Reasonable Gun Control Could Have Stopped Hasan's Easy Purchase of Cop-Killer Pistol & Ammo
nraclaptrap
November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
terrorist ties.
Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
sometime in early 2009.
Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
passed the background check.
http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Foxtrot
>Subject: Reasonable Gun Control Could Have Stopped Hasan's Easy Purchase of Cop-Killer Pistol & Ammo
Interesting idea, Crap Flap. Libs hate the Patriot Act but apparently
have no problem using it to prevent somebody from buying a gun. Even
without any legal grounds to do so.
>Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>terrorist ties.
>
>Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
>between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
>sometime in early 2009.
>
>Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>passed the background check.
>
>http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
S'pose Schumer also thinks the "red flag" should have alerted Bow
Down Obama's staff that Hasan could be dangerous in other ways?
Like with a lighter and a can of gasoline?
Schumer is a gun grabbing gestapo who'll exploit any tragedy he can
find to try to destroy the Second Amendment.
Ivan Bittertittyoff
Unreasonable gun control is what caused the shooting. If guns would have
been allowed on the Base, the shooting would not have happened. Gun
control didn't allow guns on the Base but did that law stop the filthy
low life muslim from bringing one. No
edi...@netpath.net
some unknown procedure, by some unknown agency, has put you on a
"watch list?"
What SHOULD have happened - being that there's no constitutional right
to be an Army officer - is Hasan discharged as soon as others at
Walter Reed heard his open rants about the justifiability of jihad.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Phlip
> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>
> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>
> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
> terrorist ties.
Sounds to me like if you don't qualify to own a gun, then you don't
qualify to serve in the armed forces, and vice versa.
But, like I said before, this story sure has something for everyone.
Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is justified by the 2nd
Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
We are all ears!
edi...@netpath.net
> But, like I said before, this story sure has something for everyone.
> Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is justified by the 2nd
> Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
You asshole. The "day before," Hasan was a SUSPECTED possible
(future) terrorist. At what point do you want *all* constitutional
rights disregarded because you're SUSPECTED - not convicted, not even
arrested - of possibly being prone to crime?
Is this Amerika still - or North Korea? I think we know which Schumer
thinks.
nraclaptrap
4ax.com:
>>Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>
>>November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>
>>NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>>laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>>Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>
> There is a hole in the election laws in New York State that allows
> Sen. Charles Schumer to run again and again.
It's called voting, Weenieboy.
> Sen. Charles Schumer will hardly let a mass murder by the use of guns
> go by without pushing his gun control agenda.
Thank goodness. The NRA-ILA never lets a mass murder go by without
screeching that the solution is more guns with more deregulation.
Gun deregulation makes financial deregulation look like a picnic.
> "The Brady law is not a cure for the bloody scourge of gun
> violence. It's a good beginning, it's a good first step, but it's not
> enough. And we are going to move forward. The Brady Bill was the
> first step. We are not taking in one proposal many, many more steps."
> --U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, at the press conference
> introducing "Brady II," February 28, 1994
Right; we need to get the gun flood under control.
Scalia makes that easy with his opinion in Heller, eh Jimmiloon?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:9p71g5tqe5lamab2n...@4ax.com:
> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Subject: Reasonable Gun Control Could Have Stopped Hasan's Easy
>>Purchase of Cop-Killer Pistol & Ammo
>
> Interesting idea, Crap Flap. Libs hate the Patriot Act but apparently
> have no problem using it to prevent somebody from buying a gun. Even
> without any legal grounds to do so.
See your state firearms statute, Cocksnot. How'd you like a federal gun
statute that replaces your state gun rights with national gun control?
See Heller.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:ZLGdnXOba_U1PZ3W...@earthlink.com:
>> Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>
>> November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>
>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>
>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>
>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>> terrorist ties.
>>
>> Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
>> between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
>> sometime in early 2009.
>>
>> Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>> when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>> passed the background check.
>>
>> http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
>
> Unreasonable gun control is what caused the shooting.
Tell it to the US Armed Forces. They know more about maintaining safety
where they live than you do, lil troll.
Next please.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
beee-214...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
This poster killfiles 100 days for argument by deletion.
> What OTHER constitutional rights do you want to condition on whether
> some unknown procedure, by some unknown agency, has put you on a
> "watch list?"
> What SHOULD have happened - being that there's no constitutional right
> to be an Army officer - is Hasan discharged as soon as others at
> Walter Reed heard his open rants about the justifiability of jihad.
Maybe you should be in jail for all the raging hatred you spew, eh
Bedwetter?
As long as you're pissing on the Constitution arbitrarily.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
slate_leeper
wrote:
OK.
What loophole?
That he was investigated for something?
He was NOT found guilty of anything. He was NOT charged with anything.
The investigation was DROPPED. What possible justification was there
to restrict his Constitutional rights?
To Sen. Scummer, ANYTHING that lets someone own a firearm is a
"loophole."
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
Klaus Schadenfreude
What part of Brady would have stopped him from buying a gun? Being a
"suspect?"
The inquiry was closed, you fat, stupid drunk.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>"edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in news:a181440a-f7b2-46aa-
>beee-214...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>This poster killfiles 100 days for argument by deletion.
>
>> What OTHER constitutional rights do you want to condition on whether
>> some unknown procedure, by some unknown agency, has put you on a
>> "watch list?"
>> What SHOULD have happened - being that there's no constitutional right
>> to be an Army officer - is Hasan discharged as soon as others at
>> Walter Reed heard his open rants about the justifiability of jihad.
>
>Maybe you should be in jail for all the raging hatred you spew, eh
>Bedwetter?
Maybe you should be in jail for your hate crime of wanting to take
away Constitutional rights without due process?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>
>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>
>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>> terrorist ties.
>
>Sounds to me like if you don't qualify to own a gun, then you don't
>qualify to serve in the armed forces, and vice versa.
So since he WAS in the armed forces you're saying he WAS qualified to
own a gun. Thank you.
>But, like I said before, this story sure has something for everyone.
>Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is justified by the 2nd
>Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
Which loophole are you babbling about?
Milt
So, just curious... do we take away the rights of everyone who's being
"investigated" for something? Doesn't that create a hell of a loophole
when right wingers are in office?
What he's proposing sounds very much like the shit we hated in the
Patriot Act, where merely being accused of being a terrorist was
sufficient for Bush to put us in the Gulag.
Look; the guy was a member of the armed forces; he had access to guns,
and in fact, was likely required to shoot one on a regular basis. For
whatever reason, he snapped and shot people. I happen to think there
was some PC bullshit going on in this case, because they didn't want
to accuse a Muslim with an Arabic name of associating with terrorists,
and they should have acted on it a while back. But to question whether
or not he was eligible to buy a gun? He was a Captain in the US Army.
If he was ineligible to buy a gun, he should have been ineligible to
be counseling soldiers, as well, right?
I really don't know why this country punishes itself so much, looking
for someone to blame for everything. Sometimes, people snap, go crazy
and shoot stuff. There is no magical fix available to prevent such a
thing. If he hadn't purchased the gun at a gun dealer, he could have
gotten one any number of other ways.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Nov 15, 6:48�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>
>> November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>
>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>
>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>
>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>> terrorist ties.
>>
>> Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
>> between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
>> sometime in early 2009.
>>
>> Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>> when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>> passed the background check.
>>
>> http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
>>
>> --
>>
>> NRACLAPTRAP
>
>So, just curious... do we take away the rights of everyone who's being
>"investigated" for something? Doesn't that create a hell of a loophole
>when right wingers are in office?
Holy crap.
Milt and I are in complete agreement.
Someone look outside and tell me if dogs and cats are playing
together.
Milt
>
You're an idiot. It's an Army base; there are plenty of guns. Why do
you people have this fantasy that, if everyone is armed, then no one
will ever shoot anyone else ever again? The guy shot people in a
theater, and the theater was full of families, including kids; if
everyone in the theater was armed, the reality is that more people
might have been shot, as some people started firing back in the
direction the bullets came from, and possibly hit other people
accidentally. And with all those bullets, it might have been far more
difficult to tell who the original shooter was, and they may have had
a more dififcult time catching him.
Please stop watching action movies and believing them. In reality,
Rambo, Bruce and Arnold would probably been killed within the first
five minutes of each film. Guns don't make you invincible.
Milt
> On Nov 15, 7:58 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But, like I said before, this story sure has something for everyone.
> > Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is justified by the 2nd
> > Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
>
> You asshole. The "day before," Hasan was a SUSPECTED possible
> (future) terrorist.
Then perhaps you might want to tell that to the fine folks at Fox
News, because they've gleefully been labeling him "terrorist" without
benefit of judge and jury. If he was a terrorist, he shouldn't have
had a gun, wouldn't you agree? I look forward to your condemnation of
Fox News for their irrational labeling of this suspected murderer as a
"terrorist."
> At what point do you want *all* constitutional
> rights disregarded because you're SUSPECTED - not convicted, not even
> arrested - of possibly being prone to crime?
> Is this Amerika still - or North Korea? I think we know which Schumer
> thinks.
Perhaps you should be asking Fox News "pundits" that very same
question, because they've decided that Hasan was a "terrorist" without
the word "suspected" and they're excoriating the Obama Administration
for not locking him up and throwing away the key. (Even though the
suspicious e-mails were discovered more than a year ago...)
Bert Hyman
news:bc72500e-94be-4313...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
Milt <milt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, just curious... do we take away the rights of everyone who's being
> "investigated" for something? Doesn't that create a hell of a loophole
> when right wingers are in office?
Of course, that same loophole would exist when "left wingers" are in
office.
And it's not really a "loophole", but a repudiation of one of the basic
tenets of justice.
But that's Schumer, all over.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
SaPeIsMa
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u7i2g5dgv2shkusj4...@4ax.com...
The one between his ears, where his brain should be ?
Gray Ghost
Do we have to give him due process or can we just skip to the cruel and
unusual punishment?
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
Milt
> Innews:bc72500e-94be-4313...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>
> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, just curious... do we take away the rights of everyone who's being
> > "investigated" for something? Doesn't that create a hell of a loophole
> > when right wingers are in office?
>
> Of course, that same loophole would exist when "left wingers" are in
> office.
>
> And it's not really a "loophole", but a repudiation of one of the basic
> tenets of justice.
>
> But that's Schumer, all over.
>
rights based on little more than an expression that someone might do
something bad someday, then we've lost our bearings completely.
That's why I had a problem with most of the Patriot Act, and most of
the Bush Administration. What Schumer is expressing is almost exactly
the rationale for Gitmo. If someone says someone might be dangerous
and might do something bad someday, we should be allowed to lock them
up and throw away the key...
edi...@netpath.net
> To Sen. Scummer, ANYTHING that lets someone own a firearm is a
> "loophole."
ESPECIALLY if that "someone" is a white male, not Jewish, and not of
the Wall Street elites that Schumer shills for.
nraclaptrap
333bdc...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 15, 6:48�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>
>> November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>
>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>
>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>
>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>> terrorist ties.
>>
>> Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
>> between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
>> sometime in early 2009.
>>
>> Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>> when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>> passed the background check.
>>
>> http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
>
> So, just curious... do we take away the rights of everyone who's being
> "investigated" for something?
Actually we suspend the gun rights of persons indicted on felony and
domestic violence charges, because it's not unusual for a man under a TRO
for domestic violence to take a gun and murder his wife, sometimes his
children, and sometimes himself.
If we had a federal system of adequate background checks Hasan should
have been denied the purchase of a firearm. I don't think anybody's
denied the mass murderer his right to due process, eh Milt?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Steve
wrote:
But wait... didn't Shook once claim that he was invincibile to
shotguns?
Yep.... he did
"I was hit by buckshot by accident once when I was a kid. I
have a scar to show for it. But no matter where it would have hit me,
it wouldn't have killed me, because I was running away from it."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?
Doorman
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:10:40 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was a "gun free" zone.
Do criminals care about your laws?
Jefferson didn't, and most certainly Rangels doesn't. Why would any
right wing extremist KKK member care what you think about guns and
laws. The more unarmed people gathered in a closed building makes for
more fun...right?
Oh, was Hasan a right wing extremist?
No, he was a lefty wingbagger...armed...and angry. What was he
screaming as he killed people? Something about abortion rights?
Steve
wrote:
>On Nov 16, 9:19�am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:bc72500e-94be-4313...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>>
>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So, just curious... do we take away the rights of everyone who's being
>> > "investigated" for something? Doesn't that create a hell of a loophole
>> > when right wingers are in office?
>>
>> Of course, that same loophole would exist when "left wingers" are in
>> office.
>>
>> And it's not really a "loophole", but a repudiation of one of the basic
>> tenets of justice.
>>
>> But that's Schumer, all over.
>>
>That's not the point. The point is, if we start denying people their
>rights based on little more than an expression that someone might do
>something bad someday, then we've lost our bearings completely.
The guys at GITMO have no rights...
Scout
A message from Milt that I totally agree with. Bravo, sir, well done.
Scout
True, but the problem is virtually no one has those guns with them. They are
all locked away and inaccessable.
>Why do
> you people have this fantasy that, if everyone is armed, then no one
> will ever shoot anyone else ever again?
He's not saying that, nor is this, IMO, the common point of view. Rather he
is saying that if those people had been able to carry arms, some would have
and the odds are good that someone could have ended the killing spree
considerably sooner with less loss of life.
After all, if there is any place that one could expect a person carrying a
gun to be able to take out a bad guy one should think they would find such
people on a military base.
Of course, if they don't have a gun to use to take out the enemy........
>The guy shot people in a
> theater, and the theater was full of families, including kids; if
> everyone in the theater was armed, the reality is that more people
> might have been shot, as some people started firing back in the
> direction the bullets came from, and possibly hit other people
> accidentally.
Possible, but highly unlikely since CCWs tend to take their shooting
seriously as do many military personal, such as you would find on an Army
base. So while there might have been a slight risk that some innocent
person might have been hit instead, the odds are nearly 100% that the total
loss of life would have been far less because the shooting spree would have
been brought to a halt a lot sooner.
> And with all those bullets, it might have been far more
> difficult to tell who the original shooter was, and they may have had
> a more dififcult time catching him.
Actually, for most people it's pretty clear who the orginal shooter is. He's
the person who is shooting random people. Further, I can pretty much promise
you that there would be enough witnesses and evidence that determining who
the orginal shooter was as to be all but certain.
> Please stop watching action movies and believing them. In reality,
> Rambo, Bruce and Arnold would probably been killed within the first
> five minutes of each film. Guns don't make you invincible.
They certainly don't make you invincible, and no one but straw building
people claim otherwise. They do, however, offer reasonable protection and
are regularly used to provide that protection with minimal risk to innocent
people. Indeed in most spree killings the first person or two on the scene
with a gun (other than the orginal shooter) ends the spree. Sometimes, it's
quick because that person is already on the scene and the body count is very
low, or sometimes it's slow because we have to wait for the police to
finally respond. The choice is pretty clear, the longer you give the
shooter, the more people will die. So how long do you want to wait for the
police to finally arrive?
Scout
> On Nov 15, 8:53 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 7:58 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But, like I said before, this story sure has something for everyone.
>>> Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is justified by the
>>> 2nd Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
>>
>> You asshole. The "day before," Hasan was a SUSPECTED possible
>> (future) terrorist.
>
> Then perhaps you might want to tell that to the fine folks at Fox
> News, because they've gleefully been labeling him "terrorist" without
> benefit of judge and jury. If he was a terrorist, he shouldn't have
> had a gun, wouldn't you agree? I look forward to your condemnation of
> Fox News for their irrational labeling of this suspected murderer as a
> "terrorist."
They can call him whatever they like, but that does mean he was a terrorist.
At the moment it seems like he was nothing more than another spree shooter.
Milt
> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:bc72500e-94be-4313-a186-
> 333bdc4e2...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 6:48 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>
> >> November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>
> >> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
> >> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
> >> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>
> >> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
> >> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>
> >> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
> >> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
> >> terrorist ties.
>
> >> Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
> >> between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
> >> sometime in early 2009.
>
> >> Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
> >> when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
> >> passed the background check.
>
> >>http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
>
> > So, just curious... do we take away the rights of everyone who's being
> > "investigated" for something?
>
> Actually we suspend the gun rights of persons indicted on felony and
> domestic violence charges, because it's not unusual for a man under a TRO
> for domestic violence to take a gun and murder his wife, sometimes his
> children, and sometimes himself.
The thing is, though, is that this guy wasn't under any sort of
indictment. A strong argument can be made that he should have been,
and I agree with that wholeheartedly, but the fact is, he wasn't. So
for a US Senator to suggest that he should have been prevented from
buying a gun because someone was concerned about him is just wrong. If
they felt that strongly about it, they should have charged him with
something; once they did, no harm with preventing him from buying a
gun. But what Schumer is suggesting is that everyone who is being
investigated should be denied their right to own a gun, and that's a
long, slippery slope. Put it this way; Charlie Rangel is under
investigation right now; should his right to free speech be suspended
pending the outcome? The government has a "terrorist watch list," that
includes names that people have used previously. Should everyone named
"Robert Johnson," which is one of the names on the list, be denied
certain rights because they appear on the list?
>
> If we had a federal system of adequate background checks Hasan should
> have been denied the purchase of a firearm. I don't think anybody's
> denied the mass murderer his right to due process, eh Milt?
>
We should have a federal system of background checks, but what would
have shown up? They apparently didn't even have enough information to
suspend his license to practice psychiatry in the Army. And if anyone
sold him a gun NOW, I'd say they should be brought up on charges. But
BEFORE he murdered those people, he hadn't been indicted or convicted
of a damn thing. Apparently, it seemed wrong to some people to
consider a nutjob dangerous based on the fact that he was Muslim and
had an Arabic name. That's something someone will have to answer to.
Phlip
> On Nov 16, 7:34 am, slate_leeper <bycy-r...@spamex.com> wrote:
>> To Sen. Scummer, ANYTHING that lets someone own a firearm is a
>> "loophole."
>
> ESPECIALLY if that "someone" is a white male, not Jewish, and not of
> the Wall Street elites that Schumer shills for.
Wow! Editor supports equal rights for everyone now! Well knock me over with a
feather!!
Phlip
>> Phlip wrote:
>>
>>> But, like I said before, this story sure has something for everyone.
>>> Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is justified by the 2nd
>>> Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
>> You asshole.
Oh, sorry, I lost track. Are you mad because I pointed out a NEW hypocrisy from
you (and your ilk)? Or is it the SAME old hypocrisy that I ALWAYS point out?
So which is it? Should suspected possible terrorists be allowed to have guns? Or
should we close the loophole that let this suspected possible terrorist buy one?
Or was Hasan not a suspected possible terrorist at gun purchase time?
You can't have it both ways...
Milt
From what I understand, the entire incident happened within a very
short period of time, and in fact, two men were taken into custody who
had nothing to do with it. Therefore, it's also possible that, while
HE might have been killed, at least two other men, who were thought to
have been part of the shooting, might have died, as well.
>
> After all, if there is any place that one could expect a person carrying a
> gun to be able to take out a bad guy one should think they would find such
> people on a military base.
This is true, but the room was presumably dark, and no one had an idea
who the shooter was. That would seem to pose a problem. A room full of
families, and shots coming from the back of the hall; it would take a
minute or two, at least, to make sure you were shooting at the right
person.
Of course, if everyone had been armed, and the shooter knew it, he
would just shoot from behind something and protect himself.
The problem with this type of situation is that the shooter knows what
he's about to do, and no one else does. Put it this way; there are
reasons why wars often go on for a long time. Under the basic
philosophy, that everyone being armed saves lives, war should be a
piece of cake, right? I mean, everyone is armed, peace should have
occurred already.
>
> Of course, if they don't have a gun to use to take out the enemy........
Of course, if everyone on base was always armed, how many of those
soldiers this asshole treated would have gone off and done the same
sort of thing.
The Army knows what it's doing. They have good reasons for not
allowing soldiers to carry sidearms everywhere on base.
>
> >The guy shot people in a
> > theater, and the theater was full of families, including kids; if
> > everyone in the theater was armed, the reality is that more people
> > might have been shot, as some people started firing back in the
> > direction the bullets came from, and possibly hit other people
> > accidentally.
>
> Possible, but highly unlikely since CCWs tend to take their shooting
> seriously as do many military personal, such as you would find on an Army
> base. So while there might have been a slight risk that some innocent
> person might have been hit instead, the odds are nearly 100% that the total
> loss of life would have been far less because the shooting spree would have
> been brought to a halt a lot sooner.
Oh, come off it. You can't make that claim. Like I said, if you
remember, they picked up two guys they THOUGHT had done the shooting,
and later let them go. For about an hour, they didn't even know who
had done the shooting. They didn't find out until later. Now, if no
one in the theater had any idea who was doing the shooting, what makes
you think someone would have taken him out, and why is it not possible
that the wrong people might have been shot. In a dark room, is it
impossible to imagine that someone might have shot at the wrong
person? I'm thinking that more than 13 might have been killed if a
large number of theater patrons were armed. But that's just a
possibility. I would never claim odds of anything close to 100%...
Scout
Yep, and yet you would prefer this period of time to be lengthed by waiting
for police to finally arrive.
> and in fact, two men were taken into custody who
> had nothing to do with it. Therefore, it's also possible that, while
> HE might have been killed, at least two other men, who were thought to
> have been part of the shooting, might have died, as well.
Perhaps, more likely is it was unclear after the fact who was responsible
for what, and the police didn't want to take any chances. Doesn't mean these
men would have been threatened, shoot at, or even killed if one or more CCWs
had been around.
>> After all, if there is any place that one could expect a person
>> carrying a gun to be able to take out a bad guy one should think
>> they would find such people on a military base.
>
> This is true, but the room was presumably dark, and no one had an idea
> who the shooter was.
Actually, those by him, probably knew exactly who he was.
> That would seem to pose a problem. A room full of
> families, and shots coming from the back of the hall; it would take a
> minute or two, at least, to make sure you were shooting at the right
> person.
Yep, much better than waiting 5 or 10 minutes for the police to arrive.
> Of course, if everyone had been armed, and the shooter knew it, he
> would just shoot from behind something and protect himself.
Please expand behind what you think there is in the modern theater that will
provide cover. Please note this is not the same as concealment.
> The problem with this type of situation is that the shooter knows what
> he's about to do, and no one else does. Put it this way; there are
> reasons why wars often go on for a long time. Under the basic
> philosophy, that everyone being armed saves lives, war should be a
> piece of cake, right? I mean, everyone is armed, peace should have
> occurred already.
Well, they certainly last a lot less time when one side is unarmed.....but I
doubt you would want to be on that side of the conflict.
The problem why wars take so long is by your own admission on the number of
people involved. Takes time to kill off enough to cause one side to give up.
>>
>> Of course, if they don't have a gun to use to take out the
>> enemy........
>
> Of course, if everyone on base was always armed, how many of those
> soldiers this asshole treated would have gone off and done the same
> sort of thing.
And yet, they could have done so whether they could legally have arms or
not.
Seems to me that paranoia is speaking here.
> The Army knows what it's doing. They have good reasons for not
> allowing soldiers to carry sidearms everywhere on base.
Appeal to Authority noted.
So what are these "good reasons"?
>>> The guy shot people in a
>>> theater, and the theater was full of families, including kids; if
>>> everyone in the theater was armed, the reality is that more people
>>> might have been shot, as some people started firing back in the
>>> direction the bullets came from, and possibly hit other people
>>> accidentally.
>>
>> Possible, but highly unlikely since CCWs tend to take their shooting
>> seriously as do many military personal, such as you would find on an
>> Army base. So while there might have been a slight risk that some
>> innocent person might have been hit instead, the odds are nearly
>> 100% that the total loss of life would have been far less because
>> the shooting spree would have been brought to a halt a lot sooner.
>
> Oh, come off it. You can't make that claim.
Actually I can. Because in cases where someone in the immediate area had a
gun available the spree ended much much quicker and the body count was far
below average. Indeed, one of the main lessons from the VT shooting is that
speed of response is critical to keeping the body count down, and waiting
around outside for backup is a poor decision.
Now what is faster than already being on the scene?
> Like I said, if you
> remember, they picked up two guys they THOUGHT had done the shooting,
> and later let them go.
Sure, trying to sort things out afterwards can be confusing to those who
weren't there, and they have no reasons not to be careful and take in anyone
even slightly questionable.
I will note that even though the police arrived well after things got
started they managed to figure out who the shooter was and shot only him. I
can't help but wonder why you would feel the people on the scene couldn't
figure that out.
> For about an hour, they didn't even know who
> had done the shooting.
No, they weren't willing to make a statement about who had done the
shooting. See, it's called INVESTIGATION. You do that before you make
statements to the press so that you don't look like an idiot who doesn't
know what is going on.
> They didn't find out until later.
Actually, they found out as soon as they entered, and shoot the shooter.
> Now, if no
> one in the theater had any idea who was doing the shooting, what makes
> you think someone would have taken him out, and why is it not possible
> that the wrong people might have been shot. In a dark room, is it
> impossible to imagine that someone might have shot at the wrong
> person?
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
So tell me, when the police arrived why do you think they could manage to
pick him out????
Yep, according to you the police have a superhuman ability to pick out the
bad guy in a dark crowded theater, but absolutely no one else could ever be
expected to do so.
Milt
As opposed to having a dozen or more people shooting at people they
may or may not be able to see?
I'm not saying you're completely wrong, which is why I am actually in
favor of CCWs. Whether or not they belong on Army bases, however, is a
decision best made by Army personnel, of course. The problem isn't
that I think you're wrong; it's that you seem to only be able to see
one possible scenario, and I can see many of them, some good, in which
the CCW owner jumps up and takes out the perp after only one shot, and
others, in which several CCW owners start shooting in the direction of
the shooting, or shooting the wrong person, because they think he's
the shooter when he's not.
Again; I'm not saying your description isn't a possible outcome. But
it's not the only possible outcome. My problem is with these scenarios
in which all who own guns are superhuman heroes, who can stop perps
with a single bullet, if only they had their gun with them.
>
> > and in fact, two men were taken into custody who
> > had nothing to do with it. Therefore, it's also possible that, while
> > HE might have been killed, at least two other men, who were thought to
> > have been part of the shooting, might have died, as well.
>
> Perhaps, more likely is it was unclear after the fact who was responsible
> for what, and the police didn't want to take any chances. Doesn't mean these
> men would have been threatened, shoot at, or even killed if one or more CCWs
> had been around.
Well, someone fingered them. The police didn't just choose them at
random.
>
> >> After all, if there is any place that one could expect a person
> >> carrying a gun to be able to take out a bad guy one should think
> >> they would find such people on a military base.
>
> > This is true, but the room was presumably dark, and no one had an idea
> > who the shooter was.
>
> Actually, those by him, probably knew exactly who he was.
Perhaps. Although your certainty about this is kind of mind-boggling.
>
> > That would seem to pose a problem. A room full of
> > families, and shots coming from the back of the hall; it would take a
> > minute or two, at least, to make sure you were shooting at the right
> > person.
>
> Yep, much better than waiting 5 or 10 minutes for the police to arrive.
>
> > Of course, if everyone had been armed, and the shooter knew it, he
> > would just shoot from behind something and protect himself.
>
> Please expand behind what you think there is in the modern theater that will
> provide cover. Please note this is not the same as concealment.
I wasn't in the theater; I don't pretend to know.
SaPeIsMa
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lVgMm.780$tz6...@newsfe02.iad...
And let's not forget that CCWs have less tendency to shoot innocent
bystanders or the wrong person by quite a large factor when compared to the
police
>>> After all, if there is any place that one could expect a person
>>> carrying a gun to be able to take out a bad guy one should think
>>> they would find such people on a military base.
>>
>> This is true, but the room was presumably dark, and no one had an idea
>> who the shooter was.
>
> Actually, those by him, probably knew exactly who he was.
>
And a guy with pistols in each hand and using them is not that hard to
identify
>> That would seem to pose a problem. A room full of
>> families, and shots coming from the back of the hall; it would take a
>> minute or two, at least, to make sure you were shooting at the right
>> person.
>
> Yep, much better than waiting 5 or 10 minutes for the police to arrive.
>
IF it even takes that long
If I see a guy just going around shooting people, I'm not apt to presume
that he's a good guy
Particularly if he's not wearing a uniform (e.g. MP) that justifes such
behavior
>
>
>> Of course, if everyone had been armed, and the shooter knew it, he
>> would just shoot from behind something and protect himself.
>
> Please expand behind what you think there is in the modern theater that
> will provide cover. Please note this is not the same as concealment.
>
In most cases, such shooters AVOID any environment where people are apt to
shoot back
That's why you never see such people try to shoot up police stations (where
all the cops ARE ARMED) or gun shows, where again a lot of people are within
quick reach of a gun.
nraclaptrap
news:gdk3g5p3avel45g0b...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:38:26 -0600, nraclaptrap
> <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Ivan Bittertittyoff <homeofther...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>news:ZLGdnXOba_U1PZ3W...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>
>>>> Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>>>
>>>> November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>>>
>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>>>> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>>>> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>>>
>>>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>>>> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>>>
>>>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>>>> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>>>> terrorist ties.
>>>>
>>>> Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
>>>> between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
>>>> sometime in early 2009.
>>>>
>>>> Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>>>> when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>>>> passed the background check.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
>>>
>>> Unreasonable gun control is what caused the shooting.
>>
>> Tell it to the US Armed Forces. They know more about maintaining
>> safety where they live than you do, lil troll.
>>
>Sure they do. You put a BIG honkin fence around the place & get ya
>some armed guards.
No, you disarm everybody who's not the MPs or civilian police. That's
what they do at Fort Hood.
"Ya."
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Scout
You may do so, but trained individuals tend to identify their target
particularly when they know innocent people are around.
Indeed, the military TRAINS not to shoot innocent people by IDENTIFYING who
the bad guys actually are. I think if anyone could handle just shooting the
bad guy it would be people in the US military.
> I'm not saying you're completely wrong, which is why I am actually in
> favor of CCWs. Whether or not they belong on Army bases, however, is a
> decision best made by Army personnel, of course.
Really? Why should it be any different here than anywhere else?
Are you unwilling to ever question any decison made by others?
> The problem isn't
> that I think you're wrong; it's that you seem to only be able to see
> one possible scenario, and I can see many of them, some good, in which
> the CCW owner jumps up and takes out the perp after only one shot, and
> others, in which several CCW owners start shooting in the direction of
> the shooting, or shooting the wrong person, because they think he's
> the shooter when he's not.
Oh, I see them, but based on historical data these scenerios are quite
unlikely to the point of being non-existant.
> Again; I'm not saying your description isn't a possible outcome. But
> it's not the only possible outcome.
Never said it was the only possible outcome, but it is the most probable
outcome.
> My problem is with these scenarios
> in which all who own guns are superhuman heroes, who can stop perps
> with a single bullet, if only they had their gun with them.
I never claimed they had superhuman abilities, and it might even take them
two shots or even three, but the point is the shooting spree would in all
probability ended much much sooner and fewer people would have been injured
and killed.
What I want to know is why you seem to see only the unlikely negatives?
>>
>>> and in fact, two men were taken into custody who
>>> had nothing to do with it. Therefore, it's also possible that, while
>>> HE might have been killed, at least two other men, who were thought
>>> to have been part of the shooting, might have died, as well.
>>
>> Perhaps, more likely is it was unclear after the fact who was
>> responsible for what, and the police didn't want to take any
>> chances. Doesn't mean these men would have been threatened, shoot
>> at, or even killed if one or more CCWs had been around.
>
> Well, someone fingered them. The police didn't just choose them at
> random.
...or they simply walked in near the same time, been sitting by him, or any
of a thousand other reasons that would have nothing to do with them being
targeted by a CCW.
>>>> After all, if there is any place that one could expect a person
>>>> carrying a gun to be able to take out a bad guy one should think
>>>> they would find such people on a military base.
>>
>>> This is true, but the room was presumably dark, and no one had an
>>> idea who the shooter was.
>>
>> Actually, those by him, probably knew exactly who he was.
>
> Perhaps. Although your certainty about this is kind of mind-boggling.
Let's see, someone stands up and starts shooting in a crowded theater and I
am suppose to believe that no one notices who it is?
The police didn't seem to have any problems doing so when they came into
this dark room, so why should the people who were there?
>>> That would seem to pose a problem. A room full of
>>> families, and shots coming from the back of the hall; it would take
>>> a minute or two, at least, to make sure you were shooting at the
>>> right person.
>>
>> Yep, much better than waiting 5 or 10 minutes for the police to
>> arrive.
>>
Should I assume we should wait and allow more people to be killed, or are
you simply unable to address this point?
>>> Of course, if everyone had been armed, and the shooter knew it, he
>>> would just shoot from behind something and protect himself.
>>
>> Please expand behind what you think there is in the modern theater
>> that will provide cover. Please note this is not the same as
>> concealment.
>
> I wasn't in the theater; I don't pretend to know.
I accept your admission you've never gone to see a movie in a theater in the
last 5 years.
>>> The problem with this type of situation is that the shooter knows
>>> what he's about to do, and no one else does. Put it this way; there
>>> are reasons why wars often go on for a long time. Under the basic
>>> philosophy, that everyone being armed saves lives, war should be a
>>> piece of cake, right? I mean, everyone is armed, peace should have
>>> occurred already.
>>
>> Well, they certainly last a lot less time when one side is
>> unarmed.....but I doubt you would want to be on that side of the
>> conflict.
>>
>> The problem why wars take so long is by your own admission on the
>> number of people involved. Takes time to kill off enough to cause
>> one side to give up.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Of course, if they don't have a gun to use to take out the
>>>> enemy........
>>
>>> Of course, if everyone on base was always armed, how many of those
>>> soldiers this asshole treated would have gone off and done the same
>>> sort of thing.
>>
>> And yet, they could have done so whether they could legally have
>> arms or not.
>>
>> Seems to me that paranoia is speaking here.
>>
>>> The Army knows what it's doing. They have good reasons for not
>>> allowing soldiers to carry sidearms everywhere on base.
>>
>> Appeal to Authority noted.
>>
>> So what are these "good reasons"?
>>
Shall I take this to mean you don't know what these reasons are, much less
if they are good or not?
Looks like when it was time to put up, you simply shut up and refused to
address the points made.
nraclaptrap
news:4d10fc6b-19ff-49a1...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
Having a gun isn't a fundamental right. Also, Hasan comitted a felony
when he carried his pistol on federal property and failed to sign it in
to the base police.
> If
> they felt that strongly about it, they should have charged him with
> something; once they did, no harm with preventing him from buying a
> gun. But what Schumer is suggesting is that everyone who is being
> investigated should be denied their right to own a gun, and that's a
> long, slippery slope.
So you'd say Timmy Joe Emerson had a perfect right to threaten his wife
with a rifle, because he later denied doing it and the judge believed
him? He was under a TRO at the time.
> Put it this way; Charlie Rangel is under
> investigation right now; should his right to free speech be suspended
> pending the outcome?
There's no right to have a gun under the US Constitution.
> The government has a "terrorist watch list," that
> includes names that people have used previously. Should everyone named
> "Robert Johnson," which is one of the names on the list, be denied
> certain rights because they appear on the list?
>>
>> If we had a federal system of adequate background checks Hasan should
>> have been denied the purchase of a firearm. �I don't think anybody's
>> denied the mass murderer his right to due process, eh Milt? �
>>
> We should have a federal system of background checks, but what would
> have shown up?
If he'd gotten the psychological help he needed Hasan would at least have
been prevented from carrying his gun on base. He could then be frisked
when entering the base and if armed he could be arrested.
Or when he pulled the gun on MPs they could have shot his monotheistic
fundamentalist ass off.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:lcqdnU3x4bKeVJzW...@posted.cpinternet:
> And let's not forget that CCWs have less tendency to shoot innocent
> bystanders or the wrong person by quite a large factor when compared
> to the police
Says who, Sally?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Phlip
> If he'd gotten the psychological help he needed Hasan would at least have
> been prevented from carrying his gun on base.
But if we all had better health care, including mental health care...
...then all the hero wannabes here couldn't fantasize about coolly drawing their
concealed weapons and swiftly but accurately blowing his monotheistic
fundamentalist ass off.
Milt
That would be a decent point, if this wasn't a military base, in an
area inhabited by families. One of the things I noticed when I went to
my son's Basic Training graduation was how alike most people looked. I
would like to think they are trained to ID the bad guys, but when the
bad guys look just like the good guys, I wonder how easy that might
be. Like I said; the people in the theater fingered at least two guys
as suspects who weren't suspects. Would they have shot them, had they
been armed? I don't know, and neither do you.
>
> > I'm not saying you're completely wrong, which is why I am actually in
> > favor of CCWs. Whether or not they belong on Army bases, however, is a
> > decision best made by Army personnel, of course.
>
> Really? Why should it be any different here than anywhere else?
>
> Are you unwilling to ever question any decison made by others?
No, of course not. But the question in this case is why the HELL was
this guy allowed to continue to serve in the capacity he was, when
they knew he was a fricking nutjob. That is a much more interesting
and vital question than why everyone on an Army base wasn't armed.
My son just graduated BT in May, so I was able to picture everything
that apparently happened at Fort Hood fairly vividly, and I can't
imagine that having more guns in that building would have made things
better. And FYI. there were MPs stationed all around that graduation,
so it wouldn't have been 5-10 minutes for police to arrive; more like
20-30 seconds.
>
> > The problem isn't
> > that I think you're wrong; it's that you seem to only be able to see
> > one possible scenario, and I can see many of them, some good, in which
> > the CCW owner jumps up and takes out the perp after only one shot, and
> > others, in which several CCW owners start shooting in the direction of
> > the shooting, or shooting the wrong person, because they think he's
> > the shooter when he's not.
>
> Oh, I see them, but based on historical data these scenerios are quite
> unlikely to the point of being non-existant.
I don't know that that's true. Thankfully, situations such as the one
at Fort Hood are still fairly rare...
>
> > Again; I'm not saying your description isn't a possible outcome. But
> > it's not the only possible outcome.
>
> Never said it was the only possible outcome, but it is the most probable
> outcome.
Neither one of us knows that.
>
> > My problem is with these scenarios
> > in which all who own guns are superhuman heroes, who can stop perps
> > with a single bullet, if only they had their gun with them.
>
> I never claimed they had superhuman abilities, and it might even take them
> two shots or even three, but the point is the shooting spree would in all
> probability ended much much sooner and fewer people would have been injured
> and killed.
Again, neither one of us knows that.
>
> What I want to know is why you seem to see only the unlikely negatives?
I'm not. I'm seeing all sides. It's entirely possible it would happen
the way you say. But it's also possible that having more people
shooting could end up increasing the carnage. The reason it looks like
I can "only" see the negatives is (ironically) because you can only
see the positives. Like I said; you guys seem to assume that more guns
means less carnage. I'm saying that's not necessarily the case, that's
all.
> ...
>
> read more »
Fiftycal
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Having a gun isn't a fundamental right.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Yoo hoo. Hey loony, why don't you answer me? Got no smart ass reply?
Obammy got your tongue? Or is your tongue just too far up his ass to
speak?
>And go here to see the next megacase that is going to END the loony talk of "gun control" for all time.
> http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521ts.pdf
Yoo hoo. Hey loony, why don't you answer me? Got no smart ass reply?
Obammy got your tongue? Or is your tongue just too far up his ass to
speak?
Here go loony, get someone to read and understand it for you.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07�290. Argued March 18, 2008�Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and
requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and
disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent
Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he
wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit
seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjointhe city from enforcing
the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as
it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm inthe home, and the
trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits theuse of functional
firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the
D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an
individual�s right to possess firearms and that the city�s total ban
on handguns, as well as its requirement thatfirearms in the home be
kept nonfunctional even when necessary forself-defense, violated that
right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
home.Pp. 2�53.
(a) The Amendment�s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not
limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The
operative clause�s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2�22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court�s interpretation
of the operative clause. The �militia� comprised all males
physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens� militia, enabling a
politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response
was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals
to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens� militia would
be preserved. Pp. 22�28.
(c)
The Court�s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed
the Second Amendment. Pp. 28�30.
Whassa matta loony boi? You to CHICKENSHIT to answer?
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
POINT PROVEN!!!
Milt
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote innews:lcqdnU3x4bKeVJzW...@posted.cpinternet:
>
> > And let's not forget that CCWs have less tendency to shoot innocent
> > bystanders or the wrong person by quite a large factor when compared
> > to the police
>
> Says who, Sally?
>
> --
>
> NRACLAPTRAP
Yeah, I'd like to see that data myself. I could buy that they have a
lesser tendency than the general public, but I don't buy the whole
police contention...
Scout
And naturally we should NOT assume that any service members actually went to
the movies by themselves or with their families????
What a crock of bullshit. Because it's pretty much a given that at least one
parent in each family was a service member, and pretty much every solo was a
service member. So why should we assume they wouldn't be there?
Last time I went to the movies on base, about 50% of the audience were
service members, and yes this was on a base inhabited by families. Seems
some service members without families still enjoy going to the movies and do
so on a regular basis.
>One of the things I noticed when I went to
> my son's Basic Training graduation was how alike most people looked.
Yea, but there is a bit of a difference between basic training, and an
actual military base.
>I
> would like to think they are trained to ID the bad guys, but when the
> bad guys look just like the good guys, I wonder how easy that might
> be.
Pretty easy. The bad guy is typically the person going around shooting
people at random.
I understand that's beyond your ability to understand, but luckily most
people are able to tell who the bad guys are.
> Like I said; the people in the theater fingered at least two guys
> as suspects who weren't suspects.
No, the POLICE suspected two people who weren't involved, and oddly enough
neither of them got shot by the police officers that suspected them.
Amazing.
>Would they have shot them, had they
> been armed? I don't know, and neither do you.
Perhaps, but when you defend others you do place yourself at risk. Some
people find it a worthy undertaking.....to defend the innocent even at the
risk of their own life.
Another concept I'm quite sure you will never understand.
>>> I'm not saying you're completely wrong, which is why I am actually
>>> in favor of CCWs. Whether or not they belong on Army bases,
>>> however, is a decision best made by Army personnel, of course.
>>
>> Really? Why should it be any different here than anywhere else?
>>
>> Are you unwilling to ever question any decison made by others?
>
> No, of course not.
Then quit avoiding the issue and answer the question. Don't blow it off by
claiming X, Y, or Z has their reasons, and it's not up to you to question
them.
>But the question in this case is why the HELL was
> this guy allowed to continue to serve in the capacity he was, when
> they knew he was a fricking nutjob.
Interesting attempt to change the subject. Now getting back to the actual
topic at hand, the lawful carry of firearms by service personal on a
military base.......
> That is a much more interesting
> and vital question than why everyone on an Army base wasn't armed.
IOW, you wish to bail on the very issue we started this discussion over.
Ok, I accept you can not hold your own in a discussion why service members
shouldn't be able to legally carry arms while on base.
<snip>
Milt
It doesn't matter. The way the law is designed, like it or not, people
have a right to own a gun, as long as they're qualified to own the
gun, which means they can't have a felony conviction, and they can't
be crazy. This guy was probably crazy, but no one certified him as
such, and he had never been convicted of a felony. Therefore, by law,
he had a right to own a gun.
> Also, Hasan comitted a felony
> when he carried his pistol on federal property and failed to sign it in
> to the base police.
And this happened AFTER he purchased the gun. Schumer was trying to
claim Hasan shouldn't have been able to buy a gun because he was under
investigation. No one should be able to arbitrarily take a right away
without due process. How would you like it if Bush unilaterally
decided you were a terrorist, and simply took away your driver
license?
> > If
> > they felt that strongly about it, they should have charged him with
> > something; once they did, no harm with preventing him from buying a
> > gun. But what Schumer is suggesting is that everyone who is being
> > investigated should be denied their right to own a gun, and that's a
> > long, slippery slope.
>
> So you'd say Timmy Joe Emerson had a perfect right to threaten his wife
> with a rifle, because he later denied doing it and the judge believed
> him? He was under a TRO at the time.
A TRO is due process. If someone had declared Hasan a nutjob or
indicted him on terrorism-related charges, he shouldn't have been able
to buy a gun. But because no one did anything officially about this
guy, there was no basis for denying him any of his rights.
>
> > Put it this way; Charlie Rangel is under
> > investigation right now; should his right to free speech be suspended
> > pending the outcome?
>
> There's no right to have a gun under the US Constitution.
First of all, I disagree. There is no individual right to keep and
bear arms in the Second Amendment, as I've said for years, but there
IS a right to own a gun in the Constitution, subject to Congressional
regulation. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate
commerce, not arbitrarily ban commerce it doesn't like. But make no
mistake; everyone who isn't psycho and hasn't committed a felony has a
right to own a gun, and the 14th Amendment guarantees that if one
person has that right, everyone else has that right, based on the same
rules. Congress can regulate guns, but they can't ban them. And if
they can't ban them, then people have a right to own one, subject to
those rules.
The Constitution isn't the beginning and end of rights in this
country, anyway.
By the way, gunloons, don't froth at the mouth. I still think every
gun should be registered and all owners licensed. Period.
>
> > The government has a "terrorist watch list," that
> > includes names that people have used previously. Should everyone named
> > "Robert Johnson," which is one of the names on the list, be denied
> > certain rights because they appear on the list?
>
> >> If we had a federal system of adequate background checks Hasan should
> >> have been denied the purchase of a firearm. I don't think anybody's
> >> denied the mass murderer his right to due process, eh Milt?
>
> > We should have a federal system of background checks, but what would
> > have shown up?
>
> If he'd gotten the psychological help he needed Hasan would at least have
> been prevented from carrying his gun on base. He could then be frisked
> when entering the base and if armed he could be arrested.
If they had done something when they should have, they could have
drummed his ass out of the Army altogether. If they had done something
about those e-mails, they could have charged him with a crime and kept
him from owning a gun, as well. What troubles me is the notion that
someone's rights can be taken away based on someone saying someone
might do something one day...
The FBI and the Army has a lot to answer for, that's for sure...
nraclaptrap
news:2504g5dis29q48bcq...@4ax.com:
> Actually it isn't the way they do it, but you couldn't understand
> anything else.
You seem to know all about it, Zombywuss - why don't you tell us how Fort
Hood gun control works?
And you'll need to cite your sources.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
67504e...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>> Having a gun isn't a fundamental right.
>
> It doesn't matter. The way the law is designed, like it or not, people
> have a right to own a gun,
Heller just affects federal districts and AFAIK just civilians in those
districts. Congress has power to make rules for the government and
regulation of the army - not Tony Baloney Scalia.
And just because the rightwing of the US Supreme Court believes they can
edit the text of the Constitution while bypassing Article V, that doesn't
mean the people have to obey them.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:p114g5d1scnrji0u6...@4ax.com:
>>>And let's not forget that CCWs have less tendency to shoot innocent
>>>bystanders or the wrong person by quite a large factor when compared
>>>to the police
>>
>> Says who, Sally?
>
>The statistics, O Daring And Resourceful Masked Weasel of the Plains.
Then cite the titles and urls of those statistics, punk.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:Xns9CC5BD8038527...@216.168.3.44:
> 1986 was the Firearm Owners Protection Act,or FOPA.
Pronounced "faux pas".
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Scout
11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person.
Source: Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton
Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Milt <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in news:bc72500e-94be-4313-a186-
>333bdc...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 15, 6:48�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>>
>>> November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>>
>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>>> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>>> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>>
>>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>>> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>>
>>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>>> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>>> terrorist ties.
>>>
>>> Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
>>> between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
>>> sometime in early 2009.
>>>
>>> Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>>> when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>>> passed the background check.
>>>
>>> http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
>>
>> So, just curious... do we take away the rights of everyone who's being
>> "investigated" for something?
>
>Actually we suspend the gun rights of persons indicted on felony and
>domestic violence charges, because it's not unusual for a man under a TRO
>for domestic violence to take a gun and murder his wife, sometimes his
>children, and sometimes himself.
So you're for suspension of civil rights for people who are merely
accused of crimes.
I see.
Why don't we just put them in jail until we can figure out if they're
innocent or not? You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Hell, even Milt gets this one, dumb ass.
>If we had a federal system of adequate background checks Hasan should
>have been denied the purchase of a firearm.
We don't deny civil rights based on suspicions and hearsay and
innuendo, Jabba.
Or is that the way you'd like it from now on? Maybe we should suspend
your voting rights because I here you like to drive to the polls
drunk.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Having a gun isn't a fundamental right. Also, Hasan comitted a felony
>when he carried his pistol on federal property and failed to sign it in
>to the base police.
ROFLMAO.
Now Lee says Brady checks should include FUTURE CRIMES.
Back off on the doughnuts a couple of notches, Harrison. The saturate
fats are giving you hallucinations.
slate_leeper
wrote:
>> You asshole. �The "day before," Hasan was a SUSPECTED possible
>> (future) terrorist.
>
>Then perhaps you might want to tell that to the fine folks at Fox
>News, because they've gleefully been labeling him "terrorist" without
>benefit of judge and jury.
You are confusing past and present. He was not a suspected terrorist
when he purchased his gun. He is now because of his actions.
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
slate_leeper
wrote:
>Sure they do. You put a BIG honkin fence around the place & get ya
>some armed guards.
Yup. That totally gun-free zone is called a maximum security prison.
They are obviously the safest places in the world. Nobody ever gets
assaulted, raped or murdered.
Bama Brian
> denied the mass murderer his right to due process, eh Milt?
If we had a federal system of adequate background checks Lee Harrison's
mother should have been denied the right to keep and bear a child.
After all, someday he might grow up and be anti-freedom.
Jeers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Bama Brian
Wrong.
> Also, Hasan comitted a felony
> when he carried his pistol on federal property and failed to sign it in
> to the base police.
It's an army POST, asshole, not a base. And Hasan did not LIVE on post,
and therefore had no need to register the two pistols with the MP's.
What part of Hasan's purchase of the two firearms was in strict
accordance with every local, state, federal, and army law and regulation
have you willfully not understood?
But you just want to prosecute people for thoughtcrime, Jabba. If such
prosecution became fashionable, it would then be perfectly fine for your
neighbors to take you out because of what a nutcase like you "might" do.
Better get your yard and house in order, Jabba. The thoughtpolice are
looking for for deviants.
>
>> If
>> they felt that strongly about it, they should have charged him with
>> something; once they did, no harm with preventing him from buying a
>> gun. But what Schumer is suggesting is that everyone who is being
>> investigated should be denied their right to own a gun, and that's a
>> long, slippery slope.
>
> So you'd say Timmy Joe Emerson had a perfect right to threaten his wife
> with a rifle, because he later denied doing it and the judge believed
> him? He was under a TRO at the time.
>
>> Put it this way; Charlie Rangel is under
>> investigation right now; should his right to free speech be suspended
>> pending the outcome?
>
> There's no right to have a gun under the US Constitution.
The US Constitution protects the right. And you ducked the question, as
you always do.
>
>> The government has a "terrorist watch list," that
>> includes names that people have used previously. Should everyone named
>> "Robert Johnson," which is one of the names on the list, be denied
>> certain rights because they appear on the list?
>>> If we had a federal system of adequate background checks Hasan should
>>> have been denied the purchase of a firearm. I don't think anybody's
>>> denied the mass murderer his right to due process, eh Milt?
>>>
>> We should have a federal system of background checks, but what would
>> have shown up?
>
> If he'd gotten the psychological help he needed Hasan would at least have
> been prevented from carrying his gun on base. He could then be frisked
> when entering the base and if armed he could be arrested.
Never entered a post, have you? Approved personnel get a bumper
sticker. And the gate guards salute cars with an officer's stickers as
the officers drive in.
Only those who have no approved pass on their bumper get pulled over.
If US Army posts had the same level of security theater as the TSA puts
on for the benefit of air travelers, the army would NEVER get anything
done.
>
> Or when he pulled the gun on MPs they could have shot his monotheistic
> fundamentalist ass off.
He didn't pull the gun on MP's. He pulled it in a processing area,
where UNARMED victims would be guaranteed.
Does stupidity run in your family, Jabba? Or did you study it in skool?
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
> nraclaptrap wrote:
>
>> If he'd gotten the psychological help he needed Hasan would at least
>> have been prevented from carrying his gun on base.
>
> But if we all had better health care, including mental health care...
Heh! US Army Major Nidal Hasan had FULL government-paid health care ...
>
> ...then all the hero wannabes here couldn't fantasize about coolly
> drawing their concealed weapons and swiftly but accurately blowing his
> monotheistic fundamentalist ass off.
And Jabba couldn't fantasize about his dream world of iron tyranny.
Bama Brian
>>> Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>> November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>>> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>>> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>>> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>>> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>>> terrorist ties.
>>> Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
>>> between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
>>> sometime in early 2009.
>>> Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>>> when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>>> passed the background check.
>>> http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
>> been allowed on the Base, the shooting would not have happened. Gun
>> control didn't allow guns on the Base but did that law stop the filthy
>> low life muslim from bringing one. No- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> You're an idiot. It's an Army base; there are plenty of guns.
It's an Army POST, not a base. And there is a firearm for each and
every army enlisted man and officer assigned to the post, with all such
firearms locked up in the post's unit armories. They are issued for the
needs of the soldier's duty only.
> Why do
> you people have this fantasy that, if everyone is armed, then no one
> will ever shoot anyone else ever again? The guy shot people in a
> theater,
Theater? It was the former "sports dome", which has been converted to a
soldiers processing point.
> and the theater was full of families, including kids;
Really? How many kids were killed and wounded? You are confusing the
adjacent graduation ceremony being conducted with the shooting.
Try reading a write-up of the actual incident.
> if
> everyone in the theater was armed, the reality is that more people
> might have been shot, as some people started firing back in the
> direction the bullets came from, and possibly hit other people
> accidentally. And with all those bullets, it might have been far more
> difficult to tell who the original shooter was, and they may have had
> a more dififcult time catching him.
Typical anti-gunner's fantasy right out of the HCI/VPC playbook, with no
substance in reality. If your fantasy had any substance, then cops who
arrive in squads should designate a single shooter. All other cops
should wait until the shooting is over, or the designated shooter has
been taken out before the next cop is armed.
>
> Please stop watching action movies and believing them. In reality,
> Rambo, Bruce and Arnold would probably been killed within the first
> five minutes of each film. Guns don't make you invincible.
Then both the DAC police should have been killed, and the shooter would
not be in custody today, according to your HCI/VPC playbook.
Is there something about being a cop which makes one invulnerable? How
is a cop's training superior to a soldier's?
nraclaptrap
news:hduf1c$992$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Show me the Founder who said you have any fucking freedom to have a gun
unconnected with the perpetuation and efficiency of the well-regulated
militia, you ignorant tea-bagger.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Steve
Well, every single one of them that approved of the 2nd amendment, you
silly dispshit.
nraclaptrap
Cite the Founder of our country or the Framer of the US Constitution or
the Bill of Rights who contradicts me, CrammaJammaRongBong.
Neither you nor any gunlobby shill can do that. Why do you think all the
Founders are always against your fake individual gun right under the
Second Amendment, or anyplace else in the US Constitution,
CrammaJammaRongGongSingSong?
>> Also, Hasan comitted a felony
>> when he carried his pistol on federal property and failed to sign it
>> in to the base police.
>
> It's an army POST, asshole, not a base.
Explain how a military base can't be a military post, dumbass.
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:rp75g553d51m6cu1u...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:14:53 -0600, nraclaptrap
> What so you can plan an attack.
So you don't know squat about Fort Hood's gun control policies?
Dismissed, Mr. Wuss.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:5CsMm.35480$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad:
No Snout - cite the source Kopout & Crammer used. Surely you have it
memorized after 15 years so you can at least provide a correct cite for
it?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
> Zombywoof <fish...@live.com> wrote in
> news:n604g5hn5c4d7cbsr...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:41:22 -0600, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
>>>They sure made a nice "gun-free" zone where a shooter was unhindered
>>>in his mass murdering. Everybody disarmed except the murderer.Just
>>>like all the other mass shootings.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Next please.
>>>>>
>>>> Sure they do. You put a BIG honkin fence around the place & get ya
>>>> some armed guards.
>>>
>>>and hope nobody gets in thru a hole in the fence,or smuggles in some
>>>guns.
>>>
>>>ISTR a US courthouse where a person brought a gun in past the metal
>>>detectors AND armed guards,and shot some judge.
>>>
>> Do me a favor and lean how to arribute properly. This is like the
>> third post in a row you FUBARed.
>
> the attribs are right,I let the newsreader do that.
> It's just that I was replying to claptrap,but I have him killfiled,so
> the only time I read his nonsense is when someone else replies to him.
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Milt
> Bama Brian <claypoolbr...@gmail.com> wrote innews:hdugfe$oto$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
It's really amazing, isn't it? WTF do they think is an individual
right, anyway? All of our rights are based on being part of the
collective population. If these idiots think there is such a thing as
an individual right, I suggest they go to Europe and stand on the
street holding a handgun and declare their individual right to carry a
gun, and see how long it takes to arrest their sorry asses.
The concept of individual rights is just a fiction based on their
ideology, which apparently teaches that every man is an island, and
they all occupy their own country (dumfukistan?), and fuck everyone
else.
Individual rights... what a joke...
>
> >> Also, Hasan comitted a felony
> >> when he carried his pistol on federal property and failed to sign it
> >> in to the base police.
>
> > It's an army POST, asshole, not a base.
>
> Explain how a military base can't be a military post, dumbass.
>
> Next.
No! I want to hear his explanation. Bet it'll be funny...
Milt
> Bama Brian <claypoolbr...@gmail.com> wrote innews:hduf1c$992$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
> > nraclaptrap wrote:
> >> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:bc72500e-94be-4313-a186-
> >> 333bdc4e2...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
The fact of the matter is, there is currently a right to own a gun.
But it's based on current federal law, and the 14th Amendment extends
that right to everyone, subject to Congressional and state regulation
them. If Congress wanted to limit everyone to a "squirrel rifle," they
could do so, and there's nothing anyone could do to stop it, except to
try to amend the Constitution.
Steve
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 12:34�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
It's simply a right that individuals have, Dummy..
>All of our rights are based on being part of the
>collective population.
No..
> If these idiots think there is such a thing as
>an individual right, I suggest they go to Europe and stand on the
>street holding a handgun and declare their individual right to carry a
>gun, and see how long it takes to arrest their sorry asses.
<LOL> Non sequitors are one of Milt's specialties...
>The concept of individual rights is just a fiction based on their
>ideology, which apparently teaches that every man is an island, and
>they all occupy their own country (dumfukistan?), and fuck everyone
>else.
No, Milt, not everyone else, just you losers...
BTW, Milt, word is that you finally got yourself a real job...
Congratulations... now get busy on that credit card debt.
Steve
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 12:18�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Chuckles... when Milt starts talking Constitutional law we must
remember that he is the moron who once stupidly and incorrectly
claimed:
--
"if you're standing on the corner, legally handing
out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of which you're
standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big
guys remove you from in front of his building, you have the basis for
a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
--Milt.Shook.. 08 May 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com
Milt
Ok, um... You're kidding with this, right?
First of all, the paper was written in 1994, when CCWs barely existed.
Second of all, that's not data. I want to see the data, not Kopel (who
is a lying sack of shit most of the time, btw) and Cramer's
interpretation of the data.
Third, who's defining "innocent"? I mean, technically, everyone who
hasn't been convicted of a crime is "innocent." I would also note that
police actually have to go out and search for criminals, usually after
the fact.
Fourth, the statement above doesn't prove what you just said:
"And let's not forget that CCWs have less tendency to shoot innocent
bystanders or the wrong person by quite a large factor when compared
to the police."
I would assume that most CCWs are shooting people during a home
invasion. Show me a study that compares apples to apples, in which
CCWs who confront crime in public places are less likely than police
to shoot the wrong person. Keep in mind; police are CALLED TO places
where there are lots of people and they have to instantly assess who
doesn't belong. There are few times when such assessments are required
during a home invasion.
Steve
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 2:51�am, "Scout"
Typical lefterloon denial involves stuffing their hands over their
ears and their heads up their asses... Milt has that practice down
pat...
nraclaptrap
news:i436g5l4j9j16hkm7...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:38:43 -0600, nraclaptrap
> <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Milt <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in news:0d28cee0-cf17-4632-8d74-
>>67504e...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> Having a gun isn't a fundamental right.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter. The way the law is designed, like it or not,
>>> people have a right to own a gun,
>>
>>Heller just affects federal districts and AFAIK just civilians in
>>those districts. Congress has power to make rules for the government
>>and regulation of the army - not Tony Baloney Scalia.
>>
>>And just because the rightwing of the US Supreme Court believes they
>>can edit the text of the Constitution while bypassing Article V, that
>>doesn't mean the people have to obey them.
>
> Which "the people" are you referring to? Are you referring to
> individuals or are you referring to the body politic as in " the
> people of the State of California"
How about marijuana use? When individuals defied federal law, the
individuals were arrested. But when the whole body of the people of
several states voted to decriminalize pot, the federal government
listened to the people.
Individuals didn't get very far. The whole body of the people made
change happen.
So what context of "the people" do you think I used, Weenieboy?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:2bd45aa9-d67a-4c73...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com:
So what happens to state sovereignty over its own weapons laws? Can
Congress usurp state sovereignty granted through the Tenth Amendment,
powers reserved to the states include the police power, see Cruikshank &
Miln:
[begin excerpts]
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right
there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful
purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument
for its existence. The second amendment declares that it
shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no
more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This
is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to
restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the
people to look for their protection against any violation by
their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what
is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the
'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or
what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,'
'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the
United States.
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
* * * * *
We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider
impregnable positions. They are these: That a state has the same
undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and
things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation;
where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the
constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is
not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a state,
to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people,
and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of
legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends;
where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its
exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just
stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal
legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called
internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and
that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a
state is complete, unqualified and exclusive.
Mayor of City of New York v. Miln 36 U.S. 102, 139 (1837), cited
in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
[end excerpts]
> If Congress wanted to limit everyone to a "squirrel rifle," they
> could do so, and there's nothing anyone could do to stop it, except to
> try to amend the Constitution.
That's the only thing gunloons can do to get a real gun right under the
US Constitution, and if most Americans approved of unlimited gun rights
I'm sure gunloons could easily get their amendment and get a bona fide
constitutional right. So why the fuck don't they do that instead of
whining and screeching and acting a fool? It's because the last thing
the NRA wants is a real gun right for gunloons under the US Constitution,
because that would be the end of the NRA as a political lobby.
Anyway, "salus populi est suprema lex" or the public safety is the
supreme law, either is an inviolable matter of state sovereignty, or
state laws affecting the public good have no legal backbone. The
states' regulation of weapons possession and use would be usurped by the
federal government having power to overturn state weapons statutes, and
Congress as you say could limit that gun right won through a
constitutional amendment down to almost nothing. This is a case in which
a constitutional amendment might be found unfeasible, because it would
offend states' power to enact and enforce laws affecting their own
internal security and create a constitutional crisis.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Scout
> On Nov 17, 2:51 am, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Milt wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 6:29 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote
>>>> innews:lcqdnU3x4bKeVJzW...@posted.cpinternet:
>>
>>>>> And let's not forget that CCWs have less tendency to shoot
>>>>> innocent bystanders or the wrong person by quite a large factor
>>>>> when compared to the police
>>
>>>> Says who, Sally?
>>
>>>> --
>>
>>>> NRACLAPTRAP
>>
>>> Yeah, I'd like to see that data myself. I could buy that they have a
>>> lesser tendency than the general public, but I don't buy the whole
>>> police contention...
>>
>> 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of
>> shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
>>
>> Source: Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws,
>> Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper.
>> October 17, 1994
>
> Ok, um... You're kidding with this, right?
>
> First of all, the paper was written in 1994, when CCWs barely existed.
Actually, there were quite a few CCWs in 1994.
> Second of all, that's not data. I want to see the data, not Kopel (who
> is a lying sack of shit most of the time, btw) and Cramer's
> interpretation of the data.
Then feel free to go get it. I simply gave you a source. Anything else is up
to you.
> Third, who's defining "innocent"? I mean, technically, everyone who
> hasn't been convicted of a crime is "innocent." I would also note that
> police actually have to go out and search for criminals, usually after
> the fact.
IOW, you are already inventing excuses.
> Fourth, the statement above doesn't prove what you just said:
>
> "And let's not forget that CCWs have less tendency to shoot innocent
> bystanders or the wrong person by quite a large factor when compared
> to the police."
Innocent bystanders would be included in the statistics as innocent people.
I will simply note that before you have even looked at the data you are
already scrambling to invent excuses on why you should be able to ignore it.
Fiftycal
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>Show me the Founder who said you have any fucking freedom to have a gun
>unconnected with the perpetuation and efficiency of the well-regulated
>militia, you ignorant tea-bagger.
Hey loony, you sorry alcoholic, why don't you tell us how you are
smarter than the Supreme Court?
Here go loony, get someone to read and understand it for you.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07�290. Argued March 18, 2008�Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and
requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and
disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent
Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he
wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit
seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjointhe city from enforcing
the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as
it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm inthe home, and the
trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits theuse of functional
firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the
D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an
individual�s right to possess firearms and that the city�s total ban
on handguns, as well as its requirement thatfirearms in the home be
kept nonfunctional even when necessary forself-defense, violated that
right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
home.Pp. 2�53.
(a) The Amendment�s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not
limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The
operative clause�s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2�22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court�s interpretation
of the operative clause. The �militia� comprised all males
physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens� militia, enabling a
politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response
was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals
to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens� militia would
be preserved. Pp. 22�28.
(c)
The Court�s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed
the Second Amendment. Pp. 28�30.
Whassa matta loony boi? You to CHICKENSHIT to answer?
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
POINT PROVEN!!!
nraclaptrap
4ax.com:
See if this helps.
[begin excerpt]
It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the
constitution of the United States, and of this state.
The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to
be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "A well
regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. &
W. Dig. 7.
The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to
violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall
have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself
or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.
The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation
of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be
effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed.
The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in
relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal
right to the citizen.
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or
the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government,
but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the
state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to
the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government."
A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is
above the law, and independent of the law-making power.
The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that
any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of
this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the
right of its lawful use. That proposition given a practical application,
amounts to this, that the legislature cannot affix any higher punishment
to an unlawful assault with one of the dangerous weapons, which it is
lawful to carry, than with any other; because the effect of such
discrimination against the unlawful use of such weapon would discourage
the lawful use of it, and therefore the carrying of it.
This proposition can hardly be maintained; for admitting that two
persons make each an assault with like vicious intent, though with
different weapons, one with a weapon not likely to produce death, but
which is capable of it, and sometimes does it; and the other with a
weapon so destructive in its character as to be almost certain to
produce death, when used offensively; the act of the one, who has the
more dangerous instrument, is much more likely to be seriously injurious
to other people, than the act of the other, though the intent is the
same in doing the acts.
Now if the legislature can make no distinction in the punishment of the
two cases supposed, it is forced to base its punishment upon the degree
of evil intent, in total disregard of the means need to carry out that
intent, add of the probable injurious results of the acts.
The right to carry a bowie-knife for lawful defense is secured, and must
be admitted. It is an exceeding destructive weapon. It is difficult to
defend against it, by any degree of bravery, or any amount of skill. The
gun or pistol may miss its aim, and when discharged, its dangerous
character is lost, or diminished at least. The sword may be parried.
With these weapons men fight for the sake of the combat, to satisfy the
laws of honor, not necessarily with the intention to kill, or with a
certainty of killing, when the intention exists. The bowie-knife
differs from these in its device and design; it is the instrument of
almost certain death. He who carries such a weapon, for lawful defense,
as he may, makes himself more dangerous to the rights of others,
considering the frailties of human nature, than if he carried a less
dangerous weapon.
Now, is the legislature powerless to protect the rights of others thus
the more endangered, by superinducing caution against yielding to such
frailties? May the state not say, through its law, to the citizen,
"this right which you exercise, is very liable to be dangerous to the
rights of others, you must school your mind to forbear the abuse of your
right, by yielding to sudden passion; to secure this necessary schooling
of your mind, an increased penalty must be affixed to the abuse of this
right, so dangerous to others."
This would be in accordance with the well established maxim of law, that
"you must so use your own as not to injure others." A law inflicting
such increased penalty, would only be a sanction of this rule.
[end excerpt]
Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)
Look at this text:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or
the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government,
but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the
state government."
What do you think "the people" means in the context of that text? Do you
think "the people" means the individual persons attending the convention,
or that "the sovereign convention of the people" means the convention was
composed of persons who represented the whole body of the people, just as
a state legislature does today?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:55380f08-9e1d-47de...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>> Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton
>> Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17,
>> 1994
Also, the cite is wrong. The issue paper was published in 1993, and the IP
archived on Kopel's website is missing half the text including all the
footnotes, so you won't be able to check his work.
Unless you snag Kopout & Crammer's article by the same title in the
Tennesse
"[This paper appeared in Tennessee Law Review 62:3 [Spring, 1995] 679-757,
with a very nice set of graphs, which do not appear in this version. In
addition, the printed version has a number of very minor changes as well as
different footnote numbering."
Seems like Crammer castigated Bellesiles for making fewer mistakes in
"Arming America", but Crammer/Kopout get away with this crap thanks to the
fact that TLR is not peer-reviewed, student editors easily bamboozled, etc.
[begin excerpts]
"Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police,
involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]
145. Silver & Kates, supra.
15. [...] Carol Ruth Silver and Don B. Kates, "Self-Defense, Handgun
Ownership, and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society," in
Restricting Handguns, p. 153.
[end excerpts]
"Restricting Handguns", a book suffering from reader's indifference. Used
hardback sells for 31 cents plus $3.99 shipping at Amazon, if anybody cares
to track down another phony cite, pointing to another intentionally
misconstrued, etc.
So what's the cite on page 153 of "Restricting Handguns" that misleads the
reader to the next fake cite, SNOUT...
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Bama Brian
Show me the founder who said you have any fucking freedom to produce
obviously retarded spawn such as you, you ignorant non-human.
RD (The Sandman)
news:34f40b07-fe16-45f2...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 16, 6:11�pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Milt wrote:
>> > On Nov 16, 1:32 pm, "Scout"
>> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >> Milt wrote:
>> >>> On Nov 16, 11:17 am, "Scout"
>> >>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>>> Milt wrote:
>> >>>>> On Nov 15, 7:45 pm, Ivan Bittertittyoff
>> >>>>> <homeoftherussianr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> nraclaptrap wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>
>> >>>>>>> November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>
>> >>>>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal
>> >>>>>>> gun laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in
>> >>>>>>> Fort Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged
>> >>>>>>> with the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even
>> >>>>>>> though the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him
>> >>>>>>> for possible terrorist ties.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting
>> >>>>>>> messages between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The
>> >>>>>>> inquiry was closed sometime in early 2009.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>> >>>>>>> when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>> >>>>>>> passed the background check.
>>
>> >>>>>>>http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/hasan-1268430-gun-says.html
>>
>> >>>>>> Unreasonable gun control is what caused the shooting. If guns
>> >>>>>> would have been allowed on the Base, the shooting would not
>> >>>>>> have happened. Gun control didn't allow guns on the Base but
>> >>>>>> did that law stop the filthy low life muslim from bringing
>> >>>>>> one. No- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>>>> You're an idiot. It's an Army base; there are plenty of guns.
>>
>> >>>> True, but the problem is virtually no one has those guns with
>> >>>> them. They are all locked away and inaccessable.
>>
>> >>>>> Why do
>> >>>>> you people have this fantasy that, if everyone is armed, then
>> >>>>> no one will ever shoot anyone else ever again?
>>
>> >>>> He's not saying that, nor is this, IMO, the common point of
>> >>>> view. Rather he is saying that if those people had been able to
>> >>>> carry arms, some would have and the odds are good that someone
>> >>>> could have ended the killing spree considerably sooner with less
>> >>>> loss of life.
>>
>> >>> From what I understand, the entire incident happened within a
>> >>> very short period of time,
>>
>> >> Yep, and yet you would prefer this period of time to be lengthed
>> >> by waiting for police to finally arrive.
>>
>> > As opposed to having a dozen or more people shooting at people they
>> > may or may not be able to see?
>>
>> You may do so, but trained individuals tend to identify their target
>> particularly when they know innocent people are around.
>>
>> Indeed, the military TRAINS not to shoot innocent people by
>> IDENTIFYING w
> ho
>> the bad guys actually are. I think if anyone could handle just
>> shooting t
> he
>> bad guy it would be people in the US military.
>
> That would be a decent point, if this wasn't a military base, in an
> area inhabited by families. One of the things I noticed when I went to
> my son's Basic Training graduation was how alike most people looked. I
> would like to think they are trained to ID the bad guys, but when the
> bad guys look just like the good guys, I wonder how easy that might
> be. Like I said; the people in the theater fingered at least two guys
> as suspects who weren't suspects. Would they have shot them, had they
> been armed? I don't know, and neither do you.
>>
>> > I'm not saying you're completely wrong, which is why I am actually
>> > in favor of CCWs. Whether or not they belong on Army bases,
>> > however, is a decision best made by Army personnel, of course.
>>
>> Really? Why should it be any different here than anywhere else?
>>
>> Are you unwilling to ever question any decison made by others?
>
> No, of course not. But the question in this case is why the HELL was
> this guy allowed to continue to serve in the capacity he was, when
> they knew he was a fricking nutjob. That is a much more interesting
> and vital question than why everyone on an Army base wasn't armed.
>
> My son just graduated BT in May, so I was able to picture everything
> that apparently happened at Fort Hood fairly vividly, and I can't
> imagine that having more guns in that building would have made things
> better. And FYI. there were MPs stationed all around that graduation,
> so it wouldn't have been 5-10 minutes for police to arrive; more like
> 20-30 seconds.
>>
>> > The problem isn't
>> > that I think you're wrong; it's that you seem to only be able to
>> > see one possible scenario, and I can see many of them, some good,
>> > in which the CCW owner jumps up and takes out the perp after only
>> > one shot, and others, in which several CCW owners start shooting in
>> > the direction of the shooting, or shooting the wrong person,
>> > because they think he's the shooter when he's not.
>>
>> Oh, I see them, but based on historical data these scenerios are
>> quite unlikely to the point of being non-existant.
>
> I don't know that that's true. Thankfully, situations such as the one
> at Fort Hood are still fairly rare...
>>
>> > Again; I'm not saying your description isn't a possible outcome.
>> > But it's not the only possible outcome.
>>
>> Never said it was the only possible outcome, but it is the most
>> probable outcome.
>
> Neither one of us knows that.
>>
>> > My problem is with these scenarios
>> > in which all who own guns are superhuman heroes, who can stop perps
>> > with a single bullet, if only they had their gun with them.
>>
>> I never claimed they had superhuman abilities, and it might even take
>> the
> m
>> two shots or even three, but the point is the shooting spree would in
>> all probability ended much much sooner and fewer people would have
>> been injur
> ed
>> and killed.
>
> Again, neither one of us knows that.
>>
>> What I want to know is why you seem to see only the unlikely
>> negatives?
>
> I'm not. I'm seeing all sides. It's entirely possible it would happen
> the way you say. But it's also possible that having more people
> shooting could end up increasing the carnage. The reason it looks like
> I can "only" see the negatives is (ironically) because you can only
> see the positives. Like I said; you guys seem to assume that more guns
> means less carnage. I'm saying that's not necessarily the case, that's
> all.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> and in fact, two men were taken into custody who
>> >>> had nothing to do with it. Therefore, it's also possible that,
>> >>> while HE might have been killed, at least two other men, who were
>> >>> thought to have been part of the shooting, might have died, as
>> >>> well.
>>
>> >> Perhaps, more likely is it was unclear after the fact who was
>> >> responsible for what, and the police didn't want to take any
>> >> chances. Doesn't mean these men would have been threatened, shoot
>> >> at, or even killed if one or more CCWs had been around.
>>
>> > Well, someone fingered them. The police didn't just choose them at
>> > random.
>>
>> ...or they simply walked in near the same time, been sitting by him,
>> or a
> ny
>> of a thousand other reasons that would have nothing to do with them
>> being targeted by a CCW.
>>
>> >>>> After all, if there is any place that one could expect a person
>> >>>> carrying a gun to be able to take out a bad guy one should think
>> >>>> they would find such people on a military base.
>>
>> >>> This is true, but the room was presumably dark, and no one had an
>> >>> idea who the shooter was.
>>
>> >> Actually, those by him, probably knew exactly who he was.
>>
>> > Perhaps. Although your certainty about this is kind of
>> > mind-boggling.
>>
>> Let's see, someone stands up and starts shooting in a crowded theater
>> and
> I
>> am suppose to believe that no one notices who it is?
>>
>> The police didn't seem to have any problems doing so when they came
>> into this dark room, so why should the people who were there?
>>
>> >>> That would seem to pose a problem. A room full of
>> >>> families, and shots coming from the back of the hall; it would
>> >>> take a minute or two, at least, to make sure you were shooting at
>> >>> the right person.
>>
>> >> Yep, much better than waiting 5 or 10 minutes for the police to
>> >> arrive.
>>
>> Should I assume we should wait and allow more people to be killed, or
>> are you simply unable to address this point?
>>
>> >>> Of course, if everyone had been armed, and the shooter knew it,
>> >>> he would just shoot from behind something and protect himself.
>>
>> >> Please expand behind what you think there is in the modern theater
>> >> that will provide cover. Please note this is not the same as
>> >> concealment.
>>
>> > I wasn't in the theater; I don't pretend to know.
>>
>> I accept your admission you've never gone to see a movie in a theater
>> in
> the
>> last 5 years.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> The problem with this type of situation is that the shooter knows
>> >>> what he's about to do, and no one else does. Put it this way;
>> >>> there are reasons why wars often go on for a long time. Under the
>> >>> basic philosophy, that everyone being armed saves lives, war
>> >>> should be a piece of cake, right? I mean, everyone is armed,
>> >>> peace should have occurred already.
>>
>> >> Well, they certainly last a lot less time when one side is
>> >> unarmed.....but I doubt you would want to be on that side of the
>> >> conflict.
>>
>> >> The problem why wars take so long is by your own admission on the
>> >> number of people involved. Takes time to kill off enough to cause
>> >> one side to give up.
>>
>> >>>> Of course, if they don't have a gun to use to take out the
>> >>>> enemy........
>>
>> >>> Of course, if everyone on base was always armed, how many of
>> >>> those soldiers this asshole treated would have gone off and done
>> >>> the same sort of thing.
>>
>> >> And yet, they could have done so whether they could legally have
>> >> arms or not.
>>
>> >> Seems to me that paranoia is speaking here.
>>
>> >>> The Army knows what it's doing. They have good reasons for not
>> >>> allowing soldiers to carry sidearms everywhere on base.
>>
>> >> Appeal to Authority noted.
>>
>> >> So what are these "good reasons"?
>>
>> Shall I take this to mean you don't know what these reasons are, much
>> les
> s
>> if they are good or not?
>>
>> >>>>> The guy shot people in a
>> >>>>> theater, and the theater was full of families, including kids;
>> >>>>> if everyone in the theater was armed, the reality is that more
>> >>>>> people might have been shot, as some people started firing back
>> >>>>> in the direction the bullets came from, and possibly hit other
>> >>>>> people accidentally.
>>
>> >>>> Possible, but highly unlikely since CCWs tend to take their
>> >>>> shooting seriously as do many military personal, such as you
>> >>>> would find on an Army base. So while there might have been a
>> >>>> slight risk that some innocent person might have been hit
>> >>>> instead, the odds are nearly 100% that the total loss of life
>> >>>> would have been far less because the shooting spree would have
>> >>>> been brought to a halt a lot sooner.
>>
>> >>> Oh, come off it. You can't make that claim.
>>
>> >> Actually I can. Because in cases where someone in the immediate
>> >> area had a gun available the spree ended much much quicker and the
>> >> body count was far below average. Indeed, one of the main lessons
>> >> from the VT shooting is that speed of response is critical to
>> >> keeping the body count down, and waiting around outside for backup
>> >> is a poor decision.
>>
>> >> Now what is faster than already being on the scene?
>>
>> >>> Like I said, if you
>> >>> remember, they picked up two guys they THOUGHT had done the
>> >>> shooting, and later let them go.
>>
>> >> Sure, trying to sort things out afterwards can be confusing to
>> >> those who weren't there, and they have no reasons not to be
>> >> careful and take in anyone even slightly questionable.
>> >> I will note that even though the police arrived well after things
>> >> got started they managed to figure out who the shooter was and
>> >> shot only him. I can't help but wonder why you would feel the
>> >> people on the scene couldn't figure that out.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more �
>
Milt, I have been reading lots of your stuff from time to time over the
years. To give you kudos, I have been following this thread and this is
the most reasonable exchange I have seen you in. Both you and Scout are
to be commended.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
news:guh2g51n6kc1153s8...@4ax.com:
> In talk.politics.guns nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Schumer: Gun laws lacking with Fort Hood suspect
>>
>>November 15, 2009 12:28 PM
>>
>>NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>>laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>>Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>
>>Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>>the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>
>>Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>>the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>>terrorist ties.
>>
>>Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages
>>between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed
>>sometime in early 2009.
>>
>>Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag
>>when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have
>>passed the background check.
>
> What part of Brady would have stopped him from buying a gun? Being a
> "suspect?"
>
> The inquiry was closed, you fat, stupid drunk.
However, the FBI could have entered into NICS that Hasan was still under
investigation (which he was) and that would have flagged NICS to return a
denial. They didn't do that which left no flag in NICS.
RD (The Sandman)
6768c3...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun
>> laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort
>> Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
>>
>> Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with
>> the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
>>
>> Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though
>> the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible
>> terrorist ties.
>
> Sounds to me like if you don't qualify to own a gun, then you don't
> qualify to serve in the armed forces, and vice versa.
>
> But, like I said before, this story sure has something for everyone.
> Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is justified by the 2nd
> Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
The loophole was not one in the law....it was one in the actions of the
FBI. Hasan was being investigated. If the FBI had put that flag in
NICS, then he would have failed the background check. They didn't do it.
It was very similar to the Virginia Tech shooting. In that case, the
Virginia medical folks did not pass on Cho's information where NICS would
see it. Cho also passed his background check.
> We are all ears!
You look kinda funny that way....
RD (The Sandman)
978c7d...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 15, 8:53�pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 7:58�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But, like I said before, this story sure has something for everyone.
>> > Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is justified by the
2nd
>> > Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
>>
>> You asshole. �The "day before," Hasan was a SUSPECTED possible
>> (future) terrorist.
>
> Then perhaps you might want to tell that to the fine folks at Fox
> News, because they've gleefully been labeling him "terrorist" without
> benefit of judge and jury.
I agree with Fox in that he was a terrorist and committed an act of
terrorism. Of course, he wasn't one the day before.
> If he was a terrorist, he shouldn't have
> had a gun, wouldn't you agree?
If the FBI had done their job and flagged NICS with the fact he was being
investigated, then Hasan would have failed the background check when he
went to buy the 5.7.
> I look forward to your condemnation of
> Fox News for their irrational labeling of this suspected murderer as a
> "terrorist."
Why would I do that? I agree with Fox News in that regard.
> �> At what point do you want *all* constitutional
>> rights disregarded because you're SUSPECTED - not convicted, not even
>> arrested - of possibly being prone to crime?
>> Is this Amerika still - or North Korea? �I think we know which Schumer
>> thinks.
>
> Perhaps you should be asking Fox News "pundits" that very same
> question, because they've decided that Hasan was a "terrorist" without
> the word "suspected" and they're excoriating the Obama Administration
No, they aren't. They excoriated the FBI.
> for not locking him up and throwing away the key. (Even though the
> suspicious e-mails were discovered more than a year ago...)
RD (The Sandman)
news:fXeMm.16815$We2....@newsfe09.iad:
> Milt wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 8:53 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 7:58 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, like I said before, this story sure has something for
>>>> everyone. Go ahead, gun nuts - tell us how the loophole is
>>>> justified by the 2nd Amendment. But Hasan's also a real terr'ist.
>>>
>>> You asshole. The "day before," Hasan was a SUSPECTED possible
>>> (future) terrorist.
>>
>> Then perhaps you might want to tell that to the fine folks at Fox
>> News, because they've gleefully been labeling him "terrorist" without
>> benefit of judge and jury. If he was a terrorist, he shouldn't have
>> had a gun, wouldn't you agree? I look forward to your condemnation of
>> Fox News for their irrational labeling of this suspected murderer as
>> a "terrorist."
>
> They can call him whatever they like, but that does mean he was a
> terrorist. At the moment it seems like he was nothing more than
> another spree shooter.
If it wasn't for the "Allah Akubar" I would agree with you. However, in
my opinion, Hasan himself made it a terrorist action. It was based on
his reaction to what was going on in the Middle East and his soon to be
departure to that part of the world. It had been building, however, for
some time.