REMINDER: Three Lessons on Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms

31 views
Skip to first unread message

raykeller

unread,
Nov 5, 2017, 7:30:13 PM11/5/17
to
REMINDER: Three Lessons on Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Revolutionary Act ^ | 10/06/17



(Considering we know how Democrats will respond to today's shooting, here's
KrisAnne Hall's popular post on why we have the 2nd Amendment...)

What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal
government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or
possessing any firearm. The entire argument for gun control is built upon a
false premise. The Second Amendment is not about self-defense from
criminals.

As unpleasant as it may be for this modern society to say out loud,
historically and constitutionally speaking, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms has always been a right to protect yourself from those in
power who want to enslave you. If America wants to engage in a real factual
debate on the right to keep and bear arms, then it must be approached from
the proper perspective.

The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this. Here is a
little Second Amendment history lesson so we can defend our Rights from
becoming government bestowed privileges.

Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years
1787-1788. Lesson one comes from George Mason, who along with James Madison,
is referred to as the "Father of the Bill of Rights." Seems to me a good
person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is
someone who is referred to as its "Father." Mason first explains the reason
we are to bear arms, and guess what? - it has nothing to do with hunting and
skeet shooting.or fighting muggers.

Lesson one: The militia explained

"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in
Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir
William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that
it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should
not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally
disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages
to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our
militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government
ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them
power to abolish our militia." (George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention,
June 14, 1788)

In the words of the "Father," we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by
the federal government. But Mason doesn't end his lesson there, he continues
by making sure we know who the militia is and this is contrary to what most
politicians profess.

"Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not
the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate
of the Germans, Prussians, etc., by our representation? I ask, Who are the
militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.
But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on
the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist
of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor." (George Mason, Virginia
Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788)

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from
being enslaved by the federal government and to protect ourselves from the
tyranny of our representatives, whose dereliction would lead us to suffer
the same fate as foreign nations.

Lesson two: Who we need protection from

This comes from the great patriot Noah Webster. Speaking on the threat of an
overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity,
the reason our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be
efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or
which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on
the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule,
the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;
because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force
superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised
in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can
execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and
constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly
inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to
them unjust and oppressive." (Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading
Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787)

There is no need for interpretation. These instructions are written in plain
English. Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

To prevent rule by a standing army;

To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

The people bearing arms should be superior to an army controlled by
Congress.

Lesson three: Duty to bear arms

This comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal
Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring
Independence). Lee explains,

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how
to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go
into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select
militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we
see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no
wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." (Letter from
the Federal Farmer #18, January 25, 1788)

Lee explains that it is our duty to not simply bear arms, but to always bear
arms. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to
ask permission of the government to carry a firearm. How about that
directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?

Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry, who was probably one of the
most passionate champions of the citizen's duty to bear arms. No one can
break it down like Patrick Henry.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." (Patrick
Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788)

"Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were
only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could
defend yourselves, are gone;.Did you ever read of any revolution in a
nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by
those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is
called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not
assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of
despotism. We may see such an act in America." (Patrick Henry Virginia
Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788)

Well, there you have it; an historical and truthful education on your Right
to Keep and Bear Arms. The writings is easy to find and easy to read. Why
are our politicians and media talking heads bent on disseminating
miseducation and lies? Perhaps they repeat the lies because they intend on
disarming the people, because they know, as our founders did, that an armed
citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

A proper debate on one's right to keep and bear arms is not one that is
framed in the terms of whether you can feel safe from wicked and depraved
people, full of hate and malice, who want to hurt you. You will never feel
safe from those people and those people will not cease to exist just because
you are not allowed to legally own a gun. Why? Because those people do not
care about laws and they will always find a way to hurt and destroy, with or
without gun laws.

If society is honest and historically accurate, the only question that has
any relevance to the gun control debate is:

"Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not
take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?"

If the answer to that question is "no," the gun control debate is over.


!Jones

unread,
Nov 5, 2017, 8:24:53 PM11/5/17
to
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:30:13 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:

>The Second Amendment is [...] about self-defense from
>criminals.

It says no such thing. It also doesn't say that it's about
overthrowing the government.

It's time to get rid of it.

Jones

--
How's my posting?

Direct Complaints to the Usenet Abuse Hotline:
Please Dial: 1-800-328-7448

max headroom

unread,
Nov 5, 2017, 11:42:31 PM11/5/17
to
In news:bcevvc9tbvv5jup6p...@4ax.com, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> typed:

> x-big-liar: jones

> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:30:13 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote:

>> ... The entire argument for gun control is built upon a false premise. The Second Amendment is
>> not about self-defense from criminals....


>> The Second Amendment is [...] about self-defense from
>> criminals.

> It says no such thing. It also doesn't say that it's about
> overthrowing the government.

You just can't help yourself, can you?


Mr. B1ack

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 1:51:29 AM11/6/17
to
On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 19:24:53 -0600, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:30:13 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
><whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The Second Amendment is [...] about self-defense from
>>criminals.
>
>It says no such thing. It also doesn't say that it's about
>overthrowing the government.
>
>It's time to get rid of it.

That statement and sentiment mean it's more
important than ever to keep and expand it.

Gunner Asch

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 6:37:51 AM11/6/17
to
He simply goes on and on doesnt he? Poor bastard is way out of his
depth and vaguely understands this. Being a typical internet
bully...he has become unsettled and upset.

Shrug

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 6:39:50 AM11/6/17
to
On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 19:24:53 -0600, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:30:13 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
><whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The Second Amendment is [...] about self-defense from
>>criminals.
>
>It says no such thing. It also doesn't say that it's about
>overthrowing the government.
>
>It's time to get rid of it.

Yawn.

Get your ERA amendment passed first.

[chuckle]

Gunner Asch

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 6:41:44 AM11/6/17
to
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:51:22 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
Indeed. The poor shit is aware that it has become more important then
his wishes in the last 10 yrs or so..and its become even more
accepted...and his wishes are getting farther and farther away from
implimentation...going down the drain so to speak..and its eating away
at him. Same with most antigun leftists. So their verbage and
shouting will get louder for a bit..until they are either faced with
the facts..that its NOT going away...or they sit sullenly resenting
the fact that they have become a moot point in history.

Then they become dangerous to small animals, children and groups of
bicycleists

!Jones

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 8:47:13 AM11/6/17
to
I'm done with you; I may as well talk to a post.

!Jones

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 8:59:19 AM11/6/17
to
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:51:22 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
<now...@nada.net> wrote:

> That statement and sentiment mean it's more
> important than ever to keep and expand it.

No, ... it isn't. The problem is that nobody knows quite what the
damn thing says. It was one of those compromises like slavery wherein
the FF just avoided the issue. Some people think it means that we
have guns to stop our government from taking our guns; some say it's
there to prevent crime... and working just swimmingly well, naught?
Its first term is "A well-regulated militia..." and, if you look at
the rest of the BOR, you will usually find the thesis stated clearly
at the beginning.

Then there's the issue of what, exactly, did the writer(s) mean by
"arms"? They really couldn't have meant assault rifles... do we
interpret it as "original intent" or is it a "living document"? (I'd
be OK either way; however, the gunners want to have it *both* ways.)

Naaaa... let's repeal and replace it with something written in clear
English that says exactly what it means. I like an affirmation of
right(s) to begin: "Congress shall make no law..." I can tell you
what *that* means!

Frank

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 9:10:03 AM11/6/17
to
You see his name, you do not need to read the post as it is always a
negative, knee jerk reaction.

Michael Ejercito

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 12:25:25 PM11/6/17
to


"!Jones" wrote in message
news:bcevvc9tbvv5jup6p...@4ax.com...

>x-no-idiots: yes

>On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:30:13 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
><whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
>wrote:

>>The Second Amendment is [...] about self-defense from
>>criminals.

>It says no such thing. It also doesn't say that it's about
>overthrowing the government.

>It's time to get rid of it.

Why should we get rid of it?


Michael

Michael Ejercito

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 12:33:42 PM11/6/17
to


"Mr. B1ack" wrote in message
news:5h100d1osi0um2v4n...@4ax.com...
There are arguments that the U.S. should get rid of the 4th Amendment.

After all, no court has ever thrown out a murder conviction on 2nd
Amendment grounds, while murder convictions have been overturned on 4th
Amendment grounds.

It would seem that the 4th is more dangerous than the 2nd, as it has a
much greater potential to let criminals, including murderers, get away with
their crimes.

And what about the 14th. Half of all murders are committed by black
people, so with the 14th out of thr way, imagine what the police can do to
suppress murder.

What would we lose if those amendments were abolished?


Michael

bigdog

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 1:02:54 PM11/6/17
to
On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 8:24:53 PM UTC-5, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:30:13 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Second Amendment is [...] about self-defense from
> >criminals.
>
> It says no such thing. It also doesn't say that it's about
> overthrowing the government.
>
> It's time to get rid of it.
>
Fuck you. The Second Amendment is here to stay. It is the one amendment that protects all the others. If the government can disarm us, they can take away freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, our right to be secure in our homes and just about every other right which we as Americans take for granted.

Of course if you think 2A needs to be repealed, there is a constitutional procedure for doing that. Good luck with that. The rest of us will be laughing at your pathetic efforts You assholes couldn't even pass UBC. How the fuck are you going to repeal 2A.

bigdog

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 1:04:15 PM11/6/17
to
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 8:47:13 AM UTC-5, !Jones wrote:
> I'm done with you; I may as well talk to a post.
>
At least you would be speaking to your intellectual equal.

bigdog

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 1:12:21 PM11/6/17
to
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 8:59:19 AM UTC-5, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:51:22 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
> <now...@nada.net> wrote:
>
> > That statement and sentiment mean it's more
> > important than ever to keep and expand it.
>
> No, ... it isn't. The problem is that nobody knows quite what the
> damn thing says. It was one of those compromises like slavery wherein
> the FF just avoided the issue. Some people think it means that we
> have guns to stop our government from taking our guns; some say it's
> there to prevent crime... and working just swimmingly well, naught?
> Its first term is "A well-regulated militia..." and, if you look at
> the rest of the BOR, you will usually find the thesis stated clearly
> at the beginning.
>
> Then there's the issue of what, exactly, did the writer(s) mean by
> "arms"? They really couldn't have meant assault rifles... do we
> interpret it as "original intent" or is it a "living document"? (I'd
> be OK either way; however, the gunners want to have it *both* ways.)
>
When they protected freedom of speech, surely couldn't have meant using TV, radio, movies, the internet. Maybe if they knew the stupid things you would someday write, they would have excluded internet communications from 1A protection,

> Naaaa... let's repeal and replace it with something written in clear
> English that says exactly what it means. I like an affirmation of
> right(s) to begin: "Congress shall make no law..." I can tell you
> what *that* means!
>
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me. It means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
> --
> How's my posting?
>
Fucked up as usual.

Louis Pricano

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 1:36:58 PM11/6/17
to
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 04:40:49 -0800 (PST), "Tom Sr."
<thomas.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>stevenc wrote.
>
>
>
>
>Now you are not only being STUPID, but BORING.


He burned your ass with facts.

You lefty nuts live in fantasy land. Nothing is real, it's all in
your goofy heads.

Mr. B1ack

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 2:34:40 PM11/6/17
to
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 07:59:19 -0600, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:51:22 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
><now...@nada.net> wrote:
>
>> That statement and sentiment mean it's more
>> important than ever to keep and expand it.
>
>No, ... it isn't. The problem is that nobody knows quite what the
>damn thing says. It was one of those compromises


Yes, it is ... and there will be no 'compromises'.

!Jones

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 2:50:32 PM11/6/17
to
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:34:35 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
<now...@nada.net> wrote:

> Yes, it is ... and there will be no 'compromises'.

Oh, we'll need a few more years like the last couple; after that,
we'll see. The grassroots are becoming organized.

Mr. B1ack

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 9:48:09 PM11/6/17
to
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:50:31 -0600, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:34:35 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
><now...@nada.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, it is ... and there will be no 'compromises'.
>
>Oh, we'll need a few more years like the last couple; after that,
>we'll see. The grassroots are becoming organized.

So are the guns-n-bibles segment. You'll lose, big,
so don't push it. Find something else to complain
about ... "income inequity" or whatever .....

Scout

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 12:24:29 AM11/7/17
to


"!Jones" <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote in message
news:tvp00dhjr5l1s8tts...@4ax.com...
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:51:22 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
> <now...@nada.net> wrote:
>
>> That statement and sentiment mean it's more
>> important than ever to keep and expand it.
>
> No, ... it isn't. The problem is that nobody knows quite what the
> damn thing says.

Is that your problem?

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

There you go, a nice authoritative examination of the 2nd by those you
proclaim are the experts in the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the
United States.

The only people who actually have trouble with the 2nd are those who refuse
to accept what it says. People like you.



Scout

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 12:24:29 AM11/7/17
to


"!Jones" <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote in message
news:e5f10d93blgd04bc6...@4ax.com...
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:34:35 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
> <now...@nada.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, it is ... and there will be no 'compromises'.
>
> Oh, we'll need a few more years like the last couple; after that,
> we'll see. The grassroots are becoming organized.

Sure, which is why gun control is getting overturned every time we turn
around....the grassroots has gotten organized and they oppose gun control.


Scout

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 12:24:30 AM11/7/17
to


"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:otq6dl$9rf$1...@dont-email.me...
And don't forget the 5th. Imagine what the police could do to force a
confession?



Mr. B1ack

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 8:07:07 AM11/7/17
to
He thinks his commie bretheren are strong and
the majority. Must not come out of his safe space
very often ....

Michael Ejercito

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 10:31:54 AM11/7/17
to


"Scout" wrote in message news:otrg2d$org$3...@dont-email.me...
What could go wrong with forced confessions?


Michael

a425couple

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 5:26:34 PM11/7/17
to
You want clear English?

How about this:
"Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms
for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without
the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always
be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and
be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780)."

That was from before when the U.S. (Federal) Bill of Rights
was written. And even if somehow, the Federal 2nd Amendment
was deleted, the states constitutions that contain rights
to bear arms will still protect those states.

And if you want another old time one:
"Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence
of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of
peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and
that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and
governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777,
ch. I, art. 15)."

And your local Texas also makes clear for Texas citizens:
"Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in
the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall
have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view
to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876)."

Mine is also very clear, " The right of the individual citizen to
bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired,
but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed
body of men."

And in your refusal to accept reality, you are certainly missing
the fact that every states elected officials, judges, lawyers,
and police officer have sworn an oath to defend their state's
constitutions.

bigdog

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 7:20:26 PM11/7/17
to
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 2:50:32 PM UTC-5, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:34:35 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack
> <now...@nada.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is ... and there will be no 'compromises'.
>
> Oh, we'll need a few more years like the last couple; after that,
> we'll see. The grassroots are becoming organized.
>
Fuck your grassroots. We will continue to stomp the shit out of every effort to limit our right to keep and bear arms and we don't give a shit whether that pisses off assholes like you. In fact, that part is a plus.

Scout

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 7:33:29 PM11/7/17
to


"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:otsjl8$an9$1...@dont-email.me...
After all, if they weren't guilty then they wouldn't have been arrested....


benj

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 8:36:26 PM11/7/17
to
Just more Jones lies. The leftist gun-grabbing grass roots has NEVER
been organized. Those libs are all too lazy or too high to ever organize
anything. What they have is virtually unlimited dibs on other people's
money, in this case the likes of Bloomberg and Soros. These fascists
stand ready to pump whatever it takes to disarm the American low life.
Media people squawk a lot about big money controlling government and
making laws. But while it's true to a degree, Hillary found out the hard
way that winning an election takes votes not just dollars.

And that is what the NRA has. GRASSROOTS organization that can call up
the votes needed to reward or punish politicians. AND THEY KNOW IT. The
left will NEVER have the dedication, honor and honesty needed to really
organize grassroots. Their idea is seen everyday in the media: Make up
fantasy-facts and tell people what to think and they will vote your way.

Well it works pretty well when the public is fast asleep. But once they
wake up (as in the case of gun laws) the big leftist battle plan falls
flat on it's face. Ask Hillary and all the leftists backing her.

Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 7, 2017, 10:51:51 PM11/7/17
to
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:30:13 -0700, "raykeller" wrote:

>REMINDER: Three Lessons on Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms
>The Revolutionary Act ^ | 10/06/17

Yesterday's church shooter was convicted on domestic assault and
dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. He also escaped from a
mental institution. Both should have disqualified him from buying the
guns but the beloved government didn't bother filing either with the
gun background check database. Blood on 0bama's hands.

Dillon Roof, the last church shooter, had a previous drug and firearms
history that should have disqualified him but no one bothered
recording that one either. Well, they did, but screwed up the info. I
think that was the FBI.

Two mass shootings, both enabled by a negligent government, both on
0bama's watch. Add to Fast and Furious.

But just a few new laws, a few more things that are supposed to go in
the database, will fix everything.

dew claw

unread,
Nov 8, 2017, 3:57:51 PM11/8/17
to
On 11/6/2017 6:47 AM, !Jones wrote:
> I'm done with you; I may as well talk to a post.
>
> --

You say that a lot - but you _never_ leave.

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 8, 2017, 10:47:12 PM11/8/17
to
IIRC, you and I have discussed this before. I pointed out at the time
that the NRA had maneuvered to make sure NICS didn't work. I may have
explained why that is.

But I'm not about to go through it again. I'll just let someone else
do it. You ought to read the whole story:

"What Happened to the $1.3 Billion Congress Approved to Improve
Federal Gun Background Checks?"

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/nics-background-check-congress-spending/

"Back in 2007, the NRA publicly applauded the Act [the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007] for its relief from disability
provision and the fact that it barred federal fees for NICS checks. It
looked like a non-controversial way to better enforce current laws.
But Moran [James Moran, D-Va., who served on the House Appropriations
Committee] says the NRA then turned around and worked with allies in
Congress to cut off funding for these grants when the appropriations
committee put each year’s budget together.

“Everybody knew what was going on — the NRA never wanted any records
kept,” says Moran. Keeping the background check system incomplete,
Moran believes, allows the NRA to point to it as a failed system and
rally against its expansion to private sales."

You may know that the NRA, as of 1998 or so, favored expanding the
background check system for private sales. But they got so much
blowback from members that they soon reversed themselves, using the
excuse that the system as it exists doesn't work, so they now oppose
extending the checks to private sales.

The rest, as they say, is history. They are an extraordinarily
effective -- and extraordinarily devious -- lobby.

--
Ed Huntress

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate.
Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.” --
Dan Hodges, British journalist


Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 1:24:01 AM11/9/17
to
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:47:04 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

>IIRC, you and I have discussed this before. I pointed out at the time
>that the NRA had maneuvered to make sure NICS didn't work. I may have
>explained why that is.

In these two, deadly, cases, it didn't work because two 0bama agencies
didn't bother getting the data in the data base and getting it right.

>But I'm not about to go through it again.

Thank the gods of the seven known universes for small favors.

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 1:30:26 AM11/9/17
to
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 23:23:56 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:47:04 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>IIRC, you and I have discussed this before. I pointed out at the time
>>that the NRA had maneuvered to make sure NICS didn't work. I may have
>>explained why that is.
>
>In these two, deadly, cases, it didn't work because two 0bama agencies
>didn't bother getting the data in the data base and getting it right.

You have no way of knowing that. The "didn't bother" part is pure
speculation. If you read the article, or any of the other analyses of
the NICS system, you'd know that the whole thing is an unfunded
mandate.

>
>>But I'm not about to go through it again.
>
>Thank the gods of the seven known universes for small favors.

You'd rather just make it up in your head. It makes you feel better.

--
Ed Huntress

Rudy Canoza

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 3:21:41 AM11/9/17
to
On 11/8/2017 10:23 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:47:04 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> IIRC, you and I have discussed this before. I pointed out at the time
>> that the NRA had maneuvered to make sure NICS didn't work. I may have
>> explained why that is.
>
> In these two, deadly, cases, it didn't work because two 0bama agencies

The Air Force is an "Obama agency"? Bullshit.

Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 2:14:19 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 00:21:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:
Oh, I forgot. Yes, now that you mention it, he appointed someone else
to be Commander In Chief.

Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 2:20:03 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 01:30:19 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 23:23:56 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:47:04 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>>IIRC, you and I have discussed this before. I pointed out at the time
>>>that the NRA had maneuvered to make sure NICS didn't work. I may have
>>>explained why that is.
>>
>>In these two, deadly, cases, it didn't work because two 0bama agencies
>>didn't bother getting the data in the data base and getting it right.
>
>You have no way of knowing that. The "didn't bother" part is pure
>speculation.

It didn't happen. If they had bothered, it would have happened. And a
gun would not have be sold. And a bunch of people would still be
alive.

>If you read the article, or any of the other analyses of
>the NICS system, you'd know that the whole thing is an unfunded
>mandate.

Continuing your classic liberal "appeal to authority" to support the
BS you make up. "Everyone knows; all thinking/educated/etc people;
it's agreed". Ed, buy a new trick somewhere. We are on to this one.

>You'd rather just make it up in your head. It makes you feel better.

I see you are morphing to be like every other pissing contest liberal
on usenet. Here are the personal attacks; foul language is sure to
follow. That's all liberals seem to have to "discuss".

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 2:45:41 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:19:56 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 01:30:19 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 23:23:56 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:47:04 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>>IIRC, you and I have discussed this before. I pointed out at the time
>>>>that the NRA had maneuvered to make sure NICS didn't work. I may have
>>>>explained why that is.
>>>
>>>In these two, deadly, cases, it didn't work because two 0bama agencies
>>>didn't bother getting the data in the data base and getting it right.
>>
>>You have no way of knowing that. The "didn't bother" part is pure
>>speculation.
>
>It didn't happen. If they had bothered, it would have happened. And a
>gun would not have be sold. And a bunch of people would still be
>alive.

You don't even know when, or by whom, the procedures were set for the
U.S. Air Force. Failure to supply NICS with the statutory data has
been a chronic problem since the '90s. Some states have said that they
have no funding for it and that there is no incentive for mental
health profressionals, as one example, to comply.

>
>>If you read the article, or any of the other analyses of
>>the NICS system, you'd know that the whole thing is an unfunded
>>mandate.
>
>Continuing your classic liberal "appeal to authority" to support the
>BS you make up. "Everyone knows; all thinking/educated/etc people;
>it's agreed". Ed, buy a new trick somewhere. We are on to this one.

What a stupid thing to say. You prefer ignorance and stupidity to
research and analysis. I guess that explains your views.

>
>>You'd rather just make it up in your head. It makes you feel better.
>
>I see you are morphing to be like every other pissing contest liberal
>on usenet. Here are the personal attacks; foul language is sure to
>follow. That's all liberals seem to have to "discuss".

Your sarcastic and dismissive approach to any facts that contradict
your prejudiced assumptions make it very difficult to have anything
liike a sensible discussion.

--
Ed Huntress

Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 3:07:12 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 14:45:34 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:19:56 -0700, Winston_Smith> wrote:
>>On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 01:30:19 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>>You have no way of knowing that. The "didn't bother" part is pure
>>>speculation.
>>
>>It didn't happen. If they had bothered, it would have happened. And a
>>gun would not have be sold. And a bunch of people would still be
>>alive.
>
>You don't even know when, or by whom, the procedures were set for the
>U.S. Air Force.

We DO know it was not filed. The abuse conviction. The dishonorable
discharge. The escape from a mental facility. The rest is your trying
to finesse the 0bama administration off the hook.

>Failure to supply NICS with the statutory data has
>been a chronic problem since the '90s. Some states have said that they
>have no funding for it mply.

The Feds want to mandate a program; the Feds pay for it. This writing
laws requiring a bunch of BS be done by someone else and then dumping
it on the states to pay for it is pure, hot stinkin' BS.

>and that there is no incentive for mental
>health profressionals, as one example, to comply.

Are you saying we are not obligated to obey the law if we feel there
is nothing in it for us to do so?

>>Continuing your classic liberal "appeal to authority" to support the
>>BS you make up. "Everyone knows; all thinking/educated/etc people;
>>it's agreed". Ed, buy a new trick somewhere. We are on to this one.
>
>What a stupid thing to say. You prefer ignorance and stupidity to
>research and analysis. I guess that explains your views.

I see you are morphing to be like every other pissing contest liberal
on usenet. Here are the personal attacks; foul language is sure to
follow. That's all liberals seem to have for their "discussions".

>>>You'd rather just make it up in your head. It makes you feel better.
>>
>>I see you are morphing to be like every other pissing contest liberal
>>on usenet. Here are the personal attacks; foul language is sure to
>>follow. That's all liberals seem to have to "discuss".
>
>Your sarcastic and dismissive approach to any facts that contradict
>your prejudiced assumptions make it very difficult to have anything
>liike a sensible discussion.

Feel free to ignore me. The trouble is you have a "fact" or "study" or
"authority" to support any thing you care to say or challenge. Rarely
a cite; if there is one it's to questionable sources. It's obvious and
getting thin.

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 4:43:55 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:07:05 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 14:45:34 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:19:56 -0700, Winston_Smith> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 01:30:19 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>>You have no way of knowing that. The "didn't bother" part is pure
>>>>speculation.
>>>
>>>It didn't happen. If they had bothered, it would have happened. And a
>>>gun would not have be sold. And a bunch of people would still be
>>>alive.
>>
>>You don't even know when, or by whom, the procedures were set for the
>>U.S. Air Force.
>
>We DO know it was not filed. The abuse conviction. The dishonorable
>discharge. The escape from a mental facility. The rest is your trying
>to finesse the 0bama administration off the hook.

Who has ever required the Air Force to provide such information to
NICS, at any time since the Brady Law was authorized in the 1980s? Do
you know? Or are you guessing?

>
>>Failure to supply NICS with the statutory data has
>>been a chronic problem since the '90s. Some states have said that they
>>have no funding for it mply.
>
>The Feds want to mandate a program; the Feds pay for it. This writing
>laws requiring a bunch of BS be done by someone else and then dumping
>it on the states to pay for it is pure, hot stinkin' BS.

They authorized $1.3 Billion. But, if you had read the first article I
linked to, you'd know that the NRA's lobbyists have managed to keep
the money from being released. It never gets authorized out of
committees.

>
>>and that there is no incentive for mental
>>health profressionals, as one example, to comply.
>
>Are you saying we are not obligated to obey the law if we feel there
>is nothing in it for us to do so?

There is no law requiring them to send the information along.
Remember, the legislation was written by lobbyists -- like most
legislation is.

>
>>>Continuing your classic liberal "appeal to authority" to support the
>>>BS you make up. "Everyone knows; all thinking/educated/etc people;
>>>it's agreed". Ed, buy a new trick somewhere. We are on to this one.
>>
>>What a stupid thing to say. You prefer ignorance and stupidity to
>>research and analysis. I guess that explains your views.
>
>I see you are morphing to be like every other pissing contest liberal
>on usenet. Here are the personal attacks; foul language is sure to
>follow. That's all liberals seem to have for their "discussions".

In other words, no one can "appeal to authority" -- that is, quote
authorities -- in a discussion with you. Or to put it differently,
we're supposed to remain just as ignorant as you are, or you will feel
put upon.

Let's "appeal to authority" again. I realize that quoting someone who
knows what they're talking about runs against your grain, but we'll
give it another try:

"However, federal law cannot require states to make information
identifying these people available to the federal or state agencies
that perform background checks,2 and many states fail to voluntarily
report the necessary records to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS), especially with respect to people
prohibited from possessing guns for mental health reasons. As a
result, some individuals known to be dangerous can pass background
checks and obtain firearms."

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/mental-health-reporting/

>
>>>>You'd rather just make it up in your head. It makes you feel better.
>>>
>>>I see you are morphing to be like every other pissing contest liberal
>>>on usenet. Here are the personal attacks; foul language is sure to
>>>follow. That's all liberals seem to have to "discuss".
>>
>>Your sarcastic and dismissive approach to any facts that contradict
>>your prejudiced assumptions make it very difficult to have anything
>>liike a sensible discussion.
>
>Feel free to ignore me. The trouble is you have a "fact" or "study" or
>"authority" to support any thing you care to say or challenge. Rarely
>a cite...

WTF are you talking about? What do you think a "cite" is? That last
one I quoted from is a legal center, quoting the federal law as it
stands. What are you looking for? Something carved on stone tablets?

And where are you getting *your* information about this? From Usenet
posts?

>; if there is one it's to questionable sources. It's obvious and
>getting thin.

I'll cite the US Code, except it's lengthy and you'd never bother to
read it. It would be too questionable, anyway. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Just Wondering

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 4:49:08 PM11/9/17
to
On 11/9/2017 12:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> You don't even know when, or by whom, the procedures were set for the
> U.S. Air Force. Failure to supply NICS with the statutory data has
> been a chronic problem since the '90s. Some states have said that they
> have no funding for it and that there is no incentive for mental
> health profressionals, as one example, to comply.

How would mental health professionals comply? What would they comply
with? If your last comment refers to non-adjudicated mental illness
diagnoses, they have no duty to inform the NICS database, in fact it
would be a violation of doctor-patient privilege. If it's about
adjudicated illnesses, that would be the duty of the courts.

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 5:10:38 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:49:05 -0700, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 11/9/2017 12:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> You don't even know when, or by whom, the procedures were set for the
>> U.S. Air Force. Failure to supply NICS with the statutory data has
>> been a chronic problem since the '90s. Some states have said that they
>> have no funding for it and that there is no incentive for mental
>> health profressionals, as one example, to comply.
>
>How would mental health professionals comply? What would they comply
>with?

If you want the post-Jan. '16 regulation, it's here:

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/NICS/index.html

If you want the previous regulations, let me know and I'll look them
up for you. Or you can look for yourself.

>If your last comment refers to non-adjudicated mental illness
>diagnoses, they have no duty to inform the NICS database, in fact it
>would be a violation of doctor-patient privilege. If it's about
>adjudicated illnesses, that would be the duty of the courts.

It's more than courts in most states. There is more detail here:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/mental-health-reporting/

--
Ed Huntress

Joseph Gwinn

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 5:37:28 PM11/9/17
to
On Nov 9, 2017, Ed Huntress wrote
(in article<cuj90dt9j3itjgdle...@4ax.com>):
Given that the shooter was reasonaby functional (albeit crazy) and this is
Texas, what’s the liklihood that being denied at the gun store would have
delayed him than a day or maybe week or two?

Joe Gwinn

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 5:44:19 PM11/9/17
to
Are you saying he would have gotten around background checks through a
private sale?

--
Ed Huntress

Step Right Up

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 6:20:15 PM11/9/17
to
I think what he might be saying is that if for example, you have a
convicted drunk driver, there's no point in suspending his driver's
license because he may drive anyway. Same reason it's pointless to
plug a leak in your tire, because it may still leak. :)

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 6:28:48 PM11/9/17
to
I'm glad you cleared that up. d8-)

Along those lines, you may have seen the article and graphs in a NYT
article about guns and mass killings over the past few days, and
perhaps you saw the rejoinder in the National Review.

The NYT says, basically, "We have more mass killings than other
countries because we have more guns.

The NR says, critically, "Of COURSE we have more mass killings. We
have more guns! That's to be expected."

Talk about alternate realities... I'm hoping the whiplash feels better
tomorrow. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Just Wondering

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 6:53:26 PM11/9/17
to
On 11/9/2017 3:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:49:05 -0700, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2017 12:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't even know when, or by whom, the procedures were set for the
>>> U.S. Air Force. Failure to supply NICS with the statutory data has
>>> been a chronic problem since the '90s. Some states have said that they
>>> have no funding for it and that there is no incentive for mental
>>> health profressionals, as one example, to comply.
>>
>> How would mental health professionals comply? What would they comply
>> with?
>
> If you want the post-Jan. '16 regulation, it's here:
>
> https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/NICS/index.html

So it permits but does not require reporting about

"individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental
institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of
insanity; or otherwise have been determined by a court, board,
commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or
others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own
affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness,
incompetency, condition, or disease. Under this final rule, only covered
entities with lawful authority to make the adjudications or commitment
decisions that make individuals subject to the Federal mental health
prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of information for NICS
reporting purposes, are permitted to disclose the information needed for
these purposes."

In other words, there is NO DUTY for "mental health professionals"
to comply with ANYTHING. Thanks for clearing that up.


Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 7:01:18 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:53:24 -0700, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net>
Right. There never was. The new regulation, above, is intended to
clear up a privacy issue that has, in the past, led mental health
professionals to minimize the number of names they passed along to
NICS.

--
Ed Huntress

Joseph Gwinn

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 7:41:14 PM11/9/17
to
On Nov 9, 2017, Ed Huntress wrote
(in article<dgm90dhrr05012dnc...@4ax.com>):
That’s one way, but there are many others. Like burglary. Or buy it in
Mexico and/or have it smuggled in.

In Sweden, they are having a lot of trouble with gun violence in some cities.
The weapons are smuggled in from Eastern Europe on the ferries - no airplane
security.

Joe Gwinn

Scout

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 7:45:58 PM11/9/17
to


"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:k8a90d9lj0l5o0fl3...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 01:30:19 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 23:23:56 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:47:04 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>>IIRC, you and I have discussed this before. I pointed out at the time
>>>>that the NRA had maneuvered to make sure NICS didn't work. I may have
>>>>explained why that is.
>>>
>>>In these two, deadly, cases, it didn't work because two 0bama agencies
>>>didn't bother getting the data in the data base and getting it right.
>>
>>You have no way of knowing that. The "didn't bother" part is pure
>>speculation.
>
> It didn't happen. If they had bothered, it would have happened. And a
> gun would not have be sold. And a bunch of people would still be
> alive.

Objection: That sale may not have occurred if the information was entered as
it should have been. But the assertion that he would not have obtained
another gun by illegal means, or simply changed to another means of mayhem
is an unfounded assertion.



>>If you read the article, or any of the other analyses of
>>the NICS system, you'd know that the whole thing is an unfunded
>>mandate.
>
> Continuing your classic liberal "appeal to authority" to support the
> BS you make up. "Everyone knows; all thinking/educated/etc people;
> it's agreed". Ed, buy a new trick somewhere. We are on to this one.

For what Ed claims is an unfunded mandate, they sure seem to spend a lot of
money on it.

" Therefore, the FY 2014 budget requests 524 positions and $100 million to
increase the ability to process mandated background checks for firearm
purchases."

Therefore, the FY 2014 budget requests 524 positions and $100 million to
increase the ability to process mandated background checks for firearm
purchases.

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 8:03:54 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 19:41:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
We know from DOJ research that was done in 2001 that about 32% of guns
used by criminals were obtained from family or friends -- a lot of
which is straw purchases, but I don't know of any specifics on that.
Around 33% were obtained "on the street," says DOJ. That, again,
includes a combination of straw purchases followed by illegal sales,
and thefts. IIRC, thefts from *legal* owners was something like 14%. I
guess the rest are criminals stealing from other criminals. Maybe.

I don't know of any data on the mass shooters, specifically. As for
smuggling them in, I've never heard of that being significant, except
for the drug dealers in Florida, during the cocaine scourge in the
1980s.

There really isn't a lot of data on it. It's so hard to trace guns
(thanks, NRA!) that there's no continuous update.

>
>In Sweden, they are having a lot of trouble with gun violence in some cities.
>The weapons are smuggled in from Eastern Europe on the ferries - no airplane
>security.
>
>Joe Gwinn

I think that's generally true in Europe. The channels are very
difficult, which perhaps is why their gun crime rates are so low
compared to ours. You may remember that the AKs used in the Charlie
Hebdo massacre apparently came from an illegal dealer in Belgium, who
had both legal and illegal businesses.

In the US, the vast majority of guns used in crimes were originally
legal sales made to individuals -- or sales that appeared to be legal
to the sellers.

Private sales don't appear to be much of an issue, but those are all
but impossible to trace, so they may be under reported.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 8:11:07 PM11/9/17
to
That's for the FBI to process the *checks*, not to acquire the data.
In the week of Dec. 17, 2012, the FBI had to process over one million
checks -- in one week!

As I noted before, $1.3B was allocated for gathering and communicating
data to the NICS database in 2007, but hardly any of it has been
distributed by Congress.

--
Ed Huntress

Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 10:33:58 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 16:43:47 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

>They authorized $1.3 Billion. But, if you had read the first article I
>linked to, you'd know that the NRA's lobbyists have managed to keep
>the money from being released. It never gets authorized out of
>committees.

Therefore it was never appropriated. If you have a problem with that
particular word, let me add "in a spendable form". That means no
federal funding exists and it's on the state's dime. Federal mandate
to be paid for by the states.

Agreed on committees. It's epidemic. Take for example all the good
"conservative" Rs that promised to repeal 0bamaCare on day one. Not
"repeal and replace" -- repeal. Six bleepin' years they flapped
their gums and campaigned.

After years of bitching and promising, they can't cough up a working
majority for what should be a signature vote. A vote they all promised
just a few months before it came time to cast it.

Flip side, we have had D controlled Congresses since the 90s but they
never funded the control of evil guns they tell us they are all in
favor of. Some of the classes had the votes to tell the NRA to go suck
an egg. Turns out lots of Ds get NRA money and they would get killed
next election by their constituents if they actually did what they
promise so loud and long.

The Washington party two sides of the same bird.

Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 9, 2017, 10:47:23 PM11/9/17
to
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 19:29:21 -0500, "Scout" wrote:

>Objection: That sale may not have occurred if the information was entered as
>it should have been. But the assertion that he would not have obtained
>another gun by illegal means, or simply changed to another means of mayhem
>is an unfounded assertion.

I see your point. However, the only remedy I've heard from the left so
far is we need background checks. The few that understand we DO have
them call for stricter reporting of more things.

That does zero to prevent a criminal getting a gun. Report the guy got
a $3 parking ticket at an overdue meter in 1952 because he got back
two minutes too late and it still does zero.

The other call from the left this past week have been we need to
outlaw assault weapons. Please consult any dictionary. They aren't
banned but getting one is long and costly and the damn thing has to be
50 years old. Now guns that "look" like military rifles for marketing
purposes is another story but I honestly believe most of the yammering
left actually thinks what they are saying is strictly accurate.

Hell, my Ruger 10-22 might be illegal in California because of the
stock. I guess I'm ready to take on a company of pissed off Marines.
I'm sure my stock will impress them. <grin>

Scout

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 12:16:07 AM11/10/17
to


"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:co7a0d1l0505dtpo0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 19:29:21 -0500, "Scout" wrote:
>
>>Objection: That sale may not have occurred if the information was entered
>>as
>>it should have been. But the assertion that he would not have obtained
>>another gun by illegal means, or simply changed to another means of mayhem
>>is an unfounded assertion.
>
> I see your point. However, the only remedy I've heard from the left so
> far is we need background checks. The few that understand we DO have
> them call for stricter reporting of more things.

Yea, they call for background checks, because they feel, as you implied,
that if ONLY we can keep them from buying a gun....then they can't possibly
do any harm.

The truth is that background checks are largely worthless, do nothing about
the criminal black market, or address all the other means of mayhem that
readily exist. For example, this man apparently put a lot of time and effort
into his assault.

Now consider, he was a licensed pilot, with a lot of wealth. As such he
could easily have rented a twin engine loaded it up with an explosive
incendiary set to go off on impact, and then crashed into the crowd on a
fast low angle approach.....

Now tell me again, how keeping him from getting a gun, even if successful,
would have ended the danger?

> That does zero to prevent a criminal getting a gun. Report the guy got
> a $3 parking ticket at an overdue meter in 1952 because he got back
> two minutes too late and it still does zero.
>
> The other call from the left this past week have been we need to
> outlaw assault weapons. Please consult any dictionary. They aren't
> banned but getting one is long and costly and the damn thing has to be
> 50 years old.

Actually you're thinking of assault rifles. Assault weapons is a purely
fabricated term made up for the express purpose of confusing people by
getting them to think machine guns rather than ordinary semi-automatics. The
first defining characteristic of ANY assault weapon in any legislation
proposed or enacted is that it's a semi-automatic.....

What they can't explain is how an AR15, an assault weapon, is so much more
dangerous than a Mini14, ordinary sporting rifle.....

The answer, is they aren't concerned about function, but purely a matter of
appearance.

In the federal AWB, the liberals got all upset when 'manufacturers changed
the names (from those that were banned by name) and the cosmetic features so
that they were no longer assault weapons under the law. They claimed that
the gun manufacturers were avoiding the intent of the law........which
wasn't to ban guns with such features, but to ban a lot of semi-automatics
that looked dangerous.

They still looked dangerous just not in the manner that they claim made them
so dangerous to have.

Be that as it may, ANY semi-automatic could have been made to function in
that manner, and it wouldn't have mattered if the stock was wooden, or
dangerous evil black plastic.


>Now guns that "look" like military rifles for marketing
> purposes is another story but I honestly believe most of the yammering
> left actually thinks what they are saying is strictly accurate.

Some are made that way just to have the appearance, but again, does how
something look make it dangerous?

For the rest, there is a reason that military rifles have such features, and
civilian shooters have discovered the benefits as well.
Standardized modular mounting and ready conversion to different cartridges
without having the expense of a whole new rifle, With a modest investment
you can buy one single lower, and adapt that readily in a short period of
time from a plinking rifle, to a varmint rifle, to a tack driving
competition rifle, to something you can take hunting........

Indeed the AR platform is the most popular civil shooting platform in
history and for the very reasons of it's adaptability and convertibility.
Features in demand not just in the military.

>
> Hell, my Ruger 10-22 might be illegal in California because of the
> stock.

Yep and that's the WONDERFUL part of the assault weapons definition...you
can make a gun into an evil dangerous assault weapon simply by changing the
stock....or change that evil dangerous assault weapon into an acceptable
hunting rifle by another stock change.
Functionally, they are absolutely identical, but the shape of a hunk of
plastic or wood apparently has the ability to transform the rifle from the
benign to utter evil and back again in a matter of moments.


> I guess I'm ready to take on a company of pissed off Marines.
> I'm sure my stock will impress them. <grin>

Maybe, but it clearly can scare the piss out of ignorant liberals.


Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 9:31:44 AM11/10/17
to
Yike. A consistently accurate post. Congrats, Winston! d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 12:42:36 PM11/10/17
to
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:15:44 -0500, "Scout" wrote:
>"Winston_Smith" wrote

>> The other call from the left this past week have been we need to
>> outlaw assault weapons. Please consult any dictionary. They aren't
>> banned but getting one is long and costly and the damn thing has to be
>> 50 years old.
>
>Actually you're thinking of assault rifles. Assault weapons is a purely
>fabricated term made up for the express purpose of confusing people by
>getting them to think machine guns rather than ordinary semi-automatics. The
>first defining characteristic of ANY assault weapon in any legislation
>proposed or enacted is that it's a semi-automatic.....

In the histories I've read, the low capacity, high power rifle of WW1
and WW2 came to be called an infantry or battle rifle. It required
some marksmanship. Most soldiers at that time came from rural areas
and already knew how to shoot.

The assault rifle is high capacity, high fire rate, lighter, not
designed as much for high accuracy. Particularly it means full auto.
The grand daddy was the German Sturmgewehr of WW2, which translates to
Assault Rifle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44

The idea there is not hitting a particular target (while being a good
target yourself); it's to place a sheet of suppression fire to make
the enemy keep their head down while your guys make a dash to the next
cover. That is to say -- assault.

Fast forward a couple decades to when the American army discovered
most recruits were city boys and it took more than a few days to teach
them to shoot. Switch from the precision battle rifle to the mass
produced assault rifle for everyone. Spray and prey.

To make the volumes of ammunition carryable, it has to become smaller
and lighter. The Sturmgewehr started down that road by shortening the
7.92×57mm almost in half to 7.92×33mm Kurz.

With newer powders and other technologies, that evolved into the
5.56x45mm for the M14 of Nam; the AR-15 is the civilian, semi-auto
copy/look-a-like.

"Assault rifle" has a particular meaning in military terminology -
full auto. The idiot politicians just mis-used it because it sounds
evil. Full auto has never been available to civilians in any quantity
and without cost and effort. Full auto has never been used in a mass
shooting.

Anyone is invited to correct my understanding if I have something
wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15

>What they can't explain is how an AR15, an assault weapon, is so much more
>dangerous than a Mini14, ordinary sporting rifle.....

>The answer, is they aren't concerned about function, but purely a matter of
>appearance.

Looks are everything in today's world. I could trick out my Ruger
10-22 to look like an AR. In fact, a .22LR AR-look-alike is a common
item in any gun store today. Diane and her friends don't understand
guns, don't want to soil their psyche by learning about the evil
things, so they just go by what it looks like.

Joseph Gwinn

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 12:50:23 PM11/10/17
to
On Nov 9, 2017, Ed Huntress wrote
(in article<9st90d9pt63aaapd4...@4ax.com>):
> > > > delayed him more than a day or maybe week or two?
> > > >
> > > > Joe Gwinn
> > >
> > > Are you saying he would have gotten around background checks through a
> > > private sale?
> >
> > That’s one way, but there are many others. Like burglary. Or buy it in
> > Mexico and/or have it smuggled in.
>
> We know from DOJ research that was done in 2001 that about 32% of guns
> used by criminals were obtained from family or friends -- a lot of
> which is straw purchases, but I don't know of any specifics on that.
> Around 33% were obtained "on the street," says DOJ. That, again,
> includes a combination of straw purchases followed by illegal sales,
> and thefts. IIRC, thefts from *legal* owners was something like 14%. I
> guess the rest are criminals stealing from other criminals. Maybe.

It’s hard to know, even for the DOJ. As for the 14%, I wonder - my Father
lost a pistol, two rifles, and a shotgun in a burglary.

> I don't know of any data on the mass shooters, specifically. As for
> smuggling them in, I've never heard of that being significant, except
> for the drug dealers in Florida, during the cocaine scourge in the
> 1980s.

Smuggling only arises in the absence of easier paths. Actually, the gun
problem seems more smuggling from the US outward. Like to Mexico, for use by
the Drug Cartels.

> There really isn't a lot of data on it. It's so hard to trace guns
> (thanks, NRA!) that there's no continuous update.

No amount of official recordkeeping will track illegal guns, even if they
were once legal. And, one can always grind the serial numbers off, like the
Mafia. And/or melt them, like any proper metalworker.

> > In Sweden, they are having a lot of trouble with gun violence in some
> > cities.
> > The weapons are smuggled in from Eastern Europe on the ferries - no airplane
> > security.
> >
> > Joe Gwinn
>
> I think that's generally true in Europe. The channels are very
> difficult, which perhaps is why their gun crime rates are so low
> compared to ours.

Yes. But the channels are not at all difficult. For
instance:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik>.

See the section on Preparations. Keep in mind that this worked in Norway.

> You may remember that the AKs used in the Charlie
> Hebdo massacre apparently came from an illegal dealer in Belgium, who
> had both legal and illegal businesses.
>
> In the US, the vast majority of guns used in crimes were originally
> legal sales made to individuals -- or sales that appeared to be legal
> to the sellers.
>
> Private sales don't appear to be much of an issue, but those are all
> but impossible to trace, so they may be under reported.

Yep.

Joe Gwinn

Ed Huntress

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 1:05:27 PM11/10/17
to
Ask yourself why so many mass killers are using AR look-alike rifles,
rather than Mini 14s, and the answer will soon become obvious.

And no, it's not because they're sophisticated gun owners who prefer
the way the bolt locks up on an AR-15, for the sake of engineering
elegance.

--
Ed Huntress

Just Wondering

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 1:16:52 PM11/10/17
to
"So many"? How many is "so many"? What is an "AR look-alike rifle"?
What percent of the total population of mass killers who use AR
look-alike rifles? What good is it for the reader to ask himself? You
should be asking the killer, only he knows the answer.
,
> rather than Mini 14s, and the answer will soon become obvious.
>
> And no, it's not because they're sophisticated gun owners who prefer
> the way the bolt locks up on an AR-15, for the sake of engineering
> elegance.

So you've already interviewed all the mass killers and obtained their
explanations for choosing their weapons?

Winston_Smith

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 1:23:43 PM11/10/17
to
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:05:21 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:42:28 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

>>Looks are everything in today's world. I could trick out my Ruger
>>10-22 to look like an AR. In fact, a .22LR AR-look-alike is a common
>>item in any gun store today. Diane and her friends don't understand
>>guns, don't want to soil their psyche by learning about the evil
>>things, so they just go by what it looks like.

Neatly shifting the thread from the left's misuse of the term "assault
rifle" for intentional political deception -- Ed asks:

>Ask yourself why so many mass killers are using AR look-alike rifles,
>rather than Mini 14s, and the answer will soon become obvious.

They are nuts living in a fantasy world. They go with the kool image.
What the liberal movies and game world show as the thing all bad dudes
do.

>And no, it's not because they're sophisticated gun owners who prefer
>the way the bolt locks up on an AR-15, for the sake of engineering
>elegance.

How are the two functionally different? Even in a mass shooting
scenario?

Jim Wilkins

unread,
Nov 10, 2017, 1:27:16 PM11/10/17
to
"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:0glb0d592dq7oeglm...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:15:44 -0500, "Scout" wrote:
>>"Winston_Smith" wrote
>
>
> The assault rifle is high capacity, high fire rate, lighter, not
> designed as much for high accuracy. Particularly it means full auto.
> The grand daddy was the German Sturmgewehr of WW2, which translates
> to
> Assault Rifle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44
>
> The idea there is not hitting a particular target (while being a
> good
> target yourself); it's to place a sheet of suppression fire to make
> the enemy keep their head down while your guys make a dash to the
> next
> cover. That is to say -- assault.
>

Submachine guns like the Thompson came first, chambered for pistol
cartridges. They were great for spraying lead in trenches and houses
but didn't have much range in the open. The next step was to redesign
them for lower power, lower recoil rifle cartridges such as the .32
WSL.