Some facts about guns in the US

"... the right of the people..."
Who are "the people"?
As noted earlier, it seems that "the people" meant those who could vote:

Felons can't vote nor own firearms, so background checks that weed out felons seems reasonable

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When Firearms Advocates Are Dishonest

And that makes you ... um ... just like me, according to some of our neighbors. And here's the part that I don't get:

So you walk into a room where people are having a discussion. You interject and pretend offense that people are misrepresenting you.

Okay, so how are they misrepresenting you?

I mean, to wit, Billvon offers a false dichotomy for politically cynical reasons, I point out the glaring gap in his argument, an' here comes Stumpy! ignoring everything that goes into that discussion, making blatantly incorrect assertions of fact, and then take offense that someone's discussion with another person might somehow misrepresent you.

So, you came in and argued, "I cannot speak for ANYONE ELSE on this site. I may say something they agree with, but that does NOT make ME responsible for THEIR words."

Good for you, sweetheart. Now, why the hell should anyone give a fuck? I mean, you interject in a discussion with Billvon and then start crying about how people are misrepresenting you? Seriously, Stumpy, what's up with that? How is that remotely honest?

So let me make this clear to you: I don't give a fuck how many ladders you've captained, as it is irrelevant. Meanwhile, there is already a discussion going on. You are welcome to join it, but the discussion does not stop and reset to square zero just because Stumpy has arrived.

You get it?

Welcome to our humble bedlam. But if you are going to go out of your way to deliberately show such disrespect, I expect your landing will be a little bumpy.​

And, for the record, when some dude gets away with murder in Seattle, I'll be sure to take it up with some dude in Pennsylvania.

Get your head out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

would you be so kind as to link a few? I would like to see some specific case law that you are referring to, not just some conjecture, please. I can't think of a single US case that meets your definition.

you are kidding, right? Perhaps, when you are getting the links to the NON-right to bear arms, you can look up Slave owners, their rights by law and responsibilities per the crown, common law and cultural beliefs as well.

Actually, from what I read, it is YOU who is giving a personal bias, nothing more, nothing less.
The 2nd amendment is spelled out carefully. You can see from the calls to arms/militia from the time period that the men serving would have to bring their OWN weapons... and sometimes ball and powder. You can see here: http://totallyhistory.com/minutemen/ under the heading "Equipment, Training, and Tactics" , that only SOME of the colonies made the effort to arm/train/etc their people.

When a call to arms was going up for war/battle, great numbers of "recruits" were to bring their own weapon, ball and powder. This was WELL in the mind of the founding fathers when the 2nd amendment was written. You can see by some of the comments of the founders, that not only were they aware of advanced weaponry, but that they were aware that the general citizen should be armed in order to draw upon the populace for conflict or security.

Even today, per the gov't website http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities you will see the following RESPONSIBILITIES for a citizen:
Defend the country if the need should arise.
Support and defend the Constitution.

even though that same site IGNORES the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, it also gives defense a condition and responsibility of the citizen.
You will NOT be able to do that with a straw and a pad of paper shooting spit-balls at people.

"sole" searched... found some dirt and calluses... why would you want me to look at my feet?

I haven't used violent rhetoric with YOU, have I? No.

So don't assign the faults of another onto me based upon your own fears, misconceptions, false beliefs or insecurities, thank you.
I am trying to give YOU the benefit of the doubt based upon YOUR posts, and not based upon another persons post or opinion... you should NOT be doing it to me.

that should be "you're" or "you are"... as in "you're right, You are" or something like that...
...and your point is? I am not seeing the point of that post. I know MANY soldiers with that ability and experience... no firearm necessary.

Actually, I AM the norm... the normal SOLDIER. I am not a minority around the military at all.
You will see those negative or fanatical things from the opposing camps as well, and you will see fanatics take crazy extremist positions on any topic, really... and the media will make sure the looniest of them get air time: why? because it SELLS... For a news agency to make money, they need ratings and recognition. This drives their revenue through commercials and other stuff... a news organization is not going to show something benign like "a logical debate with well spoken arguments from both sides and supporting evidence from scientific endeavors" when they can get footage of "ranting, rampaging idiot extremist fanatics talking stupidly and flinging blatant lies and misinformation or bigotry and sexism with their spittle" over the SAME SUBJECT.

Don't believe me? watch ANY natural disaster (especially in the deep south - sorry, I gotta pick on yall 'cause I currently reside close to the cradle of outlawry where the border wars of the "war of Northern Aggression" were fought) or ANY UFO sighting...

THEN YOU REALLY SHOULD SPECIFY THAT, ESPECIALLY when quoting and arguing with another individual...

This is the SECOND PERSON to assign negative comments, threats, or whatever from other posters to me. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR OTHER POSTERS, AND OTHER POSTERS DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME, UNLESS I SPECIFICALLY ENDORSE A PARTICULAR POST OR COMMENT, AND THEN I WILL DIFFERENTIATE WHAT I AGREE WITH AND DON'T AGREE WITH

you assume based upon your OWN experiences that OWNING a weapon "shouldn't" be a right, but a privilege of those who are responsible... but that is essentially what the LAW states as well, except that the LAW designates it (per the Constitution) as a RIGHT UNTIL YOU PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE or CAPABLE! (this is that whole "innocent until proven guilty" attitude... BUT YOU seem to be saying that people should be seen as GUILTY until proven INNOCENT with your comment.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lets start with your comments here

and exactly HOW is the following quote supposed to be an objective viewpoint of fact pointing out a glaring gap in an argument?

what the above quote is doing, REGARDLESS of the poster or reference before it, (which, by the way, did not state anything about gun owners not taking responsibility NOR anything about gun owners being against it)... what your QUOTE was doing was attempting to misrepresent the ENTIRE gun owners of America (and likely elsewhere). You are ASSUMING, based upon your negative reaction to a SINGLE EVENT, that was poorly handled, that all Gun Owners are of a like character and that all gun owners are basically idiots that cannot responsibly function in society without outside help and interference.

what is NOT fact? how about the part

all parts of this is completely "infactual". There is a middle ground, It is acceptable to MOST responsible law abiding citizens who are gun owners, and we accept it because it is a logical and moral set of laws and rules that govern firearms, use and safety. Please feel free to visit the NRA web-site for proof of this. Enter into ANY safety class, and then take a Concealed Carry class SPONSORED or supported by the NRA. YOU MIGHT JUST LEARN SOMETHING

Your negative comment was refuted by me.

Now, you state that I was "making blatantly incorrect assertions of fact"

NOW I AM DEMANDING THAT YOU PRESENT THE COMMENT THAT I MADE THAT WAS "BLATANTLY INCORRECT ASSERTIONS OF FACT"

I think that would be only fair, right?

What I saw, in the way you posted, was a person making a comment that had underlying hostility, but I made a CORRECTION to you regarding the FACTS.

I ALSO PROVED THAT WITH YOUR OWN POST (said person SHOULD have been prosecuted)

Now you are making claims that are unsupported by FACT as well as malicious. WHY?
Are you angry because your argument fell through the unsubstantiated foundation that you used as a basis for your aggressive posts? Feel free to elucidate on that as much as you like... I can use it in my psyche class

I really didn't know WHO you were arguing with, and didn't care.

YOU MADE A CLAIM THAT WAS INCORRECT, and I chose to try to give you information that would help you learn the facts. I was trying to educate you so that you would not continue to make fallacious claims based upon a faulty argument.

I guess you took that personal. Okee dokee then! You DO have the ability to IGNORE my posts.

Perhaps, given your aggressive nature and inability to accept criticism, you should use it. If the tables were reversed, I would really LIKE to know when I made a fallacious claim (like I said above, please feel free to show me where I made any FACTUAL errors... ). After all, I am here to LEARN and to OBSERVE how people react. (Especially to FACTS)

Sure, I get it. But HOW DOES THAT correct a claim that is BLATANTLY FALSE like the one you made here:

[sic]
Now, at first glance, this seems to be logical... EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT there are a GREAT NUMBER OF LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS that force gun owners to be responsible, and that allow for VERY harsh punishment for those who break those rules (hence your attempt to undermine that particular claim with your emotional, and singular plea about the dead 7 year old and his father who was not prosecuted)

When I pointed out that YOUR VERY OWN ARTICLE ACTUALLY SUPPORTED MY CLAIMS, you get VERY EMOTIONAL and start cussing with lines like

AND ALSO

WHY is that?

thank you. I am enjoying the conversations. Except the trolls. and some of the nasty tempers.

I have tried very hard to not show disrespect. In fact, I was TRYING to show RESPECT by correcting you and showing you that we already have a LOT of laws that are powerful as well as regulatory regarding firearms. The problem is, there are still FAR too many laws that are ON the books but are NOT enforced. You can see this by looking up the DOJ/state/local crime statistics that reference felons that have APPLIED for firearms using the normal method and were prevented by background checks... and then check THAT against the number of felons PROSECUTED for that very crime. Falsifying a federal document used to be a maximum $10,000.oo fine and 10 years in jail PER INFRACTION. Where are the numbers that are prosecuted for falsifying federal documents and attempting to get a firearms while being a felon, which means that they CANNOT OWN a firearm BY LAW (or a BOW that has a release mechanism that is like a trigger)

Perhaps you prefer me to just give nasty comments like... "Get your head out" when you say something that is not supported by fact? shall I abandon the debate and just snipe from afar when you discuss something incorrectly?
I thought the MODS disapproved of that?

this makes NO SENSE at all, but given that you are angry and lashing out,

I will not be responding to any more hostility regarding your inability to comprehend the basic English posted, about your anger over your crumbling argument, or regarding your inability to cope and lash out at others. IF you pose a RELEVANT question or wish to discuss relevant information, feel free to post it and I will reply... OTHERWISE you are doing nothing but creating hostility and being just like UNDEFINED or RealityCheck... attempting to get a flame war back and forth.

You can, however, post those "infactual" posts that you claim I made. I have NEVER had a problem admitting when I made a mistake, and I intended NO blatant "infactual" comments. It will NOT change here.

until then

I will leave you, instead, with your own words

 

than you are very lazy about your research. it is not my responsibility to do your research for you.

once again I have no obligation

more of the same i see. repeating your self doesn't change anything just means you have a script.

cute

when you defend others faults i will put on you.

you want the benefit of the doubt earn it. so far your been ill read and over defensive which doesn't make me inclined to give you inch.

not the point.

everyone's got their crazies. not everyone's are packing heat.

I live in the south I'm not a southerner.

I didn't assign shit you. your own poor reading comprehension is to blame. I specificly called out the guy who threatened me. anyone reading the thread should be able to pick up on that. so quit being so damn touchy.

I assume nothing. this is based on facts. my personal expierence are inline with such facts but they aren't the reason for my stance are the facts are.

 

Mods can do it; you can't. It's how things work here.

 

Sure.

Gabrielle Nestrande. Killed a pedestrian while driving drunk, and fled the scene. Outcome

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

robation (no fine, no jail)
Armando Reza. Intentionally rammed cyclists, while drunk, and without a license. Outcome: 10 days in jail
Erik Fabian. Intentionally rammed cyclists. Outcome: Probation (no fine, no jail)
Melissa Graham. Killed cyclist Andrew Turner and injured cyclist Heather Sealey while drunk driving. Outcome: no charges
Michael Memon. Killed cyclist Tom Churchill while drunk driving. Outcome: no charges
Hector Gonzalez. Intentionally rammed cyclist. Outcome: No charges. Police refused to take statement from witnesses.
Lauren Robishaw . Ran red light and killed cyclist Ben Clough. Outcome: Community Service
Gliberto Alcantar. Illegal turn, killed Amelie Le Moullac. Outcome: no charges
Kenneth O'Meara. Fell asleep and rammed two cyclists, one critically injured. Outcome: no charges
Unknown motorist. Ran Stop Sign, hit cyclist Janne Osborne. Outcome: no charges
Unknown motorist. Hit-and-run on Keith Hailey. Outcome: no investigation
Unknown motorist. Hit-and-run in Mark Bennett Brooks. Outcome: no investigation
Unknown motorist. Ran over John Przychodzen and killed him. Outcome: $42 ticket.
Unknown motorist. Veered into Joshua Alper and killed him. Outcome: no charges.

Gun accidents are taken far more seriously than car vs bike accidents. Are you willing to go to a "no accidents" paradigm with drivers?

 

I live in a neighborhood where just about half of the folks own weapons. We keep track, and we watch each others back. Some of these guys are staunch Republicans, some are Libertarians, and some are Democrats. I suspect the Democrats might not be as good marksmen, only because they don't snipe as often.

If the shthf, we know who to visit first to keep the 'hood safe for all of us. The news media don't care to report normal folks behaving well. There's no money in crappy ratings. That's why all this is just noise and fury, signifying nothing. (To loosely paraphrase MacBeth)

 

Six Degrees of ¿WTF?

Thanks for trying, but ....

Charged, charged, and charged. Regardless of what we think of those outcomes, they don't qualify unless you can demonstrate that the negligence they showed was the prosecutor's reason for not filing charges.

Of the three not charged, can you provide evidence that their negligence was the specific reason for not filing charges?

With no suspect, it's hard to charge anyone. Then again, they apparently got forty-two dollars out of Anonymous, which is pretty cool since the rest of us just get pomposity and hack jobs.

Here's the problem with your response: You cannot show that the drivers' negligence was cited by prosecutors as a reason for not charging them.

Of course, that's what happens when you thoughtlessly plagiarize an anti-automobile website.

I personally find this a cowardly flight. To the one, it is difficult to comprehend the inability of firearms advocates to recognize the difference between the inherent danger of anything and something that is designed specifically to be dangerous. To the other, it also reminds that responsibility is a currency for firearms advocates; that is, they can only view their own responsibility through comparison to other people. To a third, if gun owners were treated under the law the way motorists are in general, we would have hit open rebellion by now, especially to judge by the firearms advocates who want stalkers to be armed because they just don't like this or that senator. To hold the idea that "responsible gun owners" makes one a "foul little git", after all.

How about a no accident policy with baseballs?

And, hey, I can bludgeon someone to death with a desk telephone. Maybe charge someone with attempted murder if they knock it off the desk onto another person's toe? When I was twelve, a kid accidentally stabbed me with a pencil in his back pocket; maybe we should have charged him with a felony?

Anything can be dangerous. No accidents with bathwater?

When I was ten or so, I caught a jibe in the back of the skull; a heavy wooden boom on a forty-seven foot cutter ketch, knocked me straight down into a cleat. Two potentially concussive shots to the head. One can argue that the skipper should have seen the shift coming; should my father, the sailing expert at the helm, have been charged with child abuse? Why was the traveler so loose?

Or maybe when I'm on a sailboat, I ought to pay attention to what's going on around me?

Yeah, probably the latter. And by comparison I'll take an aluminum boom to the skull any day; they're lighter.

But baseballs and telephones and pencils, cars and sailboats? They're not designed specifically to kill. The reality in human life is that accidents do happen. But show me the automotive homicide that isn't charged specifically because of the driver's negligence.

When I enter a ballpark, it is expected that foul balls will come into the stands. So far, the people are not demanding that more screens be put up to protect them. Indeed, most would complain. And the same thing goes for bats flying into the stands. However, this was settled in the nineteenth century. The audience is made aware of the danger, and agrees to it.

When drivers go out on the road, we are all aware of potential dangers from other cars, the road, and nature itself. And, yes, we have responsibilities. And pointing to cops and prosecutors not doing their jobs does nothing to change the fact of so many "responsible gun owners" who aren't really willing to be responsible.

Meanwhile, just a reminder: Plagiarism is bad, m'kay?

 

extraordinary claims...
you made a claim that is unfounded as far as I can tell. where are you getting your research from? using http://law.justia.com/ I find NO case law restricting guns to US citizens, nor do I see challenges to the 2nd amendment stating that there is no right to private ownership of firearms.
In my search thus far, I have found ZERO evidence supporting your conclusions, you refuse to provide your support for your spurious and unfounded claims, and as such I must conclude that your claims are not factual and supported only by delusion until otherwise proven

I only have historical family documents from a well known family in the south for support. so I guess we're even. Your claim has the same validity as mine.

guess you can't read that link either then

dictionary is free on line, grammar links also... and the spell check is also free on the site.

what FAULT am I defending? the right to keep and bear arms?
that is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, not a fault.

Troll much?

then WHAT IS THE POINT? I asked... I am asking again... what is the point to your pointing out that soldiers (me specifically) are trained to kill? It is irrelevant and I can't see where it applies to any part of the discourse we are having.

and?

no, you "specificly" didn't, pj spell-check dude! you said, and I will quote you...
YOU SAID

the key word there was GUN NUTS, meaning any and all gun advocate, right? or just the fanatics? why use it speaking to me? was it a personal reference? TO WHICH I ANSWERED

NOTICE that there is NO MENTION OF ANYONE ELSE HERE... FINALLY, YOU ADMIT

Now, my answer to this final admission was to tell you

because you threw that quote into a comment and used it as part of your argument. IF you didn't wish to apply that quote to me, or generally to anyone who supported the 2nd amendment, then WHY did you say it to me to begin with? And why didn't you specify that it was sculptor that you wished to imply was the gun nut...

That is not problems with reading comprehension, or being "specificly" so d*mn sensitive... that is you TROLLING and making a claim and then trying to backpedal because you wanted to bash person A but it got put in Person B's message...
Given that I've not threatened you, it is foolish to make a suggestion that I have.

IF you are basing your argument on FACTS, and IF I cannot find any FACTS to support your conclusions, and IF you want to argue a point, then WHY have you not supported your "facts" here with a link to the overwhelming evidence of court cases from the past that show guns were NOT a right?

You made the claim. the burden of proof is upon YOU to prove it, ESPECIALLY if searches to find your data fail to bring a SINGLE case to support your conclusions.

I did not make the "extraordinary" claim... you did.
Pushing the burden of proof upon ME is like this: A scientist is arguing with a pseudoscience crackpot, and the pseudoscience crackpot makes a claim that Fairies flatulence causes Global Warming... BUT then saying that the burden of proof is upon SCIENCE for proving it wrong.

This is essentially what you are doing above. You've made a claim that I can find NO proof of (unless I link to a radical site)
I found NO PROOF on any legitimate law sites researching past US historical law, constitutional law or any other law.
Now you say that the only reason I cannot find it is because I have problems researching...

methinks it is FAR more likely that the claim is unsupported by FACT or legitimate links

good night

 

billvon, would it be possible for you to provide citations for this post? I have to question the motives of anything trying to prove a point whilst at the same time ranting about how an "unknown person" wasn't charged for a criminal act... how do you file charges when you don't know who you are supposed to be filing against?

 

About 2/3 came from the BikeAustin website; the remainder were done via Googling news stories.

Actually I am not trying to prove a point. Tiassa asked for some examples of people who abandoned even the most basic of safe driving practices (i.e. "don't drive drunk") and were not charged for the crime. In many cases above there was not even an investigation into the incident.

(Of course, my first mistake was replying to Tiassa; I should know better.)

 

I had a friend in highschool named Mike Allsing. Mike was a bit of a wild child (sold polaroids of his sister's vagina). One fine night, he was wandering down the middle of the road dead drunk. Around a blind curve came a local hotrodder doing better'n 80 mph. He hit Mike hard and fast enough to dismember his body from his legs.
No jail time.
Funny story-----at the funeral, the pastor was going on about how only the good die young. When he said that "GOD had taken one of his little angels home", I began to guffaw uncontrollably. Bad form at a funeral, so, I clamped my hand over my mouth and headed out the back door. The girls in my class misunderstood and thought that I was sobbing inconsolably. I got a lot of hugs over the next few days, and thought that if mike had wanted to leave me a going away present he couldn't have done much better.

Never underestimate the power of dumb luck to see you through when planning and intellect fail!

 

back to "guns"
and "gun" safety:

Anyone own a remington model 700?

 

no... but I sure wouldn't mind it.
was a good weapon and effective.

There is not much call for any long range shooting around here where I live... a 200meter shot is quite rare and far... and my Black Powder Tennessee Long rifle is adequate for that shot loaded with 120grains and a sabot slug...

 

The thing I don't like about my black powder 50 is the cloud of smoke after I fire.
Sometimes, when I shoot a deer(@1 out of 15), they don't fall right where I shot them. So the smoke obscures the direction they took.
Used to be that the dog would come running when she heard the shot, and stand over the kill, but she's old and slow now and sometimes gives up to go lay by the fire. (I'm gonna dig her grave before the snow flies just in case we need it)

The remington has a dangerous trigger/bolt configuration, so I much prefer the 3 position safety of the winchester model 70.
even though I never load more than one round, and always keep it pointed down range when operating the bolt.
Some folks ain't so careful, and a dozen deaths and 100 odd injuries have resulted from the remington design flaw.

Most of my kills are in a pre-practiced kz a tad under 100 yards, but I still love to take the long shot on occasion. We live in a river valley, and have a clear view down along a ravine in one direction which allows for a 600 meter line of sight.
Control the breathing and heart rate, and the calm focus on the target takes over. (it used to be that I never thought about it, but as I've grown old, when I see the quarry, the heart races and the nerves are excited.--- I have to concentrate on finding focus, and eliminate the jitters, then take the shot.)
Few things are as sweet as practicing a skill developed long ago, even if it's an old man mimicking the actions of a younger self.

 

LOL thats one of the things I like best, really... It's not like I am trying to hide from an enemy in the woods... but I can understand the obstruction of sight afterwords.
I've never had problems tracking, so I never worried about it... learned young. I've never lost a meal yet after a shot...but I also like to make things quick and easy (head or sever the spine). I am not a stand hunter though. I prefer the stalk. so I get pretty close to insure a good takedown.

Sorry to hear she is getting so bad. They are like family most times... my condolences.

I practice the 100 meter KZ also, but I usually shoot one 200meter shot for every 100 meter ... not for any reason other than to keep my breathing, balance, concentration etc... (all offhand, I should add, because I don't always have a support or time to find one with a stalk)

I used to practice hitting a target out to 400 meters with the Tennessee long rifle, but that is pushing it for distance and stopping power. I've been able to keep her within a 6-10 inch spread from that distance, but I wouldn't trust black powder to make a kill from that distance if it is anything sufficiently large or powerful, like a bear, boar, etc (wild boar are pretty tough... one reason I always keep a .45 revolver with me while out)
Most of my hunting is done with either my long rifle or a recurve bow. (if I need the groceries, I use the rifle, otherwise I use the bow)

 

So ... What's Up?

If you would be so kind, Bill, would you please quote the question you think you answered? Reviewing the record, both my post and your plagiarized response show a different question than your characterization quoted above. Is this discrepancy just an accident? Because I would hate to think you're so embittered because you never understood the question. Then again, I would also prefer it, since the alternative is that your sleight is intentional.

How do you explain yourself?