it be the SAME criminals you howl and bay about. "Private guns sales" are worse then the "gun free zones" to attract the criminal elements. Gunnies you are paranoid hypocrites and suspect a lot of the "anti 100% background check" have criminal records. So in all fairness, let's call "Private sales with no background checks" as "criminal guns shops"

March 24, 2013 at 12:11 p.m.
jesse said...

Tirna, IM FOR what would work!

FOR example! What if the sign at Sandy Hook school ,instead of saying "Gun Free Zone" Had said "Multiple Armed Security on Site"?

As i've stated on here before ,i am not a member of the NRA nor a gun owner ,But all this gun control talk is just jawboning the issue to make the public think the pols are doin it right!

March 24, 2013 at 12:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

gjuster,

"you are the main reason I rarely post here. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with the likes of you."

Intelligent discussion is only hard because you can't logically support your claims and beliefs.

"Not because your comments are correct or incorrect, but because you make your arguments with malice and slander"

There was no malice or slander in anything I've said to you. My arguments are factual. Playing the victim will get you nowhere with me or in these forums.

"which is a sure sign of someone who either thinks too much of themselves, or are so wrong they can only argue by shouting louder and louder."

I don't think too much of myself. I rarely resort to standing on my own opinion. Also, this is the Internet. I'm not shouting. I'm typing words. If the truth offends you, then you might want to find a new place to post.

March 24, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

gjuster (cont.),

"do you know what a Democracy is - it's mob rule."

You might want to do a little more research on "democracy" before you stick your foot in your mouth for a third time.

"Want to kill all the Jews or Blacks or any particular group? - simply have 51% of the votes to do so and its done."

Name a democracy that has done that. Don't worry, I'll wait.

"We don't live in a Democracy, and I am thankful of that."

Wrong. The United States of America is a mixture of a representative democracy and a presidential republic. Again, you might want to do more research before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

"We are a nation of laws - but those laws can not limit the rights given to us by the constitution."

Laws do limit our rights. The Constitution has limits. You do not have absolute freedom of speech, you cannot own any firearm, etc. The real world does not work the way you imagine it does.

"Our country was founded on the principle of government protecting the rights of the people, especially those in the minority - its a main reason we broke away from England."

And? Our country is still a representative democracy no matter how many times you say it isn't.

"One Senator can do a lot of damage - especially with the help of the media"

Wrong. One Senator has very little power. The media does not vote in the Senate or the House. Again, you have no clue how or government works.

March 24, 2013 at 12:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

You need to do more research on the Patriot Act. Stop believing everything Alex Jones says.

"The Patriot Act supersedes rights of states and people."

Wrong. The Patriot Act supersedes the rights of terrorists.

"Easy, you are the one who has no clue as to what is happening in this country."

No, sir. That would be you. Your conspiracy theories, misinformation and propaganda is simply not truth no matter how much your scream, cry, and lie.

"You call those who disagree with you as being wing nuts, and all we post is conspiracy theory, conjecture, baseless opinion, and lies."

And that is 100% accurate.

"I guess I should not expect anything less from someone who believes the government is superior to that of the people."

I don't believe that. However, I don't demonize the government. Our government is run by people. People that we elected to represent us.

You and your ilk are deluded beyond belief. Your lies, deceit, and ignorance will not go unopposed. Stay in your WingNut bubble forever. Serious, intelligent, reasonable people will continue on without you.

March 24, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
jesse said...

EASY " one senator HAS VERY LITTLE POWER???"

Tell that to McConnell and Reid!

Ya runnin ya alligator mouth again!!(still waitin on that email!)

March 24, 2013 at 12:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

I guess you're one of those people that doesn't know how the government works either. It's not my fault you're a moron.

Is it hard to type with your head so far up your rectum?

Still waiting on that response to the two emails I sent you, coward.

March 24, 2013 at 12:58 p.m.
jesse said...

YOU KNOW AND I KNOW YOU AIN'T SENT SHAT! SO lets get over the juvenile b/s! I GOT your # easy !ain't no big deal BUT your an adolescent arz w/a midochem of smarts BUT you just can't get over yourself enough to be taken seriously! The more you run your mouth the more you show what a lightweight you are!!

March 24, 2013 at 1:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

You know full well that I sent the emails. I have a confirmation email that you received them both. You're just a coward. You have all my information, but you're too yellow to do anything about it. You just keep running your punkass mouth.

I've got your number, jesse. And you know it. That's why you're keeping this bullsh!t charade up. You just can't get over the fact that a young person has bested you over and over again.

The more you post, the more ignorant and ridiculous you look.

Keep it up, coward. I'm right here and I'm not going anywhere.

March 24, 2013 at 1:23 p.m.
jesse said...

EASY ,IF YOU HAD A NUMBER IT WOULD BE #00 ! thats as high as your calculator goes!FOr REAL LMFUAO!I gotta be honest ,easy ,if it wern't for your sorry arz .i would have quit hangin on here long ago!! LOOK UP IDJIT?(here ya go roo!) it shows a pix of easy!

March 24, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

That entire post sums your entire existence up, jesse. You're a moron and there are no two ways about it. Hell, you can't even type, much less form a cogent thought. You can't quit hanging around here because you can't stand getting shown up by me everyday. It really chaps your dumbass to get called out and made a fool of by myself and others.

Don't worry, I'll still be here setting you up and knocking you down. And you can keep bitching and moaning about it. Still waiting on that response to my emails, coward.

March 24, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.
jesse said...

Wanta know who easy 123 is??

rEAD "bEETLE bAILEY"easy IS "zero"x2!

March 24, 2013 at 2:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

Keep going! LMFAO! Seriously, Beetle Bailey? LMFAO! You're a modern day Benny Hill or Rodney Dangerfield! You're too stupid for your own good.

Tell us some more knee-slappers, jesse!

March 24, 2013 at 2:22 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123, Easy does it. It is appearing as if you have snapped. Deep breaths, breath in, hold, breath out.

March 24, 2013 at 2:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

I'm just fine, crazy lady. You're the psychotic one, April. That has been proven here.

:-)

March 24, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
aae1049 said...

I see you are just fine, and have returned to your pit viper self. :-) Greg, Jessee and others here just want to exchange dialogue, chill out

March 24, 2013 at 4:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You're just as, if not more, deluded as you've always been.

YOU chill out. I stay chilled out, sweetheart.

March 24, 2013 at 4:11 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Is the term "sweetheart" intended to marginalize me, due to gender? Because, I am not your sweetheart.

Yes, of course, everyone posting here is less than you in all aspects. We are all stupid, only you have the correct answers. Your arrogance is really insecurity.

March 24, 2013 at 4:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

The term "sweetheart" is gender neutral. However, it was a condescending remark. I am fully aware that you are not my "sweetheart" and I thank my lucky stars for that fact!

Everyone posting here is not less than me in all aspects and I have never given any inclination that I believe such a thing at all. Count that as another one of your lies about me. You are ignorant and deceitful. I do have some correct answers because I use facts, logic, and the truth. You tend to be lacking in all of those areas. You are a professional liar. Your deceit has been well documented by myself and others here.

I am not arrogant either. Chalk that one up as another one of your lies. Facts are never arrogant. You're the arrogant one. You're making claims about me that you could not possibly know and that are simply untrue. You ignore facts and my own words to replace them with your own misguided, false characterizations and lies. I haven't even mentioned how arrogant Christianity is, but I digress. The arrogance and insecurity you mentioned is your psychological projection and that fact is very apparent.

Sorry to burst you bubble, April, but your feigned indignation and ad hominem arguments will not work with me. Neither will your projections or your lies. Better get used to it, crazy lady.

March 24, 2013 at 4:35 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Ok Easy, so you state, "The term "sweetheart" is gender neutral."

So, you would refer to men as "sweetheart" as well. If that is what you are suggesting, Greg and Jessee could be replaced with "Sweetheart." If that is case, please post references to them as "sweetheart," as you did me, and I will feel it is EEOC equal.

March 24, 2013 at 4:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

Personally, I would only refer to men as "sweetheart" if I was being condescending or talking to a male child. I have used the word condescendingly to males and females on these threads many times before. Do your own research, sweetheart.

I don't have any true sweethearts here, Ape (Can I call you Ape?). I forgot to mention how egregious your reading comprehension was.

Think BEFORE you type, crazy lady.

March 24, 2013 at 4:51 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Well I guess if you feel that you can call me sweetheart, what harm will Ape do?

Bizarre statement, "I would only refer to men as "sweetheart" if I was being condescending or talking to a male child."

I am with Greg, you are a good reason not to post here anymore, Too weird.

March 24, 2013 at 5:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"Bizarre statement"

How is that a bizarre statement? Terms of endearment are common for adults to use in reference to children. Sweetheart, honey, baby, sugar, etc. are all commonly used terms of endearment especially in the South and by parents/adults to children. Condescension and sarcasm is also common. Welcome to the real world, crazy lady.

"I am with Greg, you are a good reason not to post here anymore, Too weird."

Then stop posting here, April. Only someone as deluded and psychotic as you would find anything I just said "weird".

Try again, crazy lady. Oh wait, you aren't posting anymore. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

March 24, 2013 at 5:55 p.m.
gjuster said...

Easy - you are right about everything you have posted, in fact, I can't find one thing in your history of posting that you were wrong on. I can't believe that anyone would question you. And I am impressed as to how you do so without ever insulting anyone, or talking down to them. You are my hero - or heroine. I'll never doubt you again.

March 24, 2013 at 7:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

gjuster,

Your sarcasm has been duly noted. Anything else? I guess you've abandoned that whole "supporting-your-arugment" deal. It's so overrated, don't you think?

It's amazing to me how many people, such as yourself, get offended just by having their opinion questioned or criticized. The funny part about it is that those tend to be the same people that say they want to have "honest" or "intelligent" conversation. Instead of simply defending their position, they would rather wax indignant about what I've said. It's truly laughable. You don't want "honest" or "intelligent" conversation. You simply want to have your opinion accepted and your ego coddled with no opposition.

I will willingly admit when I am wrong. You, sir, seem to be the one lacking in that area. I have no problem with you or anyone criticizing my opinion, but I suggest you do it based on facts. And, every once in a while, try defending what you say when it's questioned or criticized instead of acting like a petulant child. Argue using facts and the truth, not simply your opinion of them. Stop being so sensitive and actually engage in debate.

I'm going to continue to post facts. I will continue to be truthful, sincere, and blunt in all my posts. I will continue to argue based on facts, logic, and reason. I will continue to criticize and question the opinion of others as I see fit. I will continue to tell the truth. If you have a problem with any of that, let me be perfectly clear, I DO NOT CARE.

March 24, 2013 at 10:33 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

100% Fact - Easy has no idea what he is talking about. He just googles things and then copies and pastes whatever fits his narrative. He fails at critical thinking. Just ignore him. His life is spent on this comment section because no one takes him seriously in real life.

March 25, 2013 at 12:20 p.m.
Leaf said...

Aaaaanyway. Why take it personally when random anonymous people on a forum disagree with you or call you names? We are all schizophrenic liars and drunks who live in our parents' basements. (Well, except me. I'm a genius with seventeen BMWs and houses all over the world that I earned through the sweat of my brow with nobody's help by pulling myself up by my bootstraps and putting my nose to the grindstone.) No offense intended, you sorry pack of insane rambling fools.

March 25, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

Your baseless, misguided, ignorant, factually incorrect opinion has been duly noted. Anything else?

March 25, 2013 at 2:58 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Great comment, Leaf! Made me laugh (with all due respect for your and Maximus's unique greatness, of course). I took my laptop upstairs and showed your comment to my mom. It made her laugh too. She says she'll serve my favorite for dinner - beanie-weenies and mashed potatoes with a Ding-Dong for dessert - if I'll take the trash out. But I told her I had to head back to the basement and get back to my mission of spreading socialism and I'd take care of the trash when I finish. So... keep up the good work, my fellow basement-dwelling socialists. And don't forget to take the trash out - gotta keep our moms happy, you know!

March 25, 2013 at 3:38 p.m.
timbo said...

slEasy321.....

gjuster said, "Want to kill all the Jews or Blacks or any particular group? - simply have 51% of the votes to do so and its done."

slEasy said, "Name a democracy that has done that. Don't worry, I'll wait."

Let me answer that, " The Soviet Union and China started out with a true democracy and they killed millions. The biggest example is Nazi Germany. Hitler was elected directly by the people. gjuster is right.

gjuster said, "We don't live in a Democracy, and I am thankful of that."

You said, "Wrong. The United States of America is a mixture of a representative democracy and a presidential republic. Again, you might want to do more research before you stick your foot in your mouth again."

The United States of America is a republic. A republic is a form of government in which there are laws that limit the powers of government.

The United States is NOT a democracy. A democracy is where the majority rules. This is often without regard for the rights of the minority.

For example. If the United States were a democracy, the majority of people could decide that they do not like a particular religion, and outlaw its practice. However, since we are a republic, with limits on the powers of government over religion (amongst other things) the minority (those practicing that religion in this example) are protected from the whims of the majority.

If we had true democracy our congress would be elected by the total population and not in the way we do it now.

Even the president is not picked by a direct democratic vote. They are chosen by electors that are voted for by the people. They usually vote the way the people in each state vote but they do not have to.

People like you slEasy, that want the tyranny of the majority, like to think that the Bill of Rights don't exist. Without the Bill of Rights this country would be no better than Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany or communist China. There constitutions read very similar to ours.

slEasy, at least you are consistent... consistently wrong. You have to be the dumbest poster on this page.

March 25, 2013 at 4:15 p.m.
timbo said...

Leaf......You said, "We are all schizophrenic liars and drunks who live in our parents' basements. (Well, except me. I'm a genius with seventeen BMWs and houses all over the world that I earned through the sweat of my brow with nobody's help by pulling myself up by my bootstraps and putting my nose to the grindstone.)

I am everything you said except a drunk. Oh, I only have 15 BMW's. ...and my houses are just in countries with beaches.

March 25, 2013 at 4:18 p.m.
timbo said...

slEasy321...You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you on the nose.

March 25, 2013 at 4:37 p.m.
timbo said...

Maybe I will rename you as .....slEasyFACT321BOOM. You should have been in the TV show, "Dragnet." "Only the facts ma'am....."

March 25, 2013 at 4:40 p.m.
timbo said...

slEasyFACT321BOOM...

Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The two parts which define where our rights come from are "....the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" and "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

This makes it very clear that rights don't come from men or government.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

This quote put it in a nutshell that the Constitution wasn't enough for the founders. ".....expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:..."

As you can see that the founders didn't trust men or government fully. They wanted the "rights" bestowed by nature and God to be preserved no matter what crackpot, like Obama, happened to be elected.

These people worshiped grammar and syntax and were very clear in their meaning. Don't argue with me or gjuster...argue with the founders.

March 25, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"The Soviet Union and China started out with a true democracy and they killed millions. The biggest example is Nazi Germany. Hitler was elected directly by the people. gjuster is right."

Wrong. Soviet Russia and China started as dictatorships.

"The United States of America is a republic. A republic is a form of government in which there are laws that limit the powers of government."

A republic is a variant of democracy. The US is a representative democracy, a presidential republic, and a constitutional republic. You might want to do more research before you put your foot in your mouth.

"The United States is NOT a democracy. A democracy is where the majority rules. This is often without regard for the rights of the minority."

Yes, it is. There are different forms of democracy. Do research before you spew your ignorance, moron.

"For example. If the United States were a democracy, the majority of people could decide that they do not like a particular religion, and outlaw its practice."

That's why we have a Constitution.

"However, since we are a republic, with limits on the powers of government over religion (amongst other things) the minority (those practicing that religion in this example) are protected from the whims of the majority."

A republic is a variant form of democracy. Majority rules in this country, dumbass. That's how our voting process works. Our Constitution maintains that everyone has the same rights, but we elect individuals to represent us based on those Constitutional rights.

"If we had true democracy our congress would be elected by the total population and not in the way we do it now."

No, it would not. A republic is simply a representative democracy where our representatives are chosen by the people.

"Even the president is not picked by a direct democratic vote. They are chosen by electors that are voted for by the people. They usually vote the way the people in each state vote but they do not have to."

Exactly. It's representative democratic vote.

"People like you slEasy, that want the tyranny of the majority, like to think that the Bill of Rights don't exist. Without the Bill of Rights this country would be no better than Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany or communist China. There constitutions read very similar to ours."

Nothing in that paragraph is true or sensical. You can't spell either.

"slEasy, at least you are consistent... consistently wrong. You have to be the dumbest poster on this page."

You might want to rethink that considering you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You don't even understand the most easily understood aspects of government. You have no clue what a republic or a democracy is. Your 3rd grade knowledge on the subject is very obvious. You talk it overt generalities and have no clue about nuanced definitions of words.

Try again, dumbass.

March 25, 2013 at 4:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you on the nose."

I wouldn't know your incorrect "facts".

"This makes it very clear that rights don't come from men or government."

Since men that were in the government wrote the Constitution, I'd have to disagree with you.

You'd have to prove that a god exists in order to make any claims about "god-given" rights.

"As you can see that the founders didn't trust men or government fully."

The Founders were men and government.

"They wanted the "rights" bestowed by nature and God to be preserved no matter what crackpot, like Obama, happened to be elected."

Show me where nature or "God" bestowed any rights to you or any human. Our Founders (aka the government) created those rights. They maintain them for us. "God" and nature had nothing to do with it. The Constitution and those rights are completely man-made.

"These people worshiped grammar and syntax and were very clear in their meaning. Don't argue with me or gjuster...argue with the founders."

I've already won the argument on logic and reason. If you or the Founders would like to even begin to have an argument, you would need to prove that there was a deity.

Don't worry, I'll wait. Meanwhile, I'll scoff at your ignorance and lack of logic and reason. You, sir, are a moron.

March 25, 2013 at 5:06 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Timbo, I know you don't realize this because you're so full of yourself you can't see the obvious, but Easy just chewed you up and spit you out. He clearly has a much better grasp of basic civics, politics, and history than you do. I suppose that when you should have been studying those things in school you were too busy reading Ayn Rand instead? It's hard to say who's more laughable - you or Maximus.

March 25, 2013 at 5:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I'd also like to point out that Germany started out as a democracy BEFORE Hitler came into power. After Hitler was voted in, the country quickly became a dictatorship. The atrocities in Soviet Russia, China and Nazi Germany happened under authoritarian dictatorships, not democracies. gjuster and timbo are WRONG.

March 25, 2013 at 5:24 p.m.
chatt_man said...

For easy to make the statement "Majority rules in this country, dumbass", he must have forgotten the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida. Oh, that's right...it was stolen.

March 25, 2013 at 5:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

I didn't forget. On the whole, majority rules. Unless your brother is the governor of the swing state you need to win the election.

Republicans love to sh!t all over that Constitution you WingNuts hold so dear. Just as long as it fits your agenda, right?

March 25, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Fact is Easy your statement's wrong. you can't have majority rule in your representative democracy. Wrong, Easy, Wrong! Oh the friggin' horror of it all.

March 25, 2013 at 5:42 p.m.
chatt_man said...

So, exactly where was the Constitution not followed in the 2000 Presidential election?

March 25, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

My statement is correct. We can and do have majority rule in our representative democracy. Wrong, chatt_man, Wrong! Oh the freaking commonplace of it all!

Did you not take government or civics classes in high school? What is it that makes you and others so ignorant or oblivious to the actual facts?

Who wins in gubernatorial elections? Who wins in senatorial elections? Who wins in representative elections? Who wins in presidential elections? How does a bill pass the Senate or the House?

There are flaws in the system. Gerrymandering, too few people representing to many people, etc., but the fact remains. You, timbo, and gjuster are wrong.

Try again.

March 25, 2013 at 5:50 p.m.
chatt_man said...

So if the majority rules, how did that work in Florida in 2000 again? And, again, how was the Constitution sh!t on?

March 25, 2013 at 5:53 p.m.
chatt_man said...

I'll be on the way home from work, but I will check out your answer when I can. Meanwhile, I'll leave you to your googling.

March 25, 2013 at 5:55 p.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo.. slEasy has a grasp, as you do, of socialist civics, left slanted view of history and revision politics. I just quoted the Preambles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You and other liberals hate these document so you misinterpret them to serve your socialist view. Since socialism didn't exist, I don't think the constitution could have been based on it.

You might not like it but the founders meant that these rights are natural and come from God and are only chronicled in the constitution and Bill of Rights. The founders didn't make them up they only acknowledged their existence. The fact that you don't like religion or freedom doesn't change it's meaning.

Just the fact that you liberals think an idiot like slEasy makes sense is the reason some of us are so worried.

March 25, 2013 at 5:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

No Googling necessary. Our own Supreme Court overruled the state of Florida's recount process. The Supreme Court ignored the 14th Amendment.

March 25, 2013 at 5:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"she has a grasp, as you do, of socialist civics, left slanted view of history and revision politics. I just quoted the Preambles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You and other liberals hate this document so you misinterpret it to serve your ends."

Nothing in that paragraph is remotely true or sensical.

"You might not like it but the founders meant that these rights are natural and come from God and are only chronicled in the constitution and Bill of Rights."

They were invented and written by the Founders. There was no "chronicling". Our Bill of Rights was based on the English Bill of Rights, the Federalist papers, other documents and the Founders own ideas. They didn't have a talk with "god".

"The founders didn't make them up they only acknowledged their existence."

They created the Bill of Rights in its current form. They used ideas from several places but they invented our Bill of Rights as we know it. The US Bill of Rights is exclusively American. It isn't divine or innate. Men in the government compiled the ideas and created it.

"The fact that you don't like religion or freedom doesn't change it's meaning."

You have no clue what you're talking about. But you can keep your 18th century, illogical thinking. Everyone else will live in the real world.

"Just the fact that you liberals think an idiot like slEasy makes sense is the reason some of us are so worried."

I am only using facts. If you can't grasp or believe them, YOU have the problem, not everyone else. You should be worried. If I were a moron like yourself, I would be REALLY worried. You are patently ignorant about simple facts. You are the idiot. You are the one trying to deny verifiable facts. Sorry to burst your WingNut, moron bubble, but YOU are the problem, not everyone else.

March 25, 2013 at 6:06 p.m.
timbo said...

rickaroo....As far as being "full of myself" that is the pot calling the kettle black. I might have a reason for that opinion but you probably have no accomplishments to base that over-sized opinion of yourself. You get your little jolt from acting the big pseudo-intellectual on this page. If you had any true accomplishments, you wouldn't make those kinds of petty, jealous comments.

Isn't that what liberalism is based on...self-loathing, envy, jealousy, and pettiness?

March 25, 2013 at 6:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

Isn't that what conservatism is based on? Anti-intelligence, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reason, hatred, bigotry, ignorance, misinformation, lies, anti-government, self-righteousness, sanctimony, and a little more ignorance?

No one is jealous of you, moron. Who, on the face of the earth, would be jealous of a patently ignorant imbecile like you? If you had any true accomplishment to be "jealous" of, you wouldn't be so stupid or psychotic.

You have conjured up this extremely narcissistic idea that people are jealous of you or Dems. are jealous of Repubs. or the 47% bullsh!t that was fed to you by the WingNut propaganda machine. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be true or how many times you say it, it simply isn't true. It is your wet dream. It is your fantasy. And that is exactly where it will stay: as a fantasy in your tiny brain.

March 25, 2013 at 6:15 p.m.
timbo said...

slEasyFACT321BOOM...You, like most good liars, take part of a fact and twist it until it means what you want. I will try to get through your MEDS but your "facts" are nonsensical.

You still don't get it...these "rights" were written down by the founders but it was their understanding that they already existed. They didn't make them up..this was there understanding that these rights came from something better and more powerful than just government. That's is why they couldn't be taken away by men or governments because men weren't the source of these rights. That is what the whole constitution. It is bizarre that you hate religion so much that you can't see the role it played in our constitution and founding. Most of the founders were Deists. It is clear what they meant to most sane people. You are insane.

You said that our government was based on some English form of government but that government was tyrannical over the colonies. Our founders were writing something that would negate that style of government and make sure the individual was protected. Your ignorance is breath-taking.

Do you really think that we fought a revolution over keeping the same old "English form of government?" You are just nuts.

You might be encouraged by the rest of the liberals howling acceptance of your total lack of coherence but your "facts" are only your interpretation of "facts."

For that matter, it is a convoluted, ignorant, and weird interpretation that I have wasted enough time talking about. Bye, bye crazy lady.

March 25, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"You, like most good liars, take part of a fact and twist it until it means what you want. I will try to get through your MEDS but your "facts" are nonsensical."

I haven't done such a thing. My facts stand alone.

"You still don't get it...these "rights" were written down by the founders but it was their understanding that they already existed."

They existed in other places and in their own minds. They did not come from nature or god.

"They didn't make them up..this was there understanding that these rights came from something better and more powerful than just government."

It doesn't matter what they thought. What are the facts? The Bill of Rights as we know it was invented by our Founders. That collection of ideas was, in fact, made up, from a collection of other ideas and documents, by that group of men at that time. There is no disputing that fact no matter how much you try.

"That's is why they couldn't be taken away by men or governments because men weren't the source of these rights."

They can be. That's why we have laws. Laws protect our rights. It is simply illegal to take away someones rights. That same government ensures those rights.

"That is what the whole constitution."

A document created by men that were in the government?

"It is bizarre that you hate religion so much that you can't see the role it played in our constitution and founding."

Religion played very little part. Read James Madison, Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams. They all renounced the idea that our government was founded on religion.

"Most of the founders were Deists. It is clear what they meant to most sane people. You are insane."

You are insane and deluded for not understand simple logic and facts. It is clear that you don't understand the reality of how the Constitution came into being and what it actually means.

"You said that our government was based on some English form of government but that government was tyrannical over the colonies."

The English Bill of Rights was used to draft the American Bill of Rights, idiot.

"Our founders were writing something that would negate that style of government and make sure the individual was protected. Your ignorance is breath-taking."

Seriously, you're a moron. You have absolutely no clue what in the hell you are talking about. You are ignorant of facts.

"Do you really think that we fought a revolution over keeping the same old "English form of government?" You are just nuts."

I didn't say we were keeping the same old English form of government. Learn to read. I said "Our Bill of Rights was based on the English Bill of Rights...". That is fact. The English Bill of Rights was used to draft the American Bill of Rights. You are patently ignorant.

March 25, 2013 at 6:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner (continued),

"You might be encouraged by the rest of the liberals howling acceptance of your total lack of coherence but your "facts" are only your interpretation of "facts.""

I don't need any encouragement. My facts are not interpretation. They are, indeed, facts that can be found anywhere. You should try looking them up some time so you won't look like a moron in front of everyone that reads your ridiculously inane posts.

"For that matter, it is a convoluted, ignorant, and weird interpretation that I have wasted enough time talking about. Bye, bye crazy lady."

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, you dumb bastard. If you would like to come back for another thorough shellacking, I'll be here to put you in your place.

You make my job easy, timbo. It's not a challenge trying to debate someone so egregiously ignorant. Hell, there isn't even a debate. It's just you spewing ignorance and myself cleaning up your mess. Nothing you say is factual. Nothing you say is true. You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about at least 80% of the time and the other 20% is just regurgitated propaganda/talking points.

It is mind-numbing to try and wrap my brain around how truly ignorant you actually are. I'm sure I've only begun to scratch the surface. You are mentally compromised. You are ignorance incarnate.

March 25, 2013 at 6:54 p.m.
mosquito said...

Easy 123 said,

"No one is trying to disarm citizens."

I have read some of your posts from time to time and I must say overall your reasoning and logic on most topics seems to be spot on. Except for this one..

Now if we analyze your statement , unless the authorities are currently in the process of entering ones home with that intention then you are 100% correct. However, that is only part of the truth.

Simply because you say it doesn't make it so . If you would only admit that there are some in this country who would want to eliminate and confiscate SOME weapons, then we might have a more honest discussion instead of your bullying.

And yes Sen. Feinstein is only one person, but there are others.

http://factcheck.org/2013/03/rangels-assault-weapons-whopper/

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2013/03/franken_and_klo_3.shtml

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/03/three-proposed-%E2%80%98assault-weapons%E2%80%99-bans-likely-pass-11-likely-fail

Is someone at my door about to come in to take my LEGAL weapons at this exact moment?? No.

How about now? No.

And now? No.

If people were more inclined to reasonable debate such as you are, then the perceived need for such weapons would be greatly diminished. But most people are not we, Easy 123.

March 25, 2013 at 8:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mosquito,

"If you would only admit that there are some in this country who would want to eliminate and confiscate SOME weapons, then we might have a more honest discussion instead of your bullying."

The rhetoric from Feinstein and others still does not coincide with the bills they are trying to pass. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did not include any confiscation or elimination of weapons legally in the hands of gun owners. The most recent attempts at renewing that ban didn't either. Feinstein and others have mentioned confiscation, but the bills they present simply do not include anything of the sort. That leads me to make the assertion that no one is trying to disarm or confiscate guns from citizens. Those are just the facts.

"And yes Sen. Feinstein is only one person, but there are others."

Again, the rhetoric doesn't match the actions. Confiscation and disarmament is not part of the discussion, nor should it be.

It's easy to cherry-pick statements from people like Feinstein, but you have to look at what is actually being proposed. Confiscation and disarmament IS NOT being proposed by anyone with the power to do so. Those propositions would never even make it to a vote in the House or the Senate.

March 25, 2013 at 10:09 p.m.
mosquito said...

I believe likely or unlikely has nothing to do with it. The facts are that some of the states were are proposing that IF these bills pass there are a few options. One can remove the weapon from the state , one can render the weapon inoperable or one can turn it in to the proper authorities. I believe the individual would have 90 days to comply.

Having said that , I am quite comfortable living without my jazzed up SKS. Didn't have one for many years. Just the run of the mill hunting weapons. It's the Principle of the matter. Merely accepting that this type of law would only create the strife it seeks to avoid would seem common sense.

Why then would they even be proposed??

Just because you do not think it will ever happen does not equate factually with your previous statements on the subject.. To sum it, confiscation Is and or has been proposed by several states recently. Whether it passes it another discussion.

And we might do good to google or you tube the gun confiscation that took place concerning Hurricane Katrina in LA.

Extraordinary circumstances no doubt, but sobering to not a few of us.

March 25, 2013 at 11:02 p.m.
joneses said...

I try my best to avoid gun free zones as I find them to be the most dangerous places. However, since I am responsible for my own safety I carry a gun wherever I go whether it be a gun free zone or not. I would rather be tried by 12 than carried out by 6.

March 26, 2013 at 7:26 a.m.
jjmez said...

joneses, your paranoia is your greatest threat and danger to both yourself and others who cross your path. Especially dangerous for them if they look suspicious in your mind.

March 26, 2013 at 7:54 a.m.
joneses said...

jjmez

You do not know me or know who I am so making an accusation about me shows how childish and immature you are. This is about me taking responsibility for my safety. Remember, the police do not show up until after the crime has been committed. The last thing I want to do is shoot someone but I know if I shoot someone it will be to protect me and my family. I do not go to places that I feel unsafe or it is against the law to protect myself or my family or where the chances of having to protect myself increase therefore avoiding having to shoot someone. Would you purposely walk through a gang infested neighborhood at night? I doubt it very much. So does that make you paranoid? Grow up.

March 26, 2013 at 8:20 a.m.
jjmez said...

Would you purposely walk through a gang infested neighborhood at night?

Actually, I do and I have, joneses. I actually walk up to and talk to some of these so-called gang-members the police and media have been spoon feeding fear about. If you're going to allow others to dictate fear to you you've already lost control of your own destiny, and you're going to always remain trapped in a world of fear and paranoia.

"Grow up?" I think you should take your own advice, jonses and GROW UP!

March 26, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.
joneses said...

jjjmez

Your response of you walking up to these gang members is the lie I expected from you. Saying I am afraid is a lie as well as you do not know me. It shows a lack of intellect and it is very immature and childish to think just because i and everyone else that carries a gun is afraid and paranoid. I have a spare tire in my trunk in case I have a flat tire. Does that mean I am afraid of having a flat tire? It does not. The problem with you and your immature childish thinking is you think because you do not carry a gun no one else should. If you choose not to carry a gun I am not going to persuade you to carry one nor accuse you of being mindless and stupid as that is your choice and hopefully you know what is best for you. I would show you have some intellect by showing me the same respect if I choose to carry a gun. You wanting myself and everyone else to be like you shows a lack of intellect and proves you are hateful, childish and immature and full of false expectations. I have no expectations of you. If you do not want to carry a gun then that is your choice and I respect that. Show me some intellect and respect by my choice to carry a gun. Grow up and wake up. By the way, this may shock you, but I am an individual capable of making my own choices and living with the consequences of those choices. I do not think you have the intellect or maturity to understand this concept. Again grow up and wake up!

March 26, 2013 at 9:04 a.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Easy if the United States is ruled by the Majority then explain why we have the Senate?

March 26, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Easy if the United States is ruled by the Majority then explain why we have the Senate?"

Your question doesn't make sense. Majority can and does rule in the Senate. Having a Senate does not change that fact in the least. We have the Senate because the framers of the Constitution wanted us to. They are voted on to represent the people. They are elected by a majority to speak, vote, represent the people from their state in government affairs.

Is that enough information for you or would you like more?

March 26, 2013 at 12:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

"I have a spare tire in my trunk in case I have a flat tire. Does that mean I am afraid of having a flat tire? It does not."

Actually, it does. Why would you carry a spare tire unless you were, at least somewhat, afraid of getting a flat tire. Your assertion is illogical.

"The problem with you and your immature childish thinking is you think because you do not carry a gun no one else should."

Show me where anyone said that. I bet you can't.

"You wanting myself and everyone else to be like you shows a lack of intellect and proves you are hateful, childish and immature and full of false expectations."

Again, show me where jjmez or anyone said they wanted your and "everyone else" to be like them. I bet you can't.

"Show me some intellect and respect by my choice to carry a gun."

"Show some intellect"? Learn what words mean. No one is disrespecting your choice to carry a gun.

"I do not think you have the intellect or maturity to understand this concept."

I think most toddlers can understand that concept. You seem to have a hard time wording cogent sentences. You should really try to stop sounding intelligent and actually learn what words mean.

"Grow up", "wake up", "childish", "immature", "hateful", "lack of intellect". All of those words and phrases describe you more than anyone else here. Nothing you say is factually correct. You are the most hateful person in these threads. You are overtly immature and childish. How you perceive and characterize others and their beliefs is nearly always wrong. You live in a fantasy world. But I don't expect anything less from one of the most ignorant people that post here.

March 26, 2013 at 12:32 p.m.
nowfedup said...

Still waiting for the paranoids and rambo/swat wanna be that "er packing my piece" to respond as to minimum rounds fired and hours of classroom in gun use/laws/liabilities need be attended before one allowed CCL. Amusing how the paranoid's just must carry to ward off the "evil ones", who strike at will due to lack of cops etc. Yet none can explain why with everyone must pack en we all being safer then" USA has highest gun violence of all nations? Why with all these rambo and gun experts running about, gun injury rates just keep going up? As said, what is MIN requirement for CCl and this would mean if changed, the clowns "a packing to save yall" in school areas? WELL? (and justify please, if you can)

March 26, 2013 at 1:05 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Each state, regardless of the size of their population, gets 2 votes in the Senate. So, you want to explain again how the Majority rules.

March 26, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

Which candidates win those two Senate seats? The ones with the most votes. How does a bill pass the Senate? It has to get a majority or, in some cases, a super-majority of the votes.

Would you like to explain to me how the majority doesn't rule. Nothing in this country gives any indication that the majority doesn't rule. The majority rules in every aspect of government. From the voting process to the passing of a bill, majority always rules.

The Senate is a great example of majority rule. You're just too stupid to grasp that idea.

March 26, 2013 at 1:55 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

The framers created the Senate to specifically provide a safeguard against majority rule. Giving small states the same voting power as the large states provided protection for the voice of the minority from the majority.

This is stuff you learn in middle school Easy.

March 26, 2013 at 3:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"The framers created the Senate to specifically provide a safeguard against majority rule."

No, the Senate was created to give each state equal representation. Majority still rules in the Senate despite what your misguided little brain thinks.

"Giving small states the same voting power as the large states provided protection for the voice of the minority from the majority."

Yet the minority isn't protected from the majority. The majority still rules in the Senate, the states simply have equal say. What about the House of Representatives? Each state gets representatives in accordance with their population. It's a different concept than the Senate, but the fact remains, majority still rules in both places. It's strange to me how you cannot grasp that fact.

"This is stuff you learn in middle school Easy."

That explains your grade-school point of view on the term "majority rules". You maintain and espouse a watered-down, ignorant definition of that term. It's like you've missed the last 200 years of American history. You are completely ignorant to nuanced definitions of terms that weren't taught in grade-school civics class. The term is not a reference to the collective population of the United States as your simple mind has defined it. Our representative democracy, presidential and constitutional republic always maintains that the majority rules. I've already mentioned the voting process and the passing of bills through both the House and the Senate. Your 6th grade government class definition of the phrase "majority rules" is shallow and sophomoric. Join us in the modern world where words are associated with the real world ideas instead of simple definitions written in grade-school textbooks or on Wikipedia.

Again, would you like to explain to me how the majority doesn't rule. Show me one area of government where the majority does not rule.

I'm still unsure why you continue to argue points that you cannot intelligently defend. I guess you just like to argue with me, but you always seem to argue about the most ridiculous things. You are wrong here. This isn't a matter of opinion. You have yet to give me one example or explain to me how the majority doesn't rule. I have explained my case thoroughly. You haven't even begun to provide a cogent, honest, or accurate rebuttal to anything I've said.

Again, the Senate is a great example of majority rule. You're just too stupid to grasp that idea.

March 26, 2013 at 4:07 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Haha no problem Easy. With regards to the Senate, legislation could be passed (or vetoed) with the votes of senators who represent barely 17 percent of the national population (or less than 11 percent under current filibuster rules). I am not saying that the 50 senators from the 25 least populous states agree all the time. But, it is not unusual for senators that represent well less than half the population to end up determining the outcome of legislative proposals.

You lose.

March 26, 2013 at 5:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"With regards to the Senate, legislation could be passed (or vetoed) with the votes of senators who represent barely 17 percent of the national population (or less than 11 percent under current filibuster rules)."

How many votes are required to pass that legislation? Oh wait, a majority? What about the House? A majority as well? The modern idea of "majority rules" in America is not specifically about population or the majority of the population ruling. I've stated that already. I've even referenced our representative democracy.

"I am not saying that the 50 senators from the 25 least populous states agree all the time."

It wouldn't matter if they did or not. You're arguing against your strawman. Either way, you've yet to grasp the modern concept of "majority rules" as it applies to the government of the United States of America.

"But, it is not unusual for senators that represent well less than half the population to end up determining the outcome of legislative proposals."

And yet, in the Senate, the majority still rules. I already made it clear that "majority rules" is not a direct reference to the collective population. It would be advantageous for you to actually understand that your shallow, elementary definitions are not being debated here. Are you stupid or intentionally acting dense?

"You lose."

No, you lose because you lack the general understanding of how the Senate works and the words I've typed. You're arguing from a simplistic, antiquated definition of the term "majority rules".

Again, would you like to explain to me how the majority doesn't rule. Show me one area of government where the majority does not rule. I am not talking specifically about the population, however, in some cases, the majority of the population does rule (voting, etc.).

"Again, the Senate is a great example of majority rule. You're just too stupid to grasp that idea. The majority rules under our representative democracy, constitutional and presidential republic.*

You need to learn more nuanced definitions of words. This isn't Ancient Greece or a civics textbook. It is no longer a challenge trying to debate you. You can continue trying to arguing against your strawmen, against points that you cannot intelligently defend because they are incorrect, and semantics. I'll continue to speak from facts.

You will always lose. I assure you of that.

March 26, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Haha, Easy you fail. The Senate was set up to give smaller states protection against the larger states. That is not up for debate. Now, good job on recognizing that it takes a majority of Senators voting on a bill for it to pass but that it not what people are talking about when they say that the Constitution was setup to protect the minority from the majority.

The founding fathers were not stupid and specifically set up our government with a system of checks and balances in order to protect the minority. You are a moron if you think the founders wanted our government to be a democracy where the simple majority always gets it way.

Easy you have proven yourself to be a failure yet again. Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200. Go try and educate yourself and stop typing out your constant nonsense.

March 26, 2013 at 6:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NF,

"Haha, Easy you fail."

Wrong. You have earned a Ph.D in the art of failing.

"The Senate was set up to give smaller states protection against the larger states. That is not up for debate."

Also known as equal representation. I mentioned that already.

"Now, good job on recognizing that it takes a majority of Senators voting on a bill for it to pass but that it not what people are talking about when they say that the Constitution was setup to protect the minority from the majority."

No one said that is what it means. Majority rules in the Senate. There is no argument to the contrary.

"The founding fathers were not stupid and specifically set up our government with a system of checks and balances in order to protect the minority."

Checks and balances were not set up to protect the minority from the majority. However under the Constitution, the minority is equally represented in places like the Senate, but, even in the Senate, the majority rules (not the majority of the population, the majority of the Senate). Majority still rules under the Constitution, even with the current filibuster rules. There is no logical argument to the contrary.

"You are a moron if you think the founders wanted our government to be a democracy where the simple majority always gets it way."

You are the moron because I have made it clear more than once that I am not referring to the collective population when I refer to "majority rules". I am not referring to this shallow, simple definition you have of "democracy". Our government is a representative democracy. It is also a presidential republic and a constitutional republic. A republic is a variant of a democracy, more specifically, an indirect democracy. You are arguing with your strawman.

"Easy you have proven yourself to be a failure yet again."

No, that would be you, AGAIN. You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with this strawman that you have created. I do not and have never espoused the ideas that you are attributing to me. Again, you will always lose because you are completely incompetent and every argument you make is fallacious.

"Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200."

I've been lapping you in this mental Monopoly for some time now. I've collected my fair share of $200 bills.

"Go try and educate yourself and stop typing out your constant nonsense."

I've offered you that same advice many times over, but I'm sure you won't heed it. You have proven yourself to be a fool. You constantly spew your own ignorance on these threads and today is no different. You don't have an argument. You have completely and utterly proven your incompetence on the subject at hand.

I have no doubt you will respond with another inane attempt at rebuttal. I will continue to show just how wrong, ignorant, daft, and inept you truly are.

March 26, 2013 at 7:26 p.m.
timbo said...

slEasy321..... Do you ever shut up? You have wRitten over one third of the total posts on this subject. Is this all you have to do? Eight or 10 posts might be okay but over 40 is insane.

The editor should limit the amount of posts someone puts on this page. Your excessive number is just you trying to be a bully. How could anyone have this many posts about one subject?

You are definitely mentally ill.

March 26, 2013 at 7:37 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Hahaha, Easy you have no clue what you are talking about.

March 26, 2013 at 7:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"Do you ever shut up?"

Not when I'm being addressed.

"You have wRitten over one third of the total posts on this subject."

And?

"Is this all you have to do?"

Considering all of my posts are spread out over 3-4 days, no, it's not all I have to do.

"Eight or 10 posts might be okay but over 40 is insane."

Your baseless, illogical opinion has been duly noted.

"The editor should limit the amount of posts someone puts on this page. Your excessive number is just you trying to be a bully."

You obviously have no clue what bullying is. You cannot point to any one of my posts that would even remotely quality as bullying. But your baseless, illogical opinion has been noted once again.

"How could anyone have this many posts about one subject?"

I haven't. I only post when I'm addressed. They aren't on one subject. You should consider actually reading what I type instead of making yourself look like an idiot. It's a foregone conclusion that you are, in fact, an idiot, but you don't have to make it so obvious.

"You are definitely mentally ill."

Again, your baseless, illogical opinion has been duly noted. I have substantial evidence that would prove you that you are the one with the mental problem. I think you're just projecting again, timmy.

You're truly an incompetent individual. Your psychosis has been observed by myself and others on a multitude of occasions.

March 26, 2013 at 8:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Hahaha, Easy you have no clue what you are talking about"

Wrong again. You're dwindling.

March 26, 2013 at 8:08 p.m.
mosquito said...

My friends if you are going to debate the Easy please have facts at hand or it will be handed back to you in spades.

March 26, 2013 at 8:43 p.m.
mosquito said...

As for you Easy, it would not be below your intelligence to admit being at least partly wrong.

Quite to the contrary, the fact that you have ignored our debate on the gun issue may mean you think I will go away. I will not.

You are quite impressive on the vast majority of opinions and debates here.

Just not this one.

March 26, 2013 at 9:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mosquito,

"As for you Easy, it would not be below your intelligence to admit being at least partly wrong."

It's impossible to disarm citizens. Subverting the 2nd Amendment is all but impossible. It's remotely plausible that some weapons could be confiscated. However, that does not equal disarmament or the rise of 1000 year socialist utopia as others here have prophesied. I have yet to see anything of the sort proposed at the Federal level. In regard to specific states having buy back programs, etc., I figured any true Republicans/Libertarians would always be in favor of states rights.

"Quite to the contrary, the fact that you have ignored our debate on the gun issue may mean you think I will go away. I will not."

I haven't ignored it. If you'll notice, I've been a bit busy responding to others. I don't expect you to go away or the debate to go away.

March 26, 2013 at 9:23 p.m.
mosquito said...

Absolutely smashing response!!!

You are correct indeed on the states rights issue as we have many to choose from in which to live. If this one gets too annoying we have the freedom to move to a state more to our liking.

March 26, 2013 at 9:34 p.m.
jesse said...

Mosquito,are you easys next door neighbor??

Or maybe his girlfriend? (boyfriend??)

March 27, 2013 at 11:15 a.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"may acquire a deprecatory attitude in which the achievements of others are ridiculed and degraded"

http://www.writersvillage.com/character/Compensatory-Narcissistic.htm

LMFAO!

March 27, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
PHenry said...

Easy123: "Government gave you..." Wrong. No government gave us any of the rights that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights; those rights are given to us by God.

"In regard to specific states having buy back programs, etc., I figured any true Republicans/Libertarians would always be in favor of states rights." Not if/when they violate the Constitution. See the 10th Amendment for clarification. Of course, if the buy-back program is non-compulsory and people want to freely give up their arms, that is up to them.

All the other little semantic dances involving the issue of confiscation are merely that. Feinstein has been been saying, in public, since 1995 that she wanted to take all guns away. She admitted she just can't get enough votes to do it. So, her menu has "Infringement" on it instead. The 1994 BAN may have not taken weapons away from anyone but by it's very nature, it banned any citizens from getting ones manufactured after the date the ban was enacted.

Sure, they are not blatantly trying to take guns away, at least not yet (I bet the citizens of New Orleans are resting easy with that soundbite though). Instead, infringement upon the ability to get types that allow citizens a reasonable chance to defend themselves from tyranny is the order of the day. Infringement by making it harder to get various types? Absolutely. Infringement by making it harder for certain people to get any? You betcha. Infringement by banning weapons that look a certain way? Of course. Infringement on accessories? Yup, yup, yup!

Here is my problem and please pardon me if I over-simplify:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

April 18, 2013 at noon
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.