Criminals for Gun Control (Video)

Mabye OSHA should get involved in the gun control movement.


Somebody has to stand up for criminals’ rights…


Bookmark/Rate this post: Digg it Stumble It! add to del.icio.us
Published in: on April 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm  Comments (97)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/criminals-for-gun-control-video/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

97 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi,

    I’m the creator of the Criminals For Gun Control video on your site. I’m delighted you saw fit to post it. Thanks. However, due to an unfounded privacy violation complaint, YouTube removed the video, and subsequently all of the re-posts on other sites (including yours). While I’m in the process of sorting things out, I re-posted the video with a minor edit to appease the complainant. Here’s the link to the new version:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo . Consider this permission to post my video on your site, as the one currently there will no longer play. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

    Thanks,

    Sebastian
    seb@antiprise.com

    • Thanks Sebastian. I’ve been trying to get that Socialist Pierce Morgan to respond to your video. Coward won’t do it. Nice work. Tweeting it repeatedly. Love it!

  2. Thank you, Sebastian. I updated the link. Great video!

  3. I don’t think it gets any more succinct than that.

  4. Very entertaining and very clever.

  5. I get it. Criminals are for gun control. Therefore, gun control must be bad.

    That’s what is known as a logical fallacy.

    • yo just dont get it Do yo skippy. while this video may be a parody of sorts, .. it Does speak true to the core fact that an unarmed citizen is a “victim in waiting” for an Armed Criminal. Nowhere in History has gun control Ever stopped criminals from arming themselves, while its a Historical fact that armed law abiding citizens are less likely to be Victimized, and Less likely to end up in the “Dead side” of an attack by an armed criminal, i can attest to that personally myself, as My home was broken into by 3 armed criminals on june 21st 2006, and Because i was lawfully armed, i was able to Defend myself and my property from those 3 criminals, .. all 3 of which are now behind bars for multiple cases of armed robbery, assault, rape, and murder. If i had not been armed i wold have most likely been “just another victim” in the trail of the others, but as such, i wasn’t, and their crime spree that spanned more than 7 years Stopped with me. So tell me again, how me being a Lawfully armed citizen is a “Bad Thing” ?

      • “yo just dont get it Do yo skippy.”

        No, YOU don’t get it, “skippy”. This discussion is *over*, and you’re commenting on a very, very old statement. Run along now…

        “its a Historical fact that armed law abiding citizens are less likely to be Victimized, and Less likely to end up in the ‘Dead side’ of an attack by an armed criminal”

        Nonsense. You are much more likely to kill someone that you know and/or love than you are to kill a criminal, despite your anonymous & completely anecdotal stories.

  6. I don’t think that was exactly the point, Wiggles. I think the point is that fewer guns in the hands of citizens makes criminals’ jobs a lot easier. Where’s the logical fallacy in that?

  7. Logical fallacy. Gun free zones. Criminals love them. They know they will be the only ones armed. Question. Why aren’t there more mass shootings at shooting events? Answer. Too many people can shoot back.

  8. I’m sorry. The title of the post must have confused me.

    CRIMINALS FOR GUN CONTROL

    You can’t argue that the title is claiming both (criminals, gun control) are bad.

    By the way, what is “gun control?” Which specific aspect are you against? Registration? Background checks? Prohibiting sale to convicted felons and those with mental problems? The assault weapons ban?

  9. “Which specific aspect are you against?”

    “Registration?” -Yes. Why is it the governments business to know when I bought a firearm or to whom I sold it to?

    “Background checks?” -Yes. There is no reason to perform a background check, the second amendment stipulates Gun ownership as natural right.

    “Prohibiting sale to convicted felons and those with mental problems?” -Yes/Probably. Convicted felons are in prison, in theory, they are rehabilitated when they get out-at least that is what the left keeps telling me. If they are “so bad” perhaps they shouldn’t be let out of prison-or better yet, lets invoke the death penalty more often. Regarding “mental problems” please provide your definition. Currently ADHD is considered a mental problem. Also, depending on which journal you read, PMS is considered a mental problem, so how about you DEFINE what you want to be included in that category and we can discuss each one.

    The assault weapons ban?”-Yes. Absolutley! There is no logical reason for banning any weapon.

    As the video pointed out, homeowners with guns create a dangerous work environment for criminals, if the environment gets sufficiently dangerous, perhaps they will look for a safer line of work.

  10. I just seek to understand exactly which line in the sand is being discussed when the term “gun control” is bandied about.

    DJ, I’d call your position “extreme” when looking at the general overview of your stance on those various points. But I do understand your point about having an armed populace.

    Yes, you have the right to own things, even a gun, but that doesn’t mean that registration interferes with that right. A car might be an example of this.

    Why register? For one thing, it makes solving a lot of crimes easier.

    Background checks? Seems logical to me. Some may view laws against felons owning guns as an attack on the 2nd amendment, but thankfully not everyone sees it that way. Same thing with certain mental conditions.

    Assault weapon ban? While it might not seem logical to you, there might very well be valid reasons. Just because you don’t agree with the reasons doesn’t make them automatically false. Assault weapons were banned before and life went on (excuse the pun). No one came to “take away all the guns,” either, and life for the ordinary citizen was completely unaffected.

    One point I’m making here is that any movement on one of these fronts can’t honestly be described as “taking away our guns.”

    Like I said, I do see your point regarding an armed populace. I don’t necessarily disagree with it. But I don’t necessarily agree with it, either. I just don’t know if the utopian picture that gets painted so often regarding an armed populace would really be the reality or not. To make such a determination, I’d really need to know which path leads towards the most unnecessary bloodshed and suffering, and either way, I’m not so sure that kind of information is knowable.

  11. Wigglesworth,

    I must disagree that registering makes solving crimes easier, I can find no evidence to support that. The only purpose for registering a vehicle is for the state to have a revenue stream. If the police want to push registering a vehicle for recovery purposes, make it a voluntary program, if insurance companies think registering a vehicle will reduce their payouts, they have the option of offering that service to their customers, right now, you are forced to register so the States gets a taste of your success. Gun registrations are a federal database, not state. If registering guns is ok, why not register toasters and lawn mowers? The “registering it” logic can go on forever, oh yeah, and think about the revenue streams that could be generated.

    Regarding the “line in the sand” it is drawn at controlling the right to own or use ANY firearm. Personal responsibility is the only acceptable form of “gun control”.

    I would disagree with my position being extreme, I see it as normal, having a government agency/entity/person deciding what is acceptable for an individual in a (supposedly) free society is extreme.

    Why are background checks acceptable to anyone? If a person released from prison is “rehabilitated” why then, should any of the rights they lost while incarcerated not be fully restored upon being released? If the individual, is NOT rehabilitated, why are they being released?

    Regarding Mental Conditions; again, which ones? Is dyslexia a mental disorder? How about a savant? How about eccentrics? If, through due process, a jury of ones peers determines that a person convicted of a crime should permanently lose the right to keep and bear arms, I would fully support that, until that happens, though, there should be NO restrictions.

    Technically you are correct, none of items you mention can be described as taking guns away, however, restricting something is a precursor to losing it, the restrictions never get smaller, only more encompassing. Most of us who are Constitution loving Americans can not fathom a reason to restrict or limit gun ownership. The current movement to tag rounds of ammo is a means to the same end, tagging ammo seems harmless, but when you add in the conditions that the amount bought by a citizen is tracked, and that one cannot pack their own (not to mention mandating anything homemade has to be destroyed), is nothing more than limiting (read restricting) the right of a free person, in a free country to enjoy the right of gun ownership through restricting the projectile it was defined to expel! A handgun without ammo is a rock, a rifle without ammo is a heavy stick, it renders the item useless, which restricts its use.

    There is nothing “Utopian” about a well armed populace. Look at Miami, when gun control was made law, violent crime went up. There is no belief that violent crime will disappear if every citizen is packing, but it will go down.

  12. SO, what are the “extremes” when it comes to guns?

    On one extreme we have you, who apparently believes that the buying and selling of guns should be as easy and as carefree as, let’s say, buying a stick of chewing gum. (Even that, though, is subject to numerous laws including health codes, labeling, etc.) ZOMG! That’s nothing less than gum control. :) Anyone can buy or sell to whomever they wish, and in any type of property zoning, too. No records, no registration, no requirement to show ID, no fees, no age limit, the ability to take the gun anywhere you want, the owning of any type of firearm (fully auto?) and no restrictions of ANY kind. Right? Please let me know if I am mischaracterizing your position.

    On the other hand we have the government outlawing ownership of any and all guns.

    I’d say those are the two extremes. You clearly reside on one end of that spectrum. I’d say I clearly fall somewhere in the middle. I don’t want the government to outlaw all guns. But I do so some regulations as a good thing.

  13. “…no restrictions of ANY kind. Right? Please let me know if I am mischaracterizing your position.”

    Yes. You are mischaracterizing my position. I do agree that purchasing a gun should be just as easy buying a pack of gum. Buying ammo should also be just as easy. This is where I “draw the line”; lets say you own Wigglesworth’s Bar and Grill, and lets say (only for the sake of argument) that you do not particulaly approve of the idea that each and every American should walk around town with there hand gun or rifle in public view or, for that matter hidden, you as the owner of Wigglesworth’s Bar and Grill are well within your right to post a sign stipulating folks are not allowed in your establishment with any type of firearm. Should a person or persons enter with a firearm, you obvioulsy have the right to send them on there way. Second, lets say you are a member of the the city council, and you believe that in any altercation, the police should have the upper hand, so you draft a bill that reads something similiar to “…while in the city limits, no person shall have on their person more ammunition than each officer can carry in their side arm…, for instance, your peace officers carry semi-automatic weapons with a maximum magazine capacity of 15 rounds, the public can carry on their person no more than 14 rounds. If put up to a vote, I would fully support that bill, I would support a bill prohibiting hollow point rounds within the city limits, I would support a bill requiring any person under the age of 16 to complete a gun safety course (preferably at school, but as an evil capitalist I would wholeheartedly support someone setting up a range and selling lessons), I would also support a bill mandating that until the age of 18 any person carrying a weapon, concealed or not, must be in the company of an adult 21 years or older while within the city limits. I would support a bill that restricted students from bringing handguns into school buildings (12th grade and below).

    There many other options, I am sure, but taking away guns doesn’t make a city any less safe, giving people accesss to guns does. As I metioned above, look at Miami as an example.

    What is wrong with owning a fully automatic weapon?

    Regarding zoning, I do take issue there, if I buy a piece of property, it is mine, I own it and I can do whatever I want with it. If I produce something that has an impact on the health or well being of others (read affecting others Right to Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness) then I am liable for damages. A smart businessman would not build a chemical factory next to a school, also a smart person would not buy a house that was next to a chemical plant.

    It all comes down to personal responsibilty, let the individual be responsible.

  14. DJ, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply and taking my questions seriously.

    When you agree that buying guns and ammo should be as easy as buying a pack of gum, that implies an awful lot. That records shouldn’t be kept of sales. No background check should be performed. That no ID is required to be shown. That there is no age limit. That there is no restriction on the location of the sale, that loaded guns can be carried or kept in your vehicle at all times, etc.

    I see that you do support *some* small limits on guns. I hope no one accuses you of wanting to “take way” their guns.

    I agree that private residences and businesses should always have the right to have more restrictive “gun control” if that is their desire.

    I admit I don’t quite get the “one less bullet than the cops” idea.

    My main point is simply that “some limits” is not the same thing as “taking away” and also doesn’t necessarily impact 2nd Amendment rights.

    Zoning is a whole other issue, and I only brought it up in the context of of gun control. I do, however, support zoning and land use law.

  15. “There is no reason to perform a background check, the second amendment stipulates Gun ownership as natural right.”

    What nonsense…NO right is absolute. Being aginst background checks, which merely weed out people that shouldn’t have guns by law in the first place (felons, the mentally insane, etc.) is a real, live example of NRA gun lunacy.

    “Convicted felons are in prison, in theory, they are rehabilitated when they get out-at least that is what the left keeps telling me.”

    And the mindless Right-wing whine continues…ugh…

    “There is no logical reason for banning any weapon.”

    YES…let’s all have machine guns & rocket launchers! LOL…sounds “great”…

    “I must disagree that registering makes solving crimes easier, I can find no evidence to support that.”

    LOL…try getting out & reading more…or better yet, just ask your local law enforcement officer…sheesh…

    “If, through due process, a jury of ones peers determines that a person convicted of a crime should permanently lose the right to keep and bear arms, I would fully support that”

    …which exactly what happens RIGHT NOW when someone is convicted of a felony, period. Really now “DJ”…your ignorance knows NO bounds whatsoever…it’s constantly amazing to me…

    “Regarding zoning, I do take issue there, if I buy a piece of property, it is mine, I own it and I can do whatever I want with it.”

    Then, by all means, let’s bring back slavery so you can keep them on your own property! I say again…NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE!

    “A smart businessman would not build a chemical factory next to a school”

    …yet they do it all the time.

    “I admit I don’t quite get the ‘one less bullet than the cops’ idea”

    …because it’s a monunmentally stupid idea. It only takes one bullet to kill someone.

  16. “A smart businessman would not build a chemical factory next to a school”

    …yet they do it all the time.

    Cite?

  17. Ah, the tax evader speaks up. It must make Tax Day a heck of lot easier when you’re not paying any taxes eh kiddo?? Wasn’t I ignoring you BTW?? Oh heck, just for old times sake:

    some schools in ME

    http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/5713923.html

    and OH

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/school-air1.htm

    and MI

    http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org/article.php?id=1339

    and here’s a list of all the schools that the EPA is testing near across the USA

    http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/schools.html

    I’ll go back to ignoring you now kiddo…

  18. http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/5713923.html

    But Brooks said the report inflated by 60 times the toxicity of the pollutant. Huber uses a less toxic variant of diisocyanate than the type used in the calculations for Easton Elementary and nearby Easton Junior-Senior High School, he said.

    The plant is also farther away from the two schools than shown in the report. And Huber recently installed new pollution controls that dramatically reduced emissions from 2005 levels, Brooks said.

    Keenan with the Easton schools said he has never seen or heard about air quality problems in his eight years at the school and a lifetime in the area. Keenan said he was frustrated that the report placed his town’s schools so high on the at-risk list and is satisfied with the DEP’s monitoring program.

    “I feel very comfortable that they know the level of emissions … and that there is no issue,” Keenan said. “And Huber has always been a wonderful neighbor to us.”

    Sounds like a tainted report where the schools have no issue.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/school-air1.htm

    The air outside 435 other schools — from Maine to California — appears to be even worse, and the threats to the health of students at those locations may be even greater.

    “… factories within blocks of the school”

    “… close to a cluster of plants”

    “… and proximity to the Houston Ship Channel, about 2 miles from the school”

    I don’t see any “next to” a school as our discussion dictated.

    The 435 schools that ranked worst weren’t confined to industrial centers.

    And the air quality also may have nothing to do with its relative location to a factory.

    http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org/article.php?id=1339

    At first it was suspected in the media that a terrorist plane had slammed into “Environmental Quality Resource Recovery,” a Romulus based chemical plant, resulting in the catastrophic toxic explosion. Orange yellow flames careened into the upper reaches of the sky. Many residents spoke in horror of a “black mushroom cloud” that spread soot, ash and “black hamburger like” debris over rooftops, yards, churches, bikes and an elementary school, Roosevelt McGrath, that sits a few hundred yards from the facility.

    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board is currently investigating a number of serious chemical explosions which have impacted neighboring communities.

    So a plane flew into a chemical plant and blew up and therefore blew chemicals around the community? So what is the point here where we are seeing schools being immediately next door to schools? Seems to be the key point in this article are the words “explosions impacting” communities.

    http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/schools.html

    Schools. Schools. Schools.

    So how close are these schools? Again, this is/was the main accusation you made and DJ rebutted you.

    Wasn’t I ignoring you BTW??

    Obviously not…

  19. Wigglesworth,

    “I admit I don’t quite get the “one less bullet than the cops” idea.”

    It is a belief I hold that the police should have the upper hand. A large portion of police carry Glocks for example, and extended round magazines are available for most (probably all, but I am not certain) models. I would support a bill that limited the extended round magazine to peace officers only.

    “I do, however, support zoning and land use law.”

    Why?

  20. A cop friend told me about his magazine size and that I couldn’t get the same thing. So perhaps we already have something like that.

    If you want police to have the upper hand, though, make assault weapons and the like a teensy bit harder to get. Yes, I know criminals will still have them, but maybe a few less. It certainly can’t hurt.

    Why do I support land use law? I don’t subscribe to the notion that neighbors suing neighbors over alleged “damages” as someone alluded previously is the best solution. First, the damages have to rise to a certain level before they are even addressable. Second, the standard of proof to win those damages is just too damn high.

  21. If you want police to have the upper hand, though, make assault weapons and the like a teensy bit harder to get. Yes, I know criminals will still have them, but maybe a few less. It certainly can’t hurt.

    I disagree. Who is to say what is a “teensy bit harder”? Are we going to go back to the whole arguement about who is eligble or not? I think DJs idea is a noble one, but realistically it can’t be done. What I would suggest is that the cops always have more ammo because they have more cops “on the job” (backup). Face it, we have laws now and people who are not supposed to have guns get them. There is no way around this fact, is there? So if that is a true statement, then why are we so eager to make it harder to get weapons when we openly admit that those we are trying to restrict are going to get them in any way they can?

  22. What a blatant liar you are kiddo…no wonder I was ignoring you…thanks for reminding me.

    “Sounds like a tainted report where the schools have no issue.”

    Forgot this lil tidbit eh:
    “The study cited numerous examples of children falling ill due to pollution and of reported cancer clusters near some industrial facilities.”

    Anyone that’s actually BEEN to Maine knows that they have serious issues with pollution near plants that use chemicals, especially the numerous paper plants that the state has.

    “I don’t see any ‘next to’ a school as our discussion dictated.”

    “And the air quality also may have nothing to do with its relative location to a factory.”

    Shill much for the chemical idustry kiddo??

    You don’t think that chemicals released into the air can travel a few blocks or even 2 miles?? What a lying fool you really are kiddo.

    Miss these tidbits as well:
    “School district officials pulled all students from Hitchens three years ago, after air samples outside the building showed high levels of chemicals coming from the plastics plant ACROSS THE STREET. The levels were so dangerous that the Ohio EPA concluded the risk of getting cancer there was 50 times higher than what the state considers acceptable.” (Emphasis mine)

    “At Abraham Lincoln Elementary School in East Chicago, Ind., the model indicated levels of manganese more than a dozen times higher than what the government considers safe. The metal can cause mental and emotional problems after long exposures. Three factories within blocks of the school — located in one of the most impoverished areas of the state — combined to release more than 6 tons of it in a single year.”

    “The middle school in Follansbee, W.Va., sits close to a cluster of plants that churn out tens of thousands of pounds of toxic gases and metals a year.”

    “In Huntington, W.Va., data showed the air outside Highlawn Elementary School had high levels of nickel, which can harm lungs and cause cancer.”

    “At San Jacinto Elementary School in Deer Park, Texas, data indicated carcinogens at levels even higher than the readings that prompted the shutdown of Hitchens. A recent University of Texas study showed an ‘association’ between an increased risk of childhood cancer and proximity to the Houston Ship Channel, about 2 miles from the school.”

    “Outside those schools, reports from polluters themselves often indicated a dozen different chemicals in the air. All are considered toxic by the government”

    “Scientists have long known that kids are particularly susceptible to the dangers. They breathe more air in proportion to their weight than adults do, and their bodies are still developing. Based on the time they spend at school, their exposures could last for years but the impact might not become clear for decades.”

    “That was the case in Port Neches, Texas, where more than two dozen former students of Port Neches-Groves High School have been diagnosed with cancer several years after they graduated, according to court records. So far, 17 have reached legal settlements with petrochemical plants located less than a mile from the school.”

    “If regulators had used their own pollution models to look for schools in toxic hot spots, they would have discovered what USA TODAY found: locations — in small towns such as Lucedale, Miss., and Oro Grande, Calif., as well as in large cities such as Houston — where the government’s own data indicated the air outside schools was more toxic than the air outside the shuttered Hitchens.”

    “The rankings showed 435 of those schools with air more toxic than the air outside Meredith Hitchens.”

    “Outside one-quarter of schools, the model showed students were exposed to higher levels of industrial pollution in 2005 than they were 10 years ago.”

    “Deer Park, Texas, near Houston, where students at elementary, middle and high schools faced dangerously high levels of butadiene, a carcinogen, and other gases from petrochemical plants on the Houston Ship Channel.”

    “Lucedale, Miss., where kids at five schools faced air with high levels of chromium, a metal that, in one form, has been linked to cancer.”

    “Oro Grande Elementary in California’s Mojave Desert, where students breathed a variety of metals, including chromium, manganese and lead.”

    “At about 16,500 schools, the air outside the schools was at least twice as toxic as the air at a typical location in the school district. At 3,000 of those schools, air outside the buildings was at least 10 times as toxic.”

    “For decades, butadiene was released from the plants, often at levels that state monitoring showed could be harmful. So much escaped that it sometimes formed sweet-smelling clouds hovering over roads near the school, remembers Dave Cerami, who graduated in 1984.”

    “When Texas authorities looked in 1989, their monitors detected levels of butadiene near the schools that were more than four times higher than the state’s safety standard. A decade later, state workers sent to monitor the air reported dizziness, nausea and ‘facial numbness,’ according to a 1999 report by the state Commission on Environmental Quality. Another report, in 2003, noted butadiene levels as much as 120times higher than the state’s standard.”

    “At Meredith Hitchens, the Ohio EPA concluded the risk of getting cancer was 50 times what the state considers acceptable.”
    ———————————
    “So a plane flew into a chemical plant and blew up and therefore blew chemicals around the community? So what is the point here where we are seeing schools being immediately next door to schools? Seems to be the key point in this article are the words ‘explosions impacting’ communities.”

    LOL…apparently kiddo, reading for comrehension isn’t your forte either…that article was about how debris from a chemical plant (that was located RIGHT NEAR A ELEMENTARY SCHOOL…”Roosevelt McGrath, that sits a few hundred yards from the facility”…so close that the debris landed on the school!) would affect the community after a disaster. Learn to read!

    “In 2002 EQ handled or treated 81,181,711 pounds of toxic waste in the Romulus neighborhood, including 13,485 pounds released into the air of the surrounding community. According to the federal government’s own Toxics Release Inventory, EQ has a cancer risk score that places it near the 100th percentile as ‘dirtiest/worst facilities in the U.S.’ Two tons of this pollution are recognized carcinogens with carbon tetrachloride being the top cancer risk.

    EQ has been cited 68 times over the past two decades. On May 11–the day before Operation Vigilant State — an inspection by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality found three violations at EQ including not storing hazardous waste in the areas specified by its license.”
    ———————————–
    “Again, this is/was the main accusation you made and DJ rebutted you.”

    LOL…nope, not even close…as per usual…lol…

    “There is no way around this fact, is there?”

    Of course there is…ugh…back to ignore-land for you kiddo…

  23. OK, since you can’t follow a conversation.

    DJ: A smart businessman would not build a chemical factory next to a school

    Contention: Smart businessmen don’t build chemical factories next to a school. Key words: smart, next to.

    Mister Guy: …yet they do it all the time.

    Contention: Businessmen do build chemical factories next to schools.

    kylehuwer: So how close are these schools? Again, this is/was the main accusation you made and DJ rebutted you.

    Contention: How far, exactly, are these said factories from schools. This is due to the original idea that businesses are not built next to schools. Key words: how close.

    Mister Guy: LOL…nope, not even close…as per usual…lol…

    Contention: None. No answer as to how far they are. Original point remains until it can unilaterally shown that a business was built next to a school.

    Questions needing answered:
    Q1. Was the business built outside of a zone, of which the government set up?

    Q2. What was said at the zoning hearing? Was there any complaints from the community about a business as such being built next to or any distance from said school?

    Q3. What was built first – the school or the business? If the business was built first, then is it the fault of the business or the school/city for building in close proximity to the factory?

    Big points to answer. But, I am sure that your reply (and you will reply, I’m sure) will just come back and do the standard name calling, tell me how illiterate I am, and link me 45 websites since you can’t articulate your point yourself. And, you won’t answer the questions above to prove that – a business was built after a school was already there AND that it was built directly next to a school AND that it was unchallenged by locals and zoning laws.

    The ball is in your court. And I am asking you to please refer to me by my screen name like every other adult does on here instead of your ususal name calling. Can you please do that for me or is name calling that important to your ego?

  24. Kiddo…this is already all over now, I’ve already clearly answered all of your silly questions and shown specifically that chemical plants have, in fact, been located right next door to schools AND that they have affected those schools in a negative way with their emissions. Your constant denials of these FACTS and your sorry attempts to change the subject are real bore (as per usual), which is why it’s really, really time for me to go back to ignoring your sorry ass…bye-bye now…it’s time for you to start pouting…

  25. If you already answered my questions, it should be an easy task to cut and paste them in an additional response since you already answered them.

    I’m not denying anything as you purport. I asked you 3 very specific questions. While you quoted the one article to say “ACROSS THE STREET” that still doesn’t mean anything. My workplace has ALL sorts of nasty chemicals that it uses. Some pretty nasty #$%^, and it is right “ACROSS THE STREET” from a large residence. It is right down the street from a pond that has a thriving ecosystem – geese, ducks, cranes, fish, random birds, etc. There is also a elementary school a block away as well as a high school a road over from that – both within a mile of where I work. And guess what, nobody is dying. In fact, I believe that a while ago the company was recognized by the city for pumping out water CLEANER then it got it. This all rolls back around to the original key word that DJ said – smart – smart business people don’t build near schools. But all that is irrelevant if “across the street” from the chemical plant is 3 miles away because the plant is 3 miles off the road. Technically it is across the street, yes, but across the street as in 50 yds away is far more different than 3 miles away, is it not?

    OK, so the elementary was close enough to the factory that debris fell on it. Two important questions here MG… who was there first one at that location and did anyone complain about the zoning that the GOVERNMENT set up when said factory was built, or complain when the school was built next to a factory?

    You are right, chemicals can go miles away through the air. There is no doubt about it and I’ve never questioned that notion. But, cars emit chemicals and pollutants too, right? And cars carry our children! Our kids come within feet of the exhaust of cars, daily. So what have you do? Ban cars so kids aren’t exposed to those chemicals? Please do tell. I’d also like to know how far away a school has to be from a factory before you personally deem it to be “safe.” Again, please do tell.

    Changing the subject? Really? How so? It seems to me that DJ made a statement and you came in and said it was not so. I am taking you up on the challenge and it is me who is changing the subject? I have specific questions that need to be answered that are detrimential to your position. If you refuse to answer them or ignore them than I can only assume that you have no answer for my questions. Or, that the answers to those questions are supportive of my position. So, you have the choice, you can can sit there and attempt to make it look like you are all high and mighty and you are going to ignore me, or you can come back like an adult and debate me like an adult. Or, are you afraid of debating and being pwned by a 26yr old “kiddo”?

  26. which is why it’s really, really time for me to go back to ignoring your sorry ass

    Oh, and where are your manners? There is no need to cuss at me. Maybe your mother will come wash your mouth out with soap or NYD will clean it for you?

  27. I don’t wash anybody’s mouth out with soap or anything else. (I don’t actually like to get that close to most people…) I believe in free speech, so I don’t edit any comments on this blog (except when someone violates copyright laws by posting an entire article rather than a link.)

    However, I would like to remind you good folks that this post is about gun control. I’m not sure how we got from there to factories and schools. ;)

  28. Thanks NYD, I just don’t like it when adults come to debate and end up cussing at me and calling me names because they can’t articulate a point…

    For the record, I vote no gun control. As has been said many other times – an armed society is a polite society. :) With the privledge of being able to own a gun comes the responsibility of what it is capable of doing (just like a car or alcohol or anything else we regularly do).

  29. “I’m not sure how we got from there to factories and schools.”

    We got here NYD because some people like to try & change the subject when they start to lose ground on the issue at hand, period.

    I, for one, am glad that you don’t edit comments to your blog (like some people that post here do in their own blogs). In general, it’s a sign of weakness if one can’t take criticism of their own beliefs without restorting to whining like a baby…

  30. “I’m not sure how we got from there to factories and schools.”

    We got here NYD because some people like to try & change the subject when they start to lose ground on the issue at hand, period.

    Looking back at the posts, it was a guy by the name of “Mister Guy” that picked up the factory tidbit and tried to argue it.

    I, for one, am glad that you don’t edit comments to your blog (like some people that post here do in their own blogs). In general, it’s a sign of weakness if one can’t take criticism of their own beliefs without restorting to whining like a baby…

    Who?

    Generally speaking that during a debate the person that results in name calling is the one that is weak. And looking back at this conversation, the name calling started by someone named “Mister Guy.”

    I think this guy normally includes some sort of name calling in every one of his posts. I also am glad that it is not moderated because others can come here and see that this visitor has no basis so they feel the need to attack the poster instead of their arguments.

  31. One of the reasons that the 2nd Amendment was included in the US Constitution was because our fore fathers had just gotten through fighting a revolution. Because of this the mindset at the time was to prevent a government from being the only one with arms with which could be used to enslave the people. It’s in the same concept of criminals having weapons in that the government could do what they want without fear of retaliation. Considering the power of modern day military weapons it seams that the 2nd Amendment no longer can serve this purpose. Take this how you will.

    If I wanted to I could make my own gun, not only that I could kill, steal, or rape without a gun. So what I believe what we, as a country, need to do is take a look at the reason criminals become criminals and cut that out of the picture. We could start by looking at other countries with high crime rates and low crime rates. Cut out what we see in the bad countries and do what the good ones do. Obviously gun control isn’t an answer to any problem, it’s just asinine to continue to do the same thing and expect different results

    • Truno,

      Because of this the mindset at the time was to prevent a government from being the only one with arms with which could be used to enslave the people.

      I feel pretty enslaved now. I can’t imagine how I will feel when they take my 2nd Amendment and do whatever they want without fear of being attacked.

      Considering the power of modern day military weapons it seams that the 2nd Amendment no longer can serve this purpose.

      Powerful military or not, if it comes down to it, I’d rather go down guns ablaze than just sitting there waiting for them to come violate me or my family.

      So what I believe what we, as a country, need to do is take a look at the reason criminals become criminals and cut that out of the picture.

      Impossible. We are humans and humans are imperfect. We will never make a utopia.

      We could start by looking at other countries with high crime rates and low crime rates.

      No. Different people. Different cultures. Different histories. Different traditions.

      Obviously gun control isn’t an answer to any problem, it’s just asinine to continue to do the same thing and expect different results

      Is it just me or did you seem to be advocating more gun control and now you say gun control is not the answer? I’m confused.

      Less, less, less gun control. Let the people be held responsible for what they do with their guns. RESPONSIBILITY! (novel idea, I know)

      • Sorry for not being clear on where I stand from the beginning, I’m against gun control. What I wished to do with the last statement was introduce new topics to the conversation.

        “Impossible. We are humans and humans are imperfect. We will never make a utopia.”

        We could start by looking at other countries with high crime rates and low crime rates.

        “No. Different people. Different cultures. Different histories. Different traditions.”

        It’s precisely this type of mindset that prevents anything positive from happening in this country. What if our fore fathers had given up in the face of British oppression and said: It’s no use people will always be oppressed no matter what we do. No, instead they decided to fight regardless of the fact that theory were nothing more than a little colony facing the most powerful nation of the time. I suggest you change your mindset if you ever wish to be happy, John C. Maxwell writes some great books that you should look into.

        “Exactly…only the crazies of the world think that’s it’s “sane” to try & go up against the federal govt. with weapons.”

        I agree, weapons aren’t an answer to a resistance, peaceful revolution is. Gandhi, MLK, Mandela, all successful at fighting oppression against a more powerful enemy. As the old saying goes “the pen is mightier than the sward.”

  32. “Considering the power of modern day military weapons it seams that the 2nd Amendment no longer can serve this purpose.”

    Exactly…only the crazies of the world think that’s it’s “sane” to try & go up against the federal govt. with weapons.

  33. Truno,

    “the mindset at the time was to prevent a government from being the only one with arms with which could be used to enslave the people.”

    “Considering the power of modern day military weapons it seams that the 2nd Amendment no longer can serve this purpose. Take this how you will.”

    You could not be more wrong. You are assuming that the citizens would respond to a hated central government by a minute man militia armed with target rifles and revolvers, going head to head against assault rifles and tanks.

    A more likely scenario would be small resistance cells such as operated in Nazi occupied Europe. These can effectively use more primitive firearms.

    Also a population that is familiar with guns can be more easily trained to use advanced weapons. If resistance evolved in to a revolution, large groups would acquire assault rifles. One just has to look at the Iraq war to see how a guerilla force can fight against a modern army.

    In such cases, money not weapons is the limiting factor for any force, good or bad, fighting a government. The Mexican drug cartels are the relevant example here. With huge amounts of money they can outgun and out bribe the Mexican government and military.

  34. Alan Scott,

    Excellent points. If the argument is that the power of modern military weapons is so advanced that that alone should inhibit a “revolution”, why are so many that want to “remake America” so afraid to let us keep clinging? It seems fairly obvious that the intention is to take away our ability to defend ourselves against, well, anything we deem a threat to property an our liberty.

  35. It’s precisely this type of mindset that prevents anything positive from happening in this country. What if our fore fathers had given up in the face of British oppression and said: It’s no use people will always be oppressed no matter what we do. No, instead they decided to fight regardless of the fact that theory were nothing more than a little colony facing the most powerful nation of the time. I suggest you change your mindset if you ever wish to be happy,

    I always thought that our forefathers made this country with the idea that they were going to make it like no other country – give the power to the people, small government, government out of people’s lives, etc. If they made it like every other country, they would have made a dictatorship or monarchy.

    With that said, I am not sure where you are getting that I have some sort of crazy mindset that keeps us from progressing. All I am saying is that just because it “works” over there doesn’t mean it will work over here. (What is “works” anyways? I know that others, myself included, believe that many of the “working systems” over there do NOT work). If you want to talk about progressing, then let’s talk about how America is the leader of the free world, envy of the world, our money has for a long time been the trading medium, many countries love to trade with us… and we are the youngest country on the block. If that is not progress, then I don’t know what is.

  36. “If the argument is that the power of modern military weapons is so advanced that that alone should inhibit a ‘revolution’, why are so many that want to ‘remake America’ so afraid to let us keep clinging?”

    Because our gun-crazed culture is responsible for the deaths of many, many more innocent civilians, period.

  37. We never hear about all of the lives guns have saved. About all of the innocent civilians who did not die, because the bad guy was shot or frightened off by an armed citizen.

  38. Alan, quit talking about fairy tales you fool.

    /sarcasm

  39. Let’s put things into perspective…

    How many die from guns a year? (How many of those are from homicides, so excluding suicides)

    How many die from cars a year?

    How many die from heart disease?

    How many die from cancer?

    Etc…

    —- Any takers?

  40. kylehuwer,

    “How many die from cars a year?”

    I’ve made that argument for years. When someone misuses a gun the Democrats try to put the gun manufacturers out of business by making it a product liability issue.

    When someone uses a car in a bank robbery, do they sue General Motors? Do they sue Goodyear? If they did not make the tires, the car could not have been used in the crime.

    You don’t see Democrats putting CAR companies out of business. Wait a minute, they do, do that. Never mind.

  41. “I always thought that our forefathers made this country with the idea that they were going to make it like no other country – give the power to the people, small government, government out of people’s lives, etc. If they made it like every other country, they would have made a dictatorship or monarchy.”

    “With that said, I am not sure where you are getting that I have some sort of crazy mindset that keeps us from progressing. All I am saying is that just because it “works” over there doesn’t mean it will work over here. (What is “works” anyways? I know that others, myself included, believe that many of the “working systems” over there do NOT work). If you want to talk about progressing, then let’s talk about how America is the leader of the free world, envy of the world, our money has for a long time been the trading medium, many countries love to trade with us… and we are the youngest country on the block. If that is not progress, then I don’t know what is.”

    Weren’t you saying a little while ago “I feel pretty enslaved now.” You seem to be flip-flopping? I will say that I feel lucky to be born in America because I get three meals a day and so much more. This is allot more than other third world countries get. Honestly I feel just like you in the fact that I feel enslaved by my government, yes we have it good in America but what is all that if we have to work and pay bills all our lives. Most people just accept this, because unfortunately people are unaware of the alternatives out there. I will thank you for bringing me to point because I should have said something more along the lines of keep the good toss the bad. Instead I was stupid and said “Cut out what we see in the bad countries and do what the good ones do.” I know this is a broad generalization, but it’s simply about change for the better and cutting out the cancer that’s rotting this country.

    As for your mindset, I do hope you look into John. C Maxwell, especially Attitude 101, in fact I would recommend his books to anyone and everyone. In the end I believe that if you really want to see change, you have to make the effort to create that change yourself, otherwise your all talk and no action.

    I’ll keep my guns by the way.

  42. “I feel pretty enslaved now.” You seem to be flip-flopping?

    I am curious as to how am I flip-flopping. Can you please explain.

    I still argue the point about other countries. I openly admit that we don’t have all the answers but I don’t think we can simply say “take the good and leave the bad.” Sometimes things may seem to work but in reality it does not.

    I believe in America as the Founding Fathers saw it. Just because we have drifted far from that, I don’t think we need to look across the Pond to “see” how to run our country. Like I said, our Founding Fathers made the best country the world has ever seen as I alluded to in my last post. I think we should generally return to that.

  43. “How many die from cars a year?”

    I’ve made that argument for years. When someone misuses a gun the Democrats try to put the gun manufacturers out of business by making it a product liability issue.

    When someone uses a car in a bank robbery, do they sue General Motors? Do they sue Goodyear? If they did not make the tires, the car could not have been used in the crime.

    You don’t see Democrats putting CAR companies out of business. Wait a minute, they do, do that. Never mind.

    It has never been about doing what is right or makes sense, it is about doing what can be done to have better control of the people.

  44. kylehuwer,

    I bet that if we could take wigglesworth out target shooting, we could start him on the path of good and rightful thinking. I’ve known a few lost souls who did not grow up with guns, but when introduced to shooting became right wing, at least when it comes to the second amendment. There is one on this board that I think is beyond hope.

    I even believe that if Barak Obama had grown up with a father that had taken him hunting as a boy, I might have voted for him as President.

  45. Alan:

    I even believe that if Barak Obama had grown up with a father that had taken him hunting as a boy, I might have voted for him as President.

    Not unless he changed all his political beliefs I wouldn’t! :)

  46. kylehuwer,

    If Barak Obama had gone shooting with his father he would have had different political beliefs. This holds true for a majority. Unless you are Greg West, Obama’s one supporting NRA member.

  47. You never hear about the cases where guns were used to stop or prevent a crime. The liberal news media only covers the lawless. Law abiding citizens are just that. Law abiding.

  48. Alan, don’t worry. I know how to handle a gun. On the M16 I qualified with a score of 20 out of 20. I’m pretty sure that’s the best you can do. And I’m currently in the market for a handgun since I recently completed my concealed carry class.

    • Wigglesworth,

      I have a lot of hope for you. You probably can out shoot me. You probably even know more on the subject than me. I have not done a lot of shooting in the last few years. Unfortunately my time and money has had to go in to other things. In Pa thanks to our worthless game commission, if you don’t have land rich friends, which I don’t, the hunting is abysmal. If this were one of my hunting boards, you’d hear me say things about that group I’d never say about a Democrat.

      This week end I’ve been invited for some clay bird and pistol shooting. The person who invited me is a big Obama guy, like you, who suddenly is buying guns like crazy. Funny ain’t it?

  49. The fact that I want a gun has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. I’ve wanted one for a long time.

  50. Wigglesworth,

    “And I’m currently in the market for a handgun..”

    I highly recommend the Glock 21.

    @Alan Scott,

    If you find yourself in need of a good deer hunt, Michigan, North of Cadillac is pretty good. Many places in the Upper Peninsula offer both deer hunting and fishing….in season of course.

  51. I’m considering a Glock. However, Kahr has moved up a bit and is now a serious contender, too.

  52. What are we buying for – looks, home defense, personal defense, hunting, bounty hunting, etc?

    It can mean a lot… not to mention for picking calibers.

  53. Wigglesworth,

    My Obama friend has been trying to get me to take a High Point 9mm off his hands. I just do not want the gun. My source of amusement is that you Obama guys are suddenly buying and selling guns. Most of us on the right already have what little we can afford. And you Obama guys are rich. I know how much you guys scraped together and donated to get your man elected. We lost cause we were out spent.

    The only reason President Obama is not going after guns is that the pro gun movement is too strong and he has other fish to fry. When the gun side shows any weakness, you know and I know none of us will qualify, under some law that Obama will pull out of his butt, to buy any more firearms.
    ——————————————————
    DJ,

    I’m sure any other state is better than Pa. for hunting. My problems are purely financial. I can only afford to hunt close to where I live. At least until I get my second kid out of college. My eyes are not what they were, for not only can’t I see any deer,I can’t see where the GC says the forest is over browsed. However, like a good fool, I will continue to send money to Harrisburg for the privelege of walking my gun. I don’t even bother to load it anymore.

  54. Alan, choice words are running through my brain right now, but I won’t write them down out of respect for the proprietor here. I don’t take too kindly to being called a liar. I said I wanted a gun a long time before I ever even knew the name Obama. Spin it however you want. Out.

  55. Wigglesworth,

    “I don’t take too kindly to being called a liar. I said I wanted a gun a long time before I ever even knew the name Obama. Spin it however you want. Out.”

    I reread my comments, because I thought I missed something. I did not call you a liar. I called you rich. That could be a bigger insult to someone who believes in class warfare.

    My point is still valid. If you always wanted a gun, why buy it now? Did you come in to a windfall? Is crime worse under Obama than Bush?

  56. Latest news on the gun control front. According to the NRA, the New York City billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg has formed a group “American’s United for Safe Streets”. 11 of the 12 donors put up $ 2,255 to fund the group. Mayor Bloomberg gave $500,000. This is to influence the Virginia Governor’s race. Bloomberg is going after Republican Robert McDonnell.

    McDonnell is being smeared on his opposition to new gun show restrictions. Adds imply that this opposition is partially to blame for the Virginia Tech shootings. Along with many other things left out is the fact that the gunman Seung Hui-Cho did not obtain his weapons at a gun show.

  57. Alan, you implied I was “suddenly” out buying a gun because of Obama. And I politely pointed out that I’ve wanted a gun long before I ever heard the name Obama and that your statement.

    • Wigglesworth,

      “Alan, you implied I was “suddenly” out buying a gun because of Obama. And I politely pointed out that I’ve wanted a gun long before I ever heard the name Obama and that your statement.”

      I’m sorry that my comments have offended you. I will now have to unlump you from all of the other Obama voters I know who are causing gun sales to soar. Most of them had the sudden urge to become armed and dangerous only since the hysteric event of last November.

  58. Wiggles, seriously…just give up trying to reason with a troll…it’s pointless…they twist & turn all day long…

    • This is an example of: Manufactured Outrage.

  59. No problem and thanks, Alan! :)

    • Wigglesworth,
      What type of gun did you decide on? I am sorry, I can’t remember what type you were looking at or for what purpose but was curious as to what you got! :)

  60. Still don’t have the scrilla, but it’ll be either a Glock or a Kahr. My SWAT buddy was recommending the Glock but the more I learn about the Kahr, the more I like.

    • So you are looking for a handgun? And is this for self-defense? Any particular caliber? Etc.

    • Wigglesworth,

      If you are considering a Glock, I highly recommend the 21. I have one and it ROCKS!

  61. How is registering MY gun and putting my name on a government list going to prevent crime? Registering my gun does no good because it will never be involved in any crime. If registering is a good idea, don’t you think we should require that all criminals register their guns first? Also, lets start registering everyone who wants to exercise free speech. Lets register everyone who wants to practice a religion. Did you ever wonder why they call the first 10 amendments “The Bill of Rights?” Gee, I wonder? Listing the right to bear arms as the 2nd amendment must mean that it was important.

  62. “Registering my gun does no good because it will never be involved in any crime”

    …unless it gets stolen or you lose your cool someday & shoot someone that you know.

    “If registering is a good idea, don’t you think we should require that all criminals register their guns first?”

    True, all guns should be registered.

    “lets start registering everyone who wants to exercise free speech. Lets register everyone who wants to practice a religion.”

    Why??

    “Listing the right to bear arms as the 2nd amendment must mean that it was important.”

    That doesn’t mean that there can’t be reasonable restrictions on that right or any other right.

  63. I say once all the criminals register their guns, then there will be no need for law abiding citizens to register theirs. Registering my guns is not going to prevent any crime at all. Reasonable restrictions? Then maybe we should register anyone using free speech. Then we can keep track of them. They should reasonably be expected to put their name on a government list to excercise the right to speak. Just like registering cars does not prevent accidents, registering guns doesn’t prevent crime. You seem only interested in what happens after a crime is committed. Solving a crime does nothing for the victims of the crime.
    Oh, have you ever lost your cool and killed somebody?

  64. I wonder how the Iranian people like the reasonable restrictions on their right to bear arms? Wait,,,they don’t have that right.

    http://theconservativwatchdog.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/iran-a-case-study-into-why-gun-control-empowers-government/

  65. Iranians have few options against a government that has weapons while they themselves are disarmed. Remember what history has taught us about governments that have put restrictions on guns or who have disarmed their own people. Germany(6 million Jews), Soviet Union(20 million +), China, etc……

    I seriously doubt that a registration law will compel any felons who own firearms to come forward and register them. I doubt anyone who intends to use their firearm illegally will come forward and register. If they don’t obey the law now, what is it about registration that will make them decide to start obeying the law? To reiterate, putting my name on a government list will NOT prevent any crime whatsoever.

    • “…putting my name on a government list will NOT prevent any crime whatsoever.”

      Well stated PK. The only thing registering a gun does is give Chairman Maobama and his thugs a laundry list of people to come after in order to CONFISCATE their guns. Communist’s, such as Comrade Guy, do not like America. They want this country to operate as the Cold War Soviet Union did. The only place a gun should be registered is with your insurance company, and ONLY so that the original owner can be compensated in the event his gun is stolen. I advocate this because in the event the gun IS stolen, and used in a crime (highly likely) when the police recover it, the original owner will NEVER SEE IT AGAIN as it will be “evidence”.

  66. I hope that ACORN in Persian does not translate Basij.

  67. “Then maybe we should register anyone using free speech. Then we can keep track of them.”

    For what?? You can’t be prosecuted for pure free speech.

    “You seem only interested in what happens after a crime is committed.”

    On the contrary, I want there to be less needless loss of life in the first place.

    “Oh, have you ever lost your cool and killed somebody?”

    No, but I also don’t own a gun, and it’s really, really easy to kill someone (even yourself) with one yanno.

    “If they don’t obey the law now, what is it about registration that will make them decide to start obeying the law? To reiterate, putting my name on a government list will NOT prevent any crime whatsoever.”

    Sure it will, especially if you are a person that, in the opinion of your peers & your govt. (through the legal process that is), shouldn’t be owning a gun in the first place. Case in point…the VA Tech shooter.

    “The only thing registering a gun does is give Chairman Maobama and his thugs a laundry list of people to come after in order to CONFISCATE their guns.”

    Hyperbolic nonsense. Gun registration lists already save lives up in Canada. The police can know ahead of time if they are responding to a home that has a firearm, so they can be ready if things get out of control on a call. Those police in PA (I think that’s was the state) recently that were mowed down by a gun nut that thought “the govt. was coming for his guns”, when the police were merely responding to a domestic dispute, would have likely been saved by a valid gun registration list.

    “Communist’s, such as Comrade Guy, do not like America. They want this country to operate as the Cold War Soviet Union did.”

    Wrong again wing-nut…lol…

    “The only place a gun should be registered is with your insurance company”

    …as IF insurance company files couldn’t possibly be accessed by the govt….lol…what a joke…

  68. Mister Guy,

    “Those police in PA (I think that’s was the state) recently that were mowed down by a gun nut that thought “the govt. was coming for his guns”, when the police were merely responding to a domestic dispute, would have likely been saved by a valid gun registration list.”

    I believe this last sentence is incorrect. The Pittsburgh shooter Richard Andrew Poplawski legally owned several pistols which I believe were registered. This information, along with the fact that the shooter’s mother told the dispatcher there were guns in the house, was never forwarded to the responding officers. For more information.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513156,00.html

  69. Some people on here just can’t kick the blue-pill habit.

  70. “…putting my name on a government list will NOT prevent any crime whatsoever.”

    Well duh. Law enforcement doesn’t exist to prevent crime. It exists to solve crimes, thus helping to prevent repeat offenses. That’s it.

    So putting your name on a government list just might have a chance of preventing a future crime.

    • Wigglesworth,

      Your logic is flawed, “So putting your name on a government list just might have a chance of preventing a future crime.”

      Registering a gun will not and cannot have a chance of preventing a future crime-even if the perp calls the police ahead of time and tells them about a crime they are going to commit (which is highly unlikely). Even then, unless the crime to be commited is next to the cop shop, the police will still be minutes away-it only takes a bout 3 three seconds to aimi and shoot.

      There is absolutely no reason what so ever to register any gun, period, end of story.

      • “There is absolutely no reason what so ever to register any gun, period, end of story”

        …in your own extremist, gun-loving mind that is.

  71. You’re so cute. :) You just combined “ever” with “highly unlikely.” So, which one is it? LOL!

    Do some people ever buy a gun, register it, then use it later to commit a crime? You bet your shiny hiney they do. So in those cases, your statement is clearly false.

    What if a registered gun is stolen from a house? It is then reported stolen by the owner. That puts a criminal at a certain location and at a certain date and time. What if then there is a eyewitness that can identify the criminal in the general vicinity of the crime and at the same place and time? That’s a nice little coinkydink, one that could even conceivably become a piece of evidence in a trial. And, what if that same gun is then used in a crime and found on said criminal? And you know it’s the same gun that was purloined from said location due to the registration data and the victim’s complaint of theft. What you’ve got on your hands now is a nice little evidence chain that ties the perp to the gun to the location. Woots!

    Logic prevails one more time.

    • Wigglwsworth,

      If the gun is reported stolen, (a) A crime has been committed, which registering said weapon would not have prevented. (b) The owner reports the stolen gun to their insurnace company, and (c) the Polcie then investigate.

      Since the police NOW have the serial number of a stolen weapon, they can (hopefully) find it before it is used in a more violent crime. Chances are rather high that the gun will be used in a violent crime, which would have occured whether or not the gun was registered. It is highly illogical to assume that the mere registration of a weapon would have prevented it from being stolen in the first place!

      Entertaining the scenario you put forth; the same could be said if the gun HAD NOT been previously registered. Surely the eye witness seeing someone in the general vicinity at the same time the weapon was illegally removed will not change their story just because the aforesaid weapon was NOT previously reistered.

      Even without the eye witness, the police still have a nice evidence chain to tie the thief to the crime! YOUR stolen weapon, which was reported to the police when they showed up to investigate the incident is still going to be looked for. You will get compensated via your insurance company for the loss, and the popo have another crime to drape around the thief…same result and the weapon was NEVER REGISTERED!!!

      Registering a weapon is not ever necessary.

      Nice try though, you actully used (some) logic this time;)

  72. Mister Guy,

    It would be nice if just once on this board you would admit your error. I proved that your statement could not have been true. I would admit the error if our situations were reversed.

    Wigglesworth,

    DJ was right, your logic contradicts itself. You said law enforcement does not exist to prevent crime. Then you said that this same law enforcement’s solving crimes helps prevent future offenses. Future offenses ARE crimes and yes crime prevention IS part of law enforcement.

    You use a lot of ‘what ifs’ in your argument. The only scenario that your ‘ what if ‘ is valid is ‘ if ‘ the owner fails to report the purloining. Then the police could trace the origin of the gun if it is recovered.

    Believe it or not, I do not entirely disagree with you on gun registration, I just find fault with your examples.

  73. Alan Scott,
    Somehow the spiked kool-aid is still being drank around here. Please ignore them as they are obviously punch drunk.
    -K

  74. Law enforcement doesn’t exist to prevent crimes. By solving crimes, you hopefully prevent future repeat offenses.

    • Wigglesworth,

      Repeating a wrong argument will not make it right. I will now give you my examples of how law enforcement, not by solving crimes, but by their presence prevents or stops them.

      The most obvious example is traffic speed. There you are flying along in heavy traffic going 10 mph over the speed limit. There is a smokey with a radar gun. Suddenly everyone drops down to the posted limit. Crime of speeding detered. Lives, gasoline, and the planet are saved.

      Second example. There you are, hanging out with your buddies at 2:00AM, and you need cash for your next crack fix. Well not really YOU, just a hypothetical crack head. You want to break in to a local store front, but repeated police car patrols scare you off. Crime prevented.

      Third example from G. Gordon Liddy radio show. I can’t vouch for accuracy as I am doing this from memory. There you are an FBI agent. Well not really YOU, but still ‘law enforcement’. You are out to lunch, when you stumble upon a man coming out of a bank, with a gun and money, having just robbed said bank. You draw your gun and order the suspect to drop his weapon. He does not comply, threatens you, and you are forced to shoot him. You have just stopped a crime. The suspect is rushed to the hospital, where his life is saved.

      You are a hero for stopping the robbery and the suspect did not even have to die. Your superior recommends you to J.Edgar Hoover himself for a commendation. The request comes back denied from the old man with a comment about what is wrong with FBI firearms training that you did not manage to kill the bank robber.

  75. Listen up all of you thugs and extremists. There is a price to pay.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541522,00.html?test=latestnews

    “Travel icon Arthur Frommer says he won’t be spending his tourism dollars at the Grand Canyon, or anywhere else in Arizona, because the state’s laws allow people he described as “thugs” and “extremists” to openly carry firearms.”

    • I would be among the “extremist” Mr. Fromme is so afraid of. Passing one simple little law which acknowledges the unalienable right of all Americans to keep and bear arms, and the riff-raff stays away…

    • This whole crybaby scene about Arizona and her great firearm laws makes me want to start carrying my gun around with me everywhere.

      Let it be known, I am exercising my rights!

      Sheesh. I’ve been arguing with people all over the place about this whole thing. Can the left get any more biased then they already are? It’s not OK for one man to carry a single AR15 to an Obama Healthcare rally….. But it is OK for an entire mob of Liberal Black Panther to come to a Texas Republican convention carrying AK47s? The former had his AR15 at REVERSE “sling arms”… whereas the latter had theirs at “port arms.”

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/08/18/media-barely-noticed-legal-gun-brandishing-leftist-black-panthers-2000

      What a crock.

  76. I bet you did not know that it was possible to be a gun toting racist and be black. From an article in the 9/21/09 edition of National Review. The good folks at MSNBC were making comments over a photo of an armed man who was outside of a VFW convention in Phoenix, Arizona. President Obama was giving a speech there.

    They were commenting on the white people showing up with guns and being angry about a black President. The photo was “cropped” so only the torso appeared, but according to the article, what you could not see was that the armed man was black.

  77. I got into a big debate about how I fully supported that [black] man carrying a gun to a political rally. My opponent said that there were some places that guns should not be brought – two places being a school and a political rally.

    I asked them what was wrong with it and they said, it was wrong. I asked them would they feel differently if he was able to use that weapon to save his wife…. or the President… would he feel any different about carrying a firearm…. I continued to ask him if he felt that he could validate the man carrying the firearm on school grounds if the man was able to shoot and kill someone that was doing a school shooting, and because he shot the shooter his daughter was spared.

    Things to consider!

  78. Kyle,

    It is sad that so many who make comments about guns and the people who carry them have no experience in that field. I do not worry about the guns I can see strapped to someone. Generally that person would not have it if he were not responsible. He sure does not want to lose the right to carry by doing something stupid. He is also a visible deterrent.

    I worry about the guns I can’t see in a supposed gun free area.

  79. Alan,
    I am not even sure I am afraid of someone packing heat and I can’t see it. I am more afraid of gun-free zones. Many gun-free zones have proven that they are a free-shooting-range for those who can sneak guns in.

    At least if it is not a GFZ then we can hope that someone will take out the perpetrator before they can do harm.
    -K


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: