Second Amendment

Do Gun-Free Zones Work as Planned?

|

In his USA Today column, Glenn Instapundit Reynolds channels William S. Burroughs to question the sagacity of gun-free zones:

"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."…

Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.

Whole thing here.

Given his awful personal record with gun violence, I'm not sure that Bill Burroughs is the best source when it comes to talking about the topic. But he's right here: Gun laws and regulations work to strip law abiding people of weapons, not criminals.

Advertisement

NEXT: Boehner Offers To Trade Tax Hike for Entitlement Cuts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The president was just on television talking about the need to take action. That’s never a good sign.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there really needs to be a waiting period between legislation and the tragedy it’s taking advantage of.

    1. We’ll also need to do a background check to make sure they aren’t insane or have passed equally shitty and useless laws in the past.

    2. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there really needs to be a waiting period between legislation and the tragedy it’s taking advantage of.

      Are you kidding? A tragedy such as this has been what the Brady Bill Bunch having been hoping, nay, praying for.

      Ghouls, all of them.

      1. I have no doubt the Brady cunts are inwardly ecstatic upon news of every mass killing.

        1. Look at tony, he’s obviously enjoying himself.

    3. I commented on the mega-thread from yesterday about this. I hope Obama doesn’t survive this term. His craven, self-absorbed speech in the wake of the attack is nothing but an attempt to destroy the rights of the individual so they can better serve the state. He deserves a fate worse than pancreatic cancer.

      1. That’s not very nice. Shouldn’t you be hoping he converts to libertarianism?

        1. No. I want him to continue being a shining example of evil for all time.

          1. Tony, by strict definition, cannot reproduce.

            1. Ron Bailey is working on that.

      2. He can go to Cuba for treatment!

      3. I commented on the mega-thread from yesterday about this. I hope Obama doesn’t survive this term.

        That would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the cause of liberty and freedom. He’d become a fucking martyr emboldening the fascists.

        The best possible outcome is for his policies to blow up in his face and for him to leave office in complete disgrace, even worse the GWB.

        1. I may have chosen my words poorly. I hope his presidency doesn’t survive and he is led out of the White House in manacles and is taken directly to a federal courthouse where he is indicted on his myriad high crimes and misdemeanors. After he is pardoned by President Biden, he can stand trial at The Hague with his predecessor for their myriad crimes against humanity.

          1. Do you know who else faced trial in an international court for crimes against humanity?

            1. Jan Hus

            2. One of my distant relatives.

              (Great great uncle’s second cousin.)

    4. Ive always said a minimum of 1 year.

    5. Fist of Etiquette| 12.16.12 @ 9:12PM |#
      “The president was just on television talking about the need to take action. That’s never a good sign.”

      Yeah, the sleazy bastard took time from a national broadcast to ’emote’.

    6. If the problem is lunatics obtaining guns, then the obvious solution that has the least impact on our rights is to kill all the lunatics.

      No lunatics, no problem. What could go wrong?

      1. The progressives could finally solve the problem with eugenics and camps.

      2. Well, such a measure would be asking Congress to committ mass suicide…..

  2. Law-abiding people shoot themselves and others all the time. The mere presence of guns means more people die in situations in which they otherwise wouldn’t. The guns that killed these children were legally acquired.

    In short, just go fuck yourselves. Dogmatism is the central intellectual problem in this world. It will never, ever serve good ends–no more clearly than in the case of the dogmatism of maximum gun proliferation.

    1. Is the 2nd Amendment worth 20 dead kids?

      Yes.

      An unqualified, unapologetic “yes”.

      Now, go fuck yourself.

      1. You don’t know what the 2nd Amendment was for and your moral compass point toward psychopath. Thank you for so clearly illustrating the dogmatism to which I referred.

        1. Don’t tell me what I know or don’t know.

          And my morality is vastly superior to yours.

          I believe in the right to self-defense. Unlike you, I wouldn’t condemn a woman to rape, because disarming her makes thugs like you feel more comfortable.

          Now, kindly, go fuck yourself.

          1. You are implying Toney has morality.

            1. Tony has morality! It’s whatever 50.00001% of the voters say it is, and buttsex, that’s a god given right, or something.

          2. I believe in self-defense as much as you do. I don’t believe that maximum proliferation of firearms does more for increasing instances of successful self-defense than they do instances of accidental or homicidal death.

            Stupidity is no excuse for bad morality. The 2nd Amendment has or had a purpose. What that purpose was is less important than what the fuck you think should be social policy regarding access to weapons of mass murder. If the 2nd Amendment requires maximum proliferation, fantastic. That doesn’t stop the conversation. Maybe it should be repealed, if that’s the case.

            1. Your ‘beliefs’ are irrelevant to the law and my rights the law are meant to protect. TFB for you.

            2. weapons of mass murder

              Shut the fuck up with your newspeak. What a cheap rhetorical trick. Only Down Syndrome mongoloids like you would fall for it.

              1. It’s understandable that you prefer the euphemism “gun.” But it’s just a machine that propels deadly metal. It’s not any more sacred an object than a bomb or anything else.

                1. It’s not any more sacred an object than a bomb or anything else

                  You’re absolutely right. It’s just a tool.

                  As I pointed out in the last thread, 3 million children go to the ER due to falls. When you spend as much energy hollowing about how we need to ban ladders as much as you do about guns, then I might concede that you’re not a hypocritical little prick using this tragedy, merely, in order to increase the power of the state by denying citizens the individual right to self-defense.

                  1. As I pointed out in the last thread, 3 million children go to the ER due to falls.

                    In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt points out that a pool is about 100x more deadly than a gun in the home.

            3. Right after we have a conversation about your side’s sacred right to purposefully dead children.

              1. Pretty sure that conversation has been ongoing and consequential.

                1. Liberals won the abortion debate.

                  Conservatives won the gun debate.

                  But for Toney and ilk the gun debate never happened -‘we need to have a conversation’.

                  1. Maybe it’s time for a new debate. Conservatives certainly aren’t giving up on abortion.

                    1. Are we going to have a ‘new’ debate everytime a mass killing occurs? We won you lost go fuck yourself.

                  2. Liberals won the abortion debate.

                    No, six unelected and unchecked blackrobes won the abortion “debate” by making it impossible for conservatives to do shit on the issue for 30 years. By that point, people had gotten accustomed to abortion being OK and any movement against that belief was seen as troublemaking, which the moderates hate with a passion.

            4. I believe in self-defense as much as you do.

              No you don’t, you fucking ghoul. If you believed in self-defense, you wouldn’t be here pushing victim disarmament laws.

              -jcr

              1. In a sane and just world, Tony would strut and wiggle in his skinny jeans past a group of virulently homophobic Pakistani 1st generation immigrants. This mob would froth at the mouth with rage at the mere sight of him. Adrenaline fueling their anger, their fists would hit even harder when they grab Tony and shove him to the ground. They would pummel him over and over again with their fists and feet until Tony’s face was a swollen, bloody pulp.

                He would be then dragged into an alley, where one of the mob would grab a piece of rebar and begin to beat on his body. Like Kitty Genovese, Tony’s cries for help would be ignored as the neighbors would be content to merely watch Tony be beaten to death. The mob would then tear Tony’s jeans off and begin to sodomize him with the rebar, tearing the soft membrane and causing a painful anorectal fistula. As Tony wavers in and out of consciousness, his final thoughts before death would be, “If only I were armed…”

                1. To what do I wake up and read H&R? Patented Heroic Mulatto Death Pr0n and the dispensation of karmic justice.

                  I love this place, and I pretty much limit most of my USA news to you guys and gals and all of your news links.

                  The only problem I see is Tony would demand at gunpoint that someone like me fix his fistulated assgina, ironically, at gunpoint, because Proggie Pinkos never quite seem to die off…

                  Also, good morning HM!

                  1. Mornin’

                    The only problem I see is Tony would demand at gunpoint that someone like me fix his fistulated assgina, ironically, at gunpoint, because Proggie Pinkos never quite seem to die off..

                    You mean like how Belgium once threatened to conscript all doctors into the military? Tony would have no problem with “machines” being use for that purpose.

            5. What that purpose was is less important than what the fuck you think should be social policy regarding access to weapons of mass murder.

              If those weapons were so bad, governments would not have them.

            6. “Maximum proliferation of firearms” = one woman in Connecticut owning 2 handguns and a rifle?

              There are plenty of laws restricting the sale of firearms. I could not buy a firearm without a massive investment, and if I get it, I couldn’t do much with it but keep it locked up in my apartment.

          3. A significant point to make here.

            The Second Amendment was not put in place to allow self-defense as a PRIMARY goal, that was an important aside, but not the primary issue.

            The Second Amendment is there to allow the citizenry to overthrow tyranny, should it come to power. Hence the clause, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. . . .

            1. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
              To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
              To provide and maintain a Navy;
              To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
              To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
              To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

              1. Calling forth the Militia ?? There are TWO militias. The “formal” militia, otherwise known as the Armed Forces and the Reserves and the Guard. . .

                And the Unorganised Militia. Specifically, the unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the “unorganized militia” per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.

                THAT is why we have the Second. To Arm the Unorganized Militia, and to act as a bulwark against tyranny. . .

        2. You don’t know what the 2nd Amendment was for

          Plain enough, if you know any history:

          Connecticut 1818: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

          Kentucky 1792: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

          Massachusetts 1780: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.

          North Carolina 1776: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

          Pennsylvania 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

        3. Kentucky 1790: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

          Rhode Island 1842: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Tennessee 1796: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.

          Vermont 1777: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

          Virginia 1776: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

          1. Every single one of those refers to collective defense. The right to bear arms is an inherently martial concern. It is not about shooting hoodlums on your lawn. It is also irrelevant in the 21st century.

        4. your moral compass point toward psychopath. Thank you for so clearly illustrating the dogmatism to which I referred.

          Says the guy that fellates Obama for routinely blowing up brown kids and throwing people in jail.

    2. Dogmatism of gun control, on the other hand…

      1. Reasonable steps toward restricting access to machines of mass destruction is not dogmatism but the most basic form of practicality in law and order.

        You guys paint ant diluted measure of practicality advocated by your opponents as dogmatism, for the pointless, hollow purpose of trying to convince us that at least they’re as stupid and insane as you.

        1. Reasonable steps toward restricting access to machines of mass destruction

          Really? You earnestly wrote that drivel without the slightest hint of irony?

          1. “Reasonable”

          2. Good Onion article on this debate, it replaced instances of the word “gun” with “metal machines that fire metal pellets at high speed” in brackets.

            If it was a bomb you would not advocate 2nd amendment rights to maximum access. Because of the way this machine happens to be shaped, you bestow upon it a magical status. The only thing being talked about by any politician being banned are machines whose design serves the sole purpose of killing human beings in large quantities.

            1. Because of the way this machine happens to be shaped, you bestow upon it a magical status.

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*breathes*AHAHAHAHAHA

            2. Because of the way this machine happens to be shaped, you bestow upon it a magical status. The only thing being talked about by any politician being banned are machines whose design serves the sole purpose of killing human beings in large quantities.

              Absofuckinglutely speechless.

            3. The Machete has been used to kill many, many human beings. Should we outlaw all metal sharp pointy weapons of mass destruction to human things?

              We should probably outlaw cars while we are at it. They kill a whole lot of people. If you just replace the word car with “massive metal explosion driven human body crushing slug” maybe we can get cars outlawed?

          3. He probably cut and pasted it from his favorite leftard propaganda outlet.

            -jcr

        2. And is there any proof those “reasonable steps” toward “restricting access” have any effect of murder rates? Vermont, New Hampshire, and Wyoming have three of the four lowest gun homicide rates, and all have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. Utah, Idaho, Maine, and South Dakota are also in the bottom ten lowest gun homicide rates despite also having some of the loosest gun laws. Several states with strict gun laws have among the highest gun homicide rates. That seems to indicate that level of gun control isn’t a big factor in determining homicide rates

          1. Those states also have low population density. Population density is the biggest correlated variable to crime rates.

            1. That may well be true, and it doesn’t contradict anything I said. Gun control has little to do with gun crime rates or crime rates overall. But to give an example of a high population density area with low crime, El Paso has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country (and lower than many cities in Europe) despite being a state with lax gun laws

              1. El Paso has a lot of Mexican, which recent posters have assured me only come to America to get welfare and rape white women.

                El Paso is a miracle.

                1. Do you have any idea how much CO2 is produced by the average illegal immigrant?

                  1. I’m sure it pales in comparison to the hot gases emitted by the garden variety Reason comment section nativist.

                    The lonus wackinus in a strange environment, as it were.

            2. Those states also have low population density. Population density is the biggest correlated variable to crime rates.

              How does the ratio of person/fried chicken restaurants correlate?

              I don’t know but it might give population density a run for its money!

          2. Gun prohibition would probably be just as successful as alcohol prohibition, and drug prohibition. Let’s push the gun trade into the shadows of an underground market. What could go wrong?

    3. From one my FB posts to another pro-gun control argument:
      It’s pretty sad, horrible price to pay in the short term, but in the long term, it’s worth it. We won’t have to use arms to stop a tyranny because one will never form, at least not in the sense we’ve ever seen.

      The US has had no tens of millions dead after a holocaust, no hundreds of thousands to millions dead due to ethnic cleansing, no Tiananeman Square etc.

      If every 20th Jew had a (real) military style firearm, would the Nazis have come close to the death toll that was seen? Would the Chinese have dared roll tanks into Tiananemen square if every 10th or 20th Chinsese citizen was armed? Would North Korea be able to treat its people as such if just 5% were armed? How about all the people in Africa where the military steals the food aid that should go to them?

      Think of it in US terms. Would the US ever roll tanks down Times Square or the Las Vegas Strip in order to show that the government was now in charge? Would US troops every go door to door looking for whatever group was considered undesirable? No, they wouldnt’ survive.

      Applying our gun control proposals to the past means that only the Nazis and SS could have guns, the Jews could not. How does one defend that proposal?

      All of the very rare mass shootings of the last 20 years put together barely equal some of the smaller tragedies where governments killed their own (disarmed) citizens.

      It’s a shit price to pay, but it’s far better then the alternative.

      1. Very importantly, you have to be sure your argument sells. When 20 children are shot, people may not look to the statistics and weight them hyperrationally against the liberty of unrestricted gun access. Not that a rational weighing would remotely resemble the maximal imbalance you think it does.

        Part of practicality is giving a little so that the rest of us don’t demand a lot. It’s a fundamental reality of politics in democratic societies. It’s a universal quality of dogmatism that it doesn’t recognize the options of practicality and compromise.

        There is no evidence that supports the idea that more people with guns means more safety. Quite the opposite, if you define safety as “people not dying.”

        But what a beautiful nonsense you’re really offering: “If only the Nazis allowed the Jews to have guns…” If only the Nazis didn’t hate Jews!

        1. Thanks for admitting so cleanly that ‘might makes right’ and ‘ride the emotional wave’ are your ilk’s SOP.

          1. Might and emotion are realities of the world. We can’t say how we want to world to be unless we acknowledge how the world is.

            1. Thanks I’m more than aware of that fuckstick. I just don’t try to use those things to justify authoritarian nut punches like you do.

            2. Might and emotion are realities of the world.

              Might and emotion may be the reality for the slack-jawed cretins who make up your social circle, unlike you, some of us actually live in communities made up of human beings, and not pieces of shit, like you.

              1. The violent bigotry you shart all over the place suggests I am not the cretin here.

        2. There is no evidence that supports the idea that more people with guns means more safety. Quite the opposite, if you define safety as “people not dying.”

          Tony, this is the result of gun control laws .

          Do we want what happened to Jon Hammar to happen here?

          1. Jon Hammer. Jeez, I thought you said Jan Hammer.

            1. Not to be confused with Sleddgehammer.

        3. Part of practicality is giving a little so that the rest of us don’t demand a lot. It’s a fundamental reality of politics in democratic societies. It’s a universal quality of dogmatism that it doesn’t recognize the options of practicality and compromise.

          Where the fuck is Tulpa?

          EXACTLY what I was arguing the other day. The second you agree to a “rational discussion about sensible gun restrictions” you will be expected to compromise.

          “The rules of compromise stipulate that we should meet half way…so we’ll only ask you give up half of your rights.” “oh er…until the next incident…when we’ll ask you to give up half of your remaining rights.”

          No, fuck You, the shooter is solely responsible for his actions.

          1. You said that line like 30 times in the thread last night, yet the liberals apparently weren’t intimidated and are still calling for “compromise” (meaning they get everything they want). So your own strategy of repeating the dogma over and over doesn’t seem to be working.

            I don’t see what you hope to accomplish by repeating that, since leftists will just repeat exactly what Tony said in response. And they’ll look like the rational ones to the apathetic/moderate people who drive policy.

            1. Yeah, but the liberals didn’t gain any ground either, so his strategy worked just fine.

              I don’t see what they hope to accomplish by repeating the same demands when people like FdA will just repeat the 2A in response. And he’ll look like the consistent one to the knowledgeable people who enact laws and or rule on Constitutionality. (I FIFY’d the entire 2nd paragraph there in case you were wondering)

              1. And they’ll say that a 225-year-old piece of paper about muskets is not as important as saving children’s lives.

                1. And they’ll be wrong on a practical as well as Constitutional basis.

            2. No, fuck You, the shooter is solely responsible for his actions.

              1. So you don’t hold BO and Holder responsible for the murders where F+F guns were used?

                1. I hold them responsible for the myriad federal laws they broke by intentionally giving guns to known criminals, illegal aliens that are not eligible to purchase guns from a FFL dealer and for violating the sovereignty of Mexico by introducing guns to their nation and granting safe passage of known criminals with the guns across the border, but I do not hold them responsible for the murders.

                  They aided and abetted the murderers. And there’s a crime for that.

                  1. They aided and abetted the murderers.

                    All they did was allow straw purchases and border crossings (neither of which doctrinaire libertarians think should be illegal, btw) to occur. They didn’t transport the guns to Mexico and didn’t provide the funds for the purchases.

                  2. Don’t get me wrong, I’m furilous about F+F, but that’s because of the LAO portion of my name, for which I am condemned in these parts. I don’t believe in open borders or totally uncontrolled firearm sales.

      2. Would US troops every go door to door looking for whatever group was considered undesirable? No, they wouldnt’ survive.

        Mr. Korematsu begs to differ with you. 🙁

        1. Gun control laws often target minorities.

          Funny, that.

          1. Gun control in America literally started to keep newly freed slaves in their place.

            1. Funny that we’ve come full-circle in that it now exists to put newly enslaved men in their place.

    4. The guns that killed these children were legally acquired.

      Not by the shooter, they weren’t. He stole them from his mother, you stupid fucking asshole. You’re just as bad as the President and his wannabee-rights-stripping speech tonight. Trying to use an incident like this to score political points is despicable. You are scum.

      1. If it would advance their political agenda, Tony and his ilk would, without compunction, dig up those kids and sexually defile their rotting corpses.

        1. They have no limits. They don’t even know or need to know when they are being mendacious lying psychopaths. More Orwell than Orwell.

      2. Yes, and it’s also illegal for anyone under 21 to possess a handgun. Not sure about CT’s laws re: the bushmaster.

        1. Yes, and it’s also illegal for anyone under 21 to possess a handgun.

          ????

          That varies from state to state. IN issues concealed carry permits to 18 year olds, for example. This got one in trouble in KY, which requires 21, due to the reciprocity agreement and whether it still applied to 18-20 year olds.

          1. And even in KY, which requires you to be 21 to get a CCDW, mere possession is legal at 18, as its in the bill of rights. Im not even sure if 18 is required, to be honest.

          2. Ah, I was confused. Federal law prohibits handgun sales to persons under 21 if the sale involves an FFL. Possession and transfer in a private intrastate sale or gift is allowed at 18 or over.

    5. Law-abiding people shoot themselves and others all the time.

      “Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?”

      1. Law-abiding people shoot themselves and others all the time.

        You don’t want to know what backyard swimming pools do.

        1. all the time

          More like, “on occasion”.

    6. In the last 15 years, the US has substantially reduced gun control (end of the assault weapons ban, general move to shall-issue CCW permits, Supreme Court decisions versus DC and Chicago).

      In the last 15 years, the UK has doubled down on gun control, with the post-Dunblane Massacre crackdown on handguns the centerpiece.

      Results? Gun violence in the US has declined by a third; gun violence in the UK has doubled.

      Gun control is positively correlated with gun violence.

      And still dogma-blinded idiots like you call for more of it, no matter how many people it kills, you stupid fuck.

    7. You really are an insufferable cunt, sockpuppet.

    8. Law-abiding people shoot themselves and others all the time. The mere presence of guns means more people die in situations in which they otherwise wouldn’t. The guns that killed these children were legally acquired.

      Yeah, killing someone and then stealing their guns is lawful acquisition.

  3. I thought the presser was to announce that RA Dickey is going to the Blue Jays.

  4. Gun laws and regulations make it more difficult for everyone to get guns, including criminals and (far more importantly ) crazy people.

    1. Does being incredibly short make it difficult for you to get laid, joe? Why yes, it makes it impossible. So why don’t you go fuck yourself so that you get some action at least.

      1. It’s funny, according to the lefty stereotype a tiny penised, short statured, sexually inadequate guy like joe should have a goddamn arsenal of guns.

        What gives, joe?

        1. joe has his arsenal. He doesn’t want YOU to have one.

    2. citation please

    3. No they don’t. There was nothing in this clown’s past that would have prevented him from buying a gun. And even if there had been, that would not have prevented his mother from buying and owning them. So regulations would have not prevented this. So stop lying and pretending they would have you vile little fascist midget.

    4. Tell that to Mexico. And before you chime in with “they’re coming from the States”… just as many flow in from the south of Mexico as do from the North.

      The key here to take from this is that criminals ALWAYS find ways to get guns. Laws don’t stop them. The only thing gun control laws do is trample liberty in a vain attempt to make criminals “obey the rules.”

      Reminds me of the “ambush” training in “Heartbreak Ridge”…

      “This is the WRONG ambush site!”

      “You’re not supposed to have a gun!”

      1. The EU has very little gun crime, so apparently you can keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

        Of course, EU criminals just use knives, clubs, and brute force, which the average law-abiding citizen is even less capable of countering.

        1. But which are far, far less deadly on average than guns.

              1. You first, Mr. “Unsupported Allegation”

              2. In 2011, 323 people were killed by people using rifles of all types. These would include bolt actions, lever actions, pump actions, and semi-automatics, which are commonly mislabeled as “assault weapons”.

                1,694 were killed by knives.
                496 were killed by blunt objects.
                728 were killed by hands and feet.

                So knives, clubs, and brute force are far more deadly than the dreaded “assault rifle”, at least according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

                1. That’s not what Tony was claiming; he was claiming that the likelihood of a gun attack resulting in death is higher than that of a knife attack resulting in death.

                  I would say that’s probably right, but irrelevant. Just because a crime doesn’t result in death doesn’t mean we should tolerate it.

                  1. Precisely. The only category of violent crime we have more of then the UK is murder. They have more rapes, more robberies, more assaults. I’d argue the major reason for this is that while the drug trade in Europe is more tightly controlled by well establishes underworlds, here in America it’s very much a competitive market, with various groups competing for turf. Which leads to murder.

                    Honestly, if legalized all drugs you’d say a staggering drop in the homicide rate.

          1. Per incident, maybe, but if banning guns lead to more incidents, it could offset the gains.

        2. “The EU has very little gun crime, so apparently you can keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

          The former does not meant the latter is true. There are several US states with gun homicide rates similar or lower than the EU despite very free gun laws. And there are plenty of places with gun control and high gun homicide rates

          1. Those tend to be low population density areas, which have low rates of all kinds of crime.

            My point was, if you have an entire continent with strict gun laws (and this includes Switz) you can make smuggling very difficult. I’m certainly no fan of Hizzoner Bloomberg, but he is correct that it’s easy to move a gun from PA to NYC without being detected.

            The flip side of that is that criminals don’t need guns when they know their victims will not have them.

            1. I wish more of the retards braying for gun control/elimination would get that through their thick, troglodyte skulls.

            2. I’m certainly no fan of Hizzoner Bloomberg, but he is correct that it’s easy to move a gun from PA to NYC without being detected.

              NYC is located on a bunch of islands. Hizzoner can not place cops at the bridges to check for guns?

              1. If he’s gonna say fuck the 2A, he might as well say fuck the 4A as well.*

                *Not that he’s not already doing so with Stop & Frisk.

        3. Er, the EU is full of Europeans, at least at present.

          Places in the US with similar demographics have similar rates of gun crime, despite guns being readily available.

          And they still have crazy people massacring people there.

          1. Places in the US where whites are the large majority (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by demographics) are also low population density. Of course their crime rates are going to be lower.

        4. Most of the EU had very little gun crime before they passed gun control laws.

          There are practically no instances where passing new gun control laws had any affect on long term homicide rate trends.

    5. Isn’t it already illegal for criminals to get guns, Joe? Last time I filled out a background check it was.

    6. Gun laws and regulations make it more difficult for everyone to get guns, including criminals and (far more importantly ) crazy people.

      Right, just look at those havens of safety that are the south side of Chicago and DC!

    7. You’re an idiot and a liar Joe.

    8. You know what we need? A national database that contains the names of the mentally ill, their family members, and whether those family members are working at a public school or daycare. Then we limit the family members from working at a public school or daycare.

      Already a teacher? Too bad. Go find another job where you don’t put the children at risk.

      Applying for a job in a public school? Fuck off. Your cousin was depressed once; therefore, you are putting children at risk.

      That way, Derider, we will limit school tragedies.

      1. How about just interning or euthanising the mentally ill?

  5. Well, in Burrough’s defense, all parties involved agreed to play “William Tell.”

    1. He was supposedly a really good shot too.

      Well, except for that one time.

      1. Alcohol does tend to impair fine motor coordination.

          1. Horse tranquilizers too.

  6. I don’t support taking guns away from aspies or their relatives. People who put their finger on the trigger while not looking where the gun is pointed, like Burroughs is doing here, are another matter.

    1. But what does it matter if you have your finger on the trigger when love is in control?

  7. Remember kids when using dead children to advocate for government control, you are under no obligation to make any showing that the control would have made any difference to said dead children because we must do something.

  8. Clinton kapernick sucks. And Brady isn’t so great when you hit him.

  9. If hasn’t already been posted.

    http://www.kgw.com/news/Clacka…..93571.html

    1. And no one will ever hear about this.

    2. Someone with a weapon stopped a shooting at a law school a few years ago as we’ll. In Switzerland people have full on assault rifles in their homes as part of their service in the army reserves.

      1. What’s an “assault rifle”

        😉

        1. “Assault rifle” is a legitimate term. It’s a select-fire, magazine-fed, lightweight rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. The term comes from the Sturmgewehr-44.

          “Assault weapon” is the BS term, and is mostly defined by whatever makes a politician fill his pants.

    3. Thank you.

  10. Tony – “Dogmatism is the central intellectual problem”

    Of Tony. Thanks for illustrating for everyone again, shithead.

    1. Golf clap for projection detection.

  11. Excellent find. Thank you.

  12. I literally – LITERALLY – cannot listen the El Presidente any more. (he’s now joined Sean Hannity, Jennifer Granmole and others – congratulations!)

    I shut off the TV as soon as I saw he would be speaking. I knew he’d just be even more dangerous in a second term, and it’s already starting.

    Congratulations, America!

    PS Picked up Mrs. Almanian’s Christmas present yesterday – a Smith and Wesson. Decided then and there I’m getting two more guns – small for concealed carry – before the inevitable ban of some sort is imposed. Think I’ll pick up an AR and an AK, too, before the inevitable reinstitution of the ban on “assault” weapons, whatever those are (but we know AR’s and AK’s definitely are).

    Fucking liberal cocksuckers. Worse even than the KULTUR war conservitards.

    1. I don’t know how anyone listens to that vile cocksucker.

      1. John, I LITERALLY shut off the radio or TV now when he comes on. Then, if I decide to look for something else, I turn it back on and search. But I cannot stand to hear his voice and sibilant S’s any more. I despise him even more than BOOOOOOOOSH, and that takes some doing.

        1. I do the same.

          1. And turn on FOX.

            1. The sock puppet said FOX News. Dead children not only make him happy but original too

            2. …projected Choney, who gets all his information from MSNBC and PBS.

            3. HaHa, yeah tony!

              More like FAUX news, huh? HAHA

              You showed them man!

        2. The problem with that is that if you want to watch something else you have to turn the TV back on to the channel where he’s speaking before you can switch it.

          1. exactly….it’s horrid and disturbing

          2. I’ll let you in on a little trick: Turn the cable/Dircetv box on first and hit the channel up button a few times before turning on the tv set. Works every time.

            1. That’s an excellent point.

    2. And I think we’ll make the AR and AK both 7.76 to cut down on ammo complexity.

      Glad I’m into reloading, plus picked up a couple thousand rounds of ammo yesterday.

      “Don’t Tread on Me”, fuckers…

      1. Paranoid idiot lunatic.

        Seriously that’s how you sound to normal people.

        1. Derp derpety derp un-self-aware dogmatist. That’s how you ARE, Choney. Go fuck yourself. I’m responding to reality. You’re…a moron responding to the voices in your head.

        2. Seriously that’s how you sound to normal people.

          And toney would know!

          1. “Normal people” meaning people in Tony’s little social bubble that agree with him.

            I’d bet good money that Tony has never been more than 50 miles away from his birthplace for an extended period of time.

            1. Little social bubble = Facebook

        3. Normal people who cry for FEMA whenever the supermarkets are closed for three days?

          1. Who do you cry to when your wifi goes down for three days?

            1. Don’t you have some ammonia soaked rags to clean with chlorine bleach, Choney?

            2. You clearly needed more than two minutes to come up with a witty response, Tony.

              Next time, take your time and do it right.

          2. lulx for Tulip!

        4. Seriously that’s how you sound to normal people.

          And you want to know how normal people sound to us? They sound like this

          1. To be fair, some people sound like this.

            1. Speaking of goats, arguing with Tony reminds me of this masochistic goat which repeatedly licks an electric fence.

      2. It’s funny that all these people spend all this time advocating for gun control, and when you say you’re stocking up because of possible legislation you’re called paranoid.

        1. I like how they always want to have a conversation about guns like we haven’t been debating gun control since the 11930s. Here is some conversation; go fuck yourselves.

          1. since the 11930s.

            Who are you, George Wells?

          2. The conversation is ongoing, and a majority of people want more access to firearms. To them, it seems like some sort of conspiracy perpetrated by the evil and nefarious NRA.

            Their insular nature and Kaelian refusal to imagine people they don’t know feeling differently than they do really shines through.

            1. Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me 🙂

            2. It does. To them conversation means them finally not getting their asses handed to them on the issue.

              1. I think it’s framed as “conversation” because then it sounds like they’re not pushing for anything and are just sincerely interested in getting information to form an opinion with.

                But we all know no conversation is going to change their opinions.

                When did this “conversation” euphemism begin? The first time I remember hearing it was Hillary’s campaign announcement in 2007, where she introduced her candidacy for prez as a “national conversation”.

              2. I must say, there was something refreshing in how quickly the online “conversations” initiated by the proggies ended very rapidly with them blocking me and deleting my responses.

                Interestingly, they found arguments that moved them out of their comfort zones in considering their premises to be “offensive”. Literally, they wanted the conversation to be one way hectoring.

                I think the conversation they want is among themselves. Good riddance I say.

                1. Stand there, shut up, and listen to me have this conversation with you!

      3. And I think we’ll make the AR and AK both 7.76 to cut down on ammo complexity.

        Don’t you mean 7.62? 😉

        Also, 7.62×39 is a poor choice. Most of it is imported, which means it is easy to cut off. Since 5.56 is NATO standard and most police departments run it in their guns due to getting DoD hand-me-downs, it is far easier to come by, and raiding for resupply would be more feasible.

    3. I doubt a ban is going to happen. I hope El Presidente tries and gets burned.

      1. Not taking any chances. I trust no politician any more. They’ll make a grab for power at the stroke of a pen – and too many sheep are letting them.

        I’m getting in front of it, now.

        1. Good call. Hey can you buy some extras for your Canadabros? We have it worse and if we ever need to overthrow our government we’ll need your gear. We can pay you in drugs and poutine.

          1. Canada has no right to bear arms or to private property. The politicians can come in and fuck you here even more easily than down there.

            Canada is a socialist country. The individual perpetrating the crime is never at fault, it is always somebody else. Self responsibility does not compute here.

            If someone were to break into your house, if you shoot him and kill him you will likely be charged with murder. Far too many bleeding heart progressives up here.

    4. Instead of buying whole guns, I’d advise buying a bunch of stripped lowers. And a shitload of pmags.

      1. This is also an excellent idea, GBN. I’m doing that for 1911 platform 🙂

  13. Justice Dept. Shelved Ideas to Improve Gun Background Checks

    For example, the study recommended that all agencies that give out benefits, like the Social Security Administration, tell the F.B.I. background-check system whenever they have made arrangements to send a check to a trustee for a person deemed mentally incompetent to handle his own finances, or when federal employees or job applicants fail a drug test. It also proposed setting up a system to appeal such determinations.

    Although advocates for gun rights and privacy protection would probably object to the sharing of such information among agencies, the Justice Department concluded such activity would be lawful and appropriate.

    […]

    Most of the proposals, though, were shelved at the department a year ago as the election campaign heated up and as Congress conducted a politically charged investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case, according to people familiar with the internal deliberations.

  14. That’s an insult to honest people.

    Congress is an insult to honest people.

  15. Also, I have a real issue that mom’s guns apparently were so easily gotten. However, since I’m avoiding all further reporting on this incident (the better to control my own blood pressure), I guess I won’t know what the deal is. Ah well…doesn’t really matter in the end.

    Again, thoughts and prayers to the affected community, fuck El Presidente and the Brady Bunch, and way to suck donkey balls again, Detroit Lions. I think that covers everything…

    1. If my child were murdered, the last thing I would want is some fuckhead politician of either party showing up to campaign on my kid’s body.

      1. I have absolutely nol idea how I’d respond, and I hope desperately I never find out.

      2. “If my child were murdered, the last thing I would want is some fuckhead politician of either party showing up to campaign on my kid’s body.”

        It made me feel kinda sick to see that, too. But then it kinda feels like 9/11.

        It felt weird seeing the players in the games today with stickers on their helmets…and that made me think of 9/11.

        This was like a mini-9/11. And it seems to me that just like the Bush Administration used 9/11 and the anthrax attack to justify infringing on all sorts of our civil liberties, so Obama and the Democrats are about to use this tragedy to infringe on some of our other liberties.

        I wish the people on the left who claimed to hate the Bush Administration for using 9/11 as a justification to violate our civil rights–would see that Obama or any other politicians using this tragedy to justify harming our rights is the same thing.

        Every time they promise us more security if we give up more of our freedom, we always seem to end up with no more security than we had before. There isn’t anything about taking my guns away that’s about to make me any safer from lunatics, that’s for sure.

        1. I would be surprised if this went very far:

          The fiscal cliff looms, and once the last funeral is held, there is no immediacy to keep it in the news. There will be speaking tours from some grieving family members to keep the heat on, but the only places I think this will play with are the suburbs in places where the guns are already largely outlawed.

          I think that in the end a bunch of noise will be made, but it will not get very hard unless Boehner pussies out… Oh shit.

          1. If Boehner endorses an AWB that’s the end of his Speakership. De facto if not de jure. He would completely lose control of the GOP in the House.

    2. The mom’s sister said she was a “doomsday prepper”, who had turned her house into a fortress, and brought the kids to the range with her to practice using the guns for the end times. If that’s true, the “kids” (24 and 20, btw) would presumably have had access to the house firearms.

      I’m taking that cum grano salis, considering I can imagine how my own (extremely leftist and virulently anti-gun) sister would describe my own gun possession.

  16. “Given his awful personal record with gun violence, I’m not sure that Bill Burroughs is the best source when it comes to talking about the topic.”

    That might make him uniquely qualified to talk about the topic!

    Why should the rest of us have our rights infringed–just becasue of Burroughs’ nutty behavior?

    Who better to say that than Burroughs?

    The solution to some nut job indiscriminately shooting children is not to make the rest of us helpless in the face of home invasions robberies and rapists.

    1. “Given his awful personal record with gun violence, I’m not sure that Bill Burroughs is the best source when it comes to talking about the topic.”

      What happens in Mexico stays in Mexico.

      1. I thought he shot her in New Orleans then fled to Mejico.

        *googles*

        1. I think he shot her in Mexico City and then fled to the U.S.

          He was in Mexico avoiding a drug charge.

  17. I have no problem with gun-free zones on private property (as long as it’s up to the property owner), but when people are on public property, their 2A rights should be the same as if they were on their own property.

    It’s our nation, making public property our land. People should be free to defend themselves on our land.

    1. Not this conversation again. Public property is managed by the local or other government on behalf of the people. Allowing each individual to treat public property as their own is a recipe for disaster.

      1. I’m not saying they should treat it as their own. I’m just saying their natural rights should be guaranteed on it as if it was their own.

        Do you also support abandoning 1A or 4A rights in public spaces? If so, why? If not, what is the difference?

        1. In certain public spaces there are overriding concerns. Courthouses, airports, schools, etc.

          When there’s a human right involved, of course, the govt better have a very strong and provable reason for restrictions of that right.

          1. Courthouses are the only one you listed that should be a public space.

            And I dont see an overriding concern with either of those.

          2. When I lived in Virginia, I used to be able to carry my handgun into the gallery of the House of Delegates or State Senate. I even did once when Gov. Allen was giving a speech. There was never an incident there, and those are legislators.

            As far a courts go, that would and should be up to the judge to set rules of conduct for his courtroom. Also, your 1A and 4A Rights are strongly restricted in courthouses. And that’s wrong.

            Airports and schools, if they are publicly owned, should be open carry zones for anybody that has business in them. Since schools have a specific purpose, only people that are supposed to be there should be there, however their rights should be secure when they are. As far as airports go, people should be able to open carry except in boarding areas. Those boarding areas, in my opinion, should be the responsibility of the airlines operating them since they are leased, and anyone entering should adhere to their security rules, since they are no longer on public property.

            1. Regardless, the framers understood that freedom entails risk.

              People used to get upset at me around here for saying that Al Qaeda was gonna have to do a lot worse than 9/11 before I was willing to give up any of my constitutional rights–especially when I called out everybody who was willing to sell their constitutional rights short for the promise of a little more security.

              I haven’t said the same thing yet because there hasn’t been anything officially proposed in response to this yet, but the same argument applies.

              People who sell their constitutional rights short out of fear are cowards. No matter what Bush said. No matter what Obama says either.

              1. Freedom does entail risk, but where the danger is great it makes sense to accept *small* restrictions. Sorry, the restrictions we’re talking about here are tiny. The vast majority of people with business in an airport terminal are either coming from or going to an airplane. There is little reason for them to have a gun for the couple of hours they’re in the airport since the gun isn’t allowed on the plane (though I’m fully expecting some nutjob to say we should allow guns as carry ons on planes). And of course I’m not talking about unloaded, encased guns that are being transported as checked items.

                1. First, airports should be private property, owned and operated independent of government, so the argument should be a moot point. But since they’re not, they should be treated as public property. And just because “the vast majority” people are there to fly to or from it doesn’t mean the rights of all people should be affected. What if they have a really good restaurant at the airport I want to eat at? What if I like the shoeshine guy in a certain terminal? What if the Starbucks girl in the main terminal is smoking hot and likes to flirt? There are any number of reasons to go into or out of an airport that have nothing to o with flying.

                  As far as guns being allowed on planes, that should be up to the individual airlines. If people do not like their policies, they are free to travel on another airline with stricter/looser personal defense policies. And if you think they’re all too strict/loose in their policies, you should find like-minded people and start your own airline and capture that market share.

                  I only fly commercial for work because my company requires us to when we fly. Otherwise I’d fly charter or ask a friend to fly me when I go out of town and pay them an agreed-to fee. When flying for personal travel, I always charter or bum a ride with a friend and pay them cash for the fuel + a fee. (I usually drive unless I’m in a hurry and/or driving isn’t an option.)

                  1. First, airports should be private property, owned and operated independent of government, so the argument should be a moot point.

                    Not practical since most cities aren’t big enough to support multiple airports serving large planes. (the land needs are humungous, of course) You’d wind up with a private monopoly, which is even worse than a government controlled entity.

                    Most airports also wouldn’t have restaurants etc. if it weren’t for the security checkpoints creating a captive audience. Maybe a few truly huge ones would, especially at hubs, if land outside the airport was so far away that it was impractical to leave to go somewhere outside the airport.

                    1. Not practical since most cities aren’t big enough to support multiple airports serving large planes. (the land needs are humungous, of course) You’d wind up with a private monopoly, which is even worse than a government controlled entity.

                      Most major cities have multiple airports. What would prevent the airports from forming a sub-corp among themselves to purchase and develop the land for an airport? Or to purchase an existing one from the city that owns it? And I’ve yet to see a private monopoly worse than a government-controlled industry. Name one, please.

                      And most airports had restaurants long before the 9/11 security theatre was started, so don’t give me that bullshit. Many have restaurants both in and outside of the security checkpoints as well to accommodate people who conduct business at the airport but aren’t necessarily flying. Hell many have conference rooms to rent for travelers and non-travelers alike.

                      Have you ever been in an airport before?

            2. As far a courts go, that would and should be up to the judge to set rules of conduct for his courtroom.

              And you’re going to have metal detectors and security officers outside every courtroom? Or are you depending on the well-known deterrent effect of contempt of court rulings on dead people. Ditto for boarding areas in airports; you’re going to have to have massive amounts of security apparatus all over the airport or rely on the honor system.

      2. “Allowing each individual to treat public property as their own is a recipe for disaster.”

        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means that the government, specifically, cannot justly violate the right to bear arms.

        I’m not sure letting people carry on public property is like letting people treat public property as if it were their own.

        I think infringing on individuals’ right to carry on public property may be like treating the 2nd Amendment as if it isn’t a restriction on the power of government.

        1. Not that I have faith in the Supreme Court to uphold our rights.

        2. We don’t consider laws against perjury or death threats to be violations of the first amendment, because there’s a compelling public safety and justice system integrity concern there.

          If there are compelling public safety reasons for restricting carry in certain places (and those places should constitute a small minority of public property) then I’m OK with that. People carrying guns are much more likely to be dangerous to public safety than people speaking.

          1. “Some animals rights are more equal than others.”

          2. “We don’t consider laws against perjury or death threats to be violations of the first amendment, because there’s a compelling public safety and justice system integrity concern there.”

            The First Amendment doesn’t cover crimes like fraud and threats any more than the Second Amendment protects armed robberies.

            The First Amendment doesn’t cover crimes like the Second Amendment doesn’t cover crimes doesn’t mean the government gets to infringe on our First Amendment or Second Amendment rights before we commit a crime.

            If you want to convict someone of using their speech to commit a crime, then you need to take the criminal in front of jury–a jury of your “peers” specifically meaning a jury not made up of politicians or government officials.

            If you want to convict someone of using a gun to commit a crime, you need to do likewise–not make it a crime to own a gun.

            1. I was typing my response and accidentally hit refresh. I’m glad I did, as you put my thoughts more eloquently than I would have.

              +1

            2. Perjury and death threats are speech. Pure speech, just like criticizing of the president.

              Armed robbery isn’t pure keeping and bearing arms.

              1. Yeah, but you don’t ban speech to stop people from committing crimes with speech.

                That’s what the First Amendment is all about! It’s saying that the government may not prohibit free speech.

                Likewise, you don’t ban gun ownership to stop people from committing crimes any more than you prohibit speech to stop people from committing perjury or death threats either.

                There’s no difference there.

                Our rights don’t exist for society’s convenience. Our rights are actually incredibly inconvenient for the government. That’s why the government hates them so.

                1. you don’t ban speech to stop people from committing crimes with speech.

                  But the crime is the speech itself in those cases.

                  1. “But the crime is the speech itself in those cases.”

                    Perjury is a little weird, but it’s not the speech that’s the problem–it’s the obstruction of justice.

                    With Fraud, likewise, it isn’t the speech–it’s the stealing. Somebody gave you money they wouldn’t have given you if you hadn’t defrauded them with your speech.

                    With violent threats, likewise, it isn’t the speech. It’s the robbery. “Empty the cash register or I’ll shoot you” isn’t the problem–it’s using speech like that to rob or assault someone.

                    Guns are the same way. Having a gun isn’t a problem. Using a gun to commit a crime is a problem.

                    1. The speech IS the obstruction of justice in perjury. You can’t separate them.

                      Many death threats are not accompanied by any violence or extortion.

                      I didn’t mention fraud, though I think that some instances of fraud would fall under a literalist interpretation of the 1st. But I’m not going to die on that hill, I’ll present threats and perjury as my counterexamples.

                    2. “Many death threats are not accompanied by any violence or extortion”

                      All threats of violence involved the threat of violence…

                      I know, you want to subscribe to my newsletter.

                      Point is that assault is a crime. Using a gun to rob a liquor store isn’t okay so long as you don’t actually shoot anybody. Threatening to use the gun by itself is a crime.

                      The crime is really assault if you threaten someone regardless of whether you actually do anything violent. And whether you do it by way of your speech or by brandishing a gun, it’s still assault.

              2. On perjury, the speaking itself is not a crime, so their 1A rights are not infringed upon. If you don’t want to get charged with perjury, refuse to take the stand. And death threats should not be a crime unless the person making them also acts in some way.

                1. On perjury, the speaking itself is not a crime

                  Huh? The content of what you say determines whether you have committed perjury or not. And you can be forced to testify, so long as it’s not about something that incriminates you.

                  And death threats should not be a crime unless the person making them also acts in some way.

                  Well, ok if you believe that. I disagree.

                  1. “And death threats should not be a crime unless the person making them also acts in some way.”

                    Death threats can be a crime–but the crime is really “assault”.

                    “In law, assault is a crime that involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.”

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

                    It’s like different classifications of murder.

                    There’s 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, negligent homicide, … They all involve killing somebody. I see this as like that.

                    Making death threats is like another form of assault.

                    You can threaten people without speaking, but it makes it a lot easier to understand the threat if the criminal uses speech. Point is that whether he uses speech or just brandishes a gun, the criminal is basically assaulting you.

                    Assault with a deadly weapon is a crime. “Assault with speech” is a crime, too, but they don’t call it that. They call it “making terrorist threats” or something.

                    Again, the law correctly says you can’t use speech to commit a crime like assault just like the law says you can’t use a gun to commit a robbery…

                    But just because the law says you can’t use speech to commit a crime, that doesn’t mean the government can proactively prohibit you from speaking. And just because the law says you can’t use a gun to commit a robbery, that doesn’t mean the government can proactively prohibit you from owning a gun.

                    1. I don’t care what they call the crime associated with death threats. Assault, battery, harrassment, schwangdoodle, whatever. (In my limited experience with these matters, threats unaccompanied by immediate physical intimidation , such as threatening calls, have been prosecuted as harrassment rather than assault.)

                      It’s still a pure speech act that is punishable by law, whether accompanied by anything else illegal or not.

                      I mean, by the logic you’re presenting, if we make it a crime to cause people to distrust an elected official, doesn’t that open the door for making criticism of public officials illegal? In that case, one could argue that the critical speech is being used to commit the crime of sowing distrust.

                    2. “It’s still a pure speech act that is punishable by law, whether accompanied by anything else illegal or not.”

                      Boils down to two important distinctions.

                      Distinction 1: Convicting someone of a crime after it has been committed is not the same as the government prohibiting people who haven’t committed a crime from speaking or owning a gun.

                      Distinction 2: When someone threatens another person with violence, it isn’t really the speech that’s being punished–it’s the threat. You can make those violent threats with or without speech (brandishing), and the threats would still be an assault crime, either way.

                    3. Orders of protection often do forbid people from phoning another person, in part to prevent harassment and threats. Of course it’s much less practical to forcibly render someone unable to speak than it is to prevent them from gaining possession of a gun.

                      2. The speech is the threat. You can’t untangle them. Some threats are given without speech, yes, but that doesn’t mean that spoken threats aren’t speech. Again, I can sow distrust of elected officials without using speech…that doesn’t mean that spoken criticism of elected officials suddenly become something other than speech.

              3. They are speech, they arent free speech.

                1. Why aren’t they free speech?

                  1. If death threats weren’t made freely, they wouldn’t be a crime.

                    Death threats are free speech. It’s just that punishing people for the crime of assault in court (under the guise of making “terrorist threats”, etc.), doesn’t mean the government can prohibit people from speaking!

                    Similarly, the government cannot prohibit people from owning a gun. They can just prohibit using a gun to commit a crime. Just like they do with speech.

                    Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can’t be held responsible for what you say–if you use your speech to commit a crime. The right to bear arms doesn’t mean you can’t be held responsible for how you use your gun if you use your gun to commit a crime, either.

                    1. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can’t be held responsible for what you say–if you use your speech to commit a crime.

                      But this is begging the question. We were talking about “crimes” that are pure speech acts. What separates spoken perjury and spoken threats from spoken criticism of the government?

                    2. Hair splitters here! Get your hair splitters here. We’ve got left-handed and right-handed, forged steel, stainless steel and ceramic. These are so sharp that they’ll be able to cut even the finest of hairs right in half. Step right up and form a line. They’re going fast!

                    3. If you’re going to be a literalist, don’t complain when people split hairs.

                    4. Sloopy is one of them Follicle Challenged peoples, Tulpa. I’d some allow latitude here.

                    5. “What separates spoken perjury and spoken threats from spoken criticism of the government?”

                      Spoken perjury is obstruction of justice. Spoken threats are assault.

                      Criticizing the government is not a crime. Obstruction of justice is a crime, and so is assault.

                    6. And you’re again begging the question. Both perjury and threats are speech acts, nothing more.

                      If we define “causing people to distrust the government” as a crime, why can’t we then punish people for criticizing the government, because that kind of speech causes the crime of sowing distrust to happen?

                    7. “If we define “causing people to distrust the government” as a crime, why can’t we then punish people for criticizing the government, because that kind of speech causes the crime of sowing distrust to happen?”

                      There is a semantic issue there between what the government says is a crime and what a crime really is.

                      A real crime is unduly harming someone. The reason things like cultivating marijuana for your own use shouldn’t be a crime is because no one is inflicting any kind of harm on anybody except maybe on themselves, and even if people are hurting themselves, they’re doing it voluntarily.

                      It goes back to the difference between legal rights and our real rights. Whatever theory of rights the framers subscribed to, they mostly agreed that wherever our rights came from, they didn’t originate from the government. Hello, 9th Amendment!

                      Point is that the government can say what our rights are, but that doesn’t really determine what our rights are. Gay people have a right to get married whether the government recognizes it or not. Black people always had a right to vote whether the states in the South recognized it or not.

                      Violations of our rights are the same. The government can declare whatever it wants a crime–but that doesn’t make it a real crime. Assault is a real crime. Fraud is a real crime.

                      Criticizing the government is only a crime in some lawmakers’ heads. If it isn’t unduly harming someone, it isn’t really a crime.

  18. President Barack Obama said he came with “the love and prayers of a nation” as he spoke Sunday night in Newtown, Conn., at the vigil for those killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    Obama said the nation faces “hard questions” in the aftermath.

    “Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?” Obama said. “If we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough, and we will have to change.”

    Obama said that though there is no single law or set of laws that could prevent such tragedies, “that can’t be an excuse for inaction,” dismissing people who say the “politics are too hard. Are we prepared that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

    1. Well, that should have been a blockquote…

    2. LeadershiP?

    3. “Are we prepared that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

      If he’s gonna use language like that? Then I’m gonna say this:

      More than 30,000 Americans died last year from traffic accidents–and Barack Obama stood by and did nothing.

      Many of those who die every year are children! In fact, more children die every year in traffic accidents than died in this recent shooting spree.

      If Barack Obama does nothing about the traffic accidents, then am I to assume that he is prepared that so many deaths visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

      The correct answer is “yes”. Yes, Americans know that thousands of people die every year in traffic accidents, many of them children, and we accept that as the price of our freedom to drive a car.

      There are lots of things like that, actually.

      1. Barack Obama did something!

        The new CAFE standards will probably completely disrupt the auto industry. The number of passenger miles will collapse as people move to driving more electric cars with the attendant long reload times. The result? Immediate reduction in fatalities!

        That’s why he’s Fearless Leader, and we’re just mooses.

        1. How many thousands of children will die in or being hit by electric cars over the coming four years?

          And Barack Obama did nothing. He left people free to drive their cars anyway.

          He must not care whether those children live or die.

    4. President Barack Obama said he came with “the love and prayers of a nation”

      I don’t recall handing over my love or prayers to that monstrous nincompoop.

      1. Apparently we’ve added Pontifex Maximus to the list of presidential titles and doodies. 🙁

        1. No relation.

    5. Yes, in fact, it IS the price of freedom.

      And you are a depraved fuck stain to use the vigil of a bunch of dead children as a stumping post for your current pet legislation.

      1. Most Americans will say “fuck freedom” if you present it that way.

        1. That’s why I went with the traffic accident analogy.

          You starting to worry about how people perceive libertarians, Tulpa?

          You’ve come a long way, baby!

          1. I was never in the cunt clique.

            1. The Sandy Vagina Club however…

            2. I was never in the a cunt clique.

              /Tulpa

              (I keed! I keed!)

              1. Does my mom’s count?

                1. I bet your mom had a c-section just to start your streak off.

                  1. OK, Banjos is mad at me for that one. She said it was a bridge too far.

            3. I was never in the cunt clique.

              That’s really too bad.

        2. Good thing the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority, as they’ll never get enough support to overturn the 2A.

          And if they ever do, I guess I’ll just become an outlaw, because there’s no way in hell I’ll ever give up my right to defend myself and family.

          1. “But but but the 2a was about muskets and shit.” they’ll say!

          2. I guess I’ll just become an outlaw, because there’s no way in hell I’ll ever give up my right to defend myself and family.

            Lon Horiuchi is getting a boner just thinking of all the possibilities.

          3. You’re not going to be able to defend yourself or your family while you’re in jail.

            I support your right to bear arms, but I’m telling you, that right can for all intensive porpoises be taken away, with no repealing of the amendment necessary. The courts and govt can just ignore it. We must tread carefully.

            God made the angels to show Him splendor, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If He suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand to our tackle as best we can, and, yes, Meg, then we can clamor like champions, if we have the spittle for it. But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to such a pass. Our natural business lies in escaping.

            — Thomas More

            1. Thomas More also said, “You can have my blunderbuss when you pry it from my cold dead hands.”

              /badquoteblog

        3. Most Americans already say “fuck freedom”.

        4. Most Americans will say “fuck freedom” if you present it that way.

          It’s another symptom of the pussification of America.

        5. No doubt. It doesn’t change the truth of the statement.

      2. His Obamaship: “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage?”

    6. One thing we could do is have random mental health screenings to identify mentally disturbed people, and then intern or euthanise those who are mentally disturbed. This would have the least impact on our rights, since the only ones who would be interned or euthanised would be the mentally disturbed.

      What could go wrong?

      1. but that would stigmatize the mentally ill!

        1. That is a small price to pay for our safety.

      2. We’d lose Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

        1. I wouldn’t call it “losing” her.

          1. Now that’s mean. Just because every day is a bad hair day doesn’t mean she deserves no respect as a human being.

            1. Begging the question. Define “human being” in this context.

              Tests, at best, have proven inconclusive.

  19. Fuck, I really needed Hernandez to get a pass on that TD. I’m 15.05 pts back in the semifinals of the J sub D. My opponent is done and I’ve got Hernandez (NE) and Akers (SF) playing now and Kendall Wright up tomorrow. I’m starting to think I need a minor miracle.

    1. I made the playoffs in two leagues. Bunch of money on the table.

      Almost none of my players showed up.

      Victor Cruz? Absent.

      Roddy White? Absent.

      Jamaal Charles? Absent.

      I scored 149 points in standard scoring last week.

      Think I got less than 70 today. I can’t even make myself look.

    2. “I’m starting to think I need a minor miracle.”
      Depends on which 9er defense is on the field.
      If it’s the one that faced the Rams, you got it in the bag. If it’s the other one, you haven’t a hope.

      1. With Hernandez’ TD, I’m now down by 5.75 points. Shit this is gonna be close.

    3. Oh, and whining for a flag /= winning.

    4. Shiiiiiiiiiit. I’m 4.75 points back. I need something to happen now. I can’t rely on Kendall Wright to get those points even though he’s projected to get 5.23.

      1. OK, this could be good. If they go conservative and kick a FG, I’ll be inside of 2 points going into tomorrow.

        SHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTT, this is nerve-wracking.

        1. OK, if Akers kicks this SF will go soft and give up some yardage for clock, which means Aaron Hernandez in slop time FTW.

  20. Didn’t read all the posts; maybe this was posted earlier:
    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    Churchill. Certainly no champion of personal freedom, but no piker at making an apt statement.

    1. I thought that was Ben Franklin.

      1. Ya know, I just checked the source and I’m not sure.
        I know that asshole Churchill made a similar comment concerning Hitler and Chamberlain.
        And the 9ers are trying to hand the game back to the hated Pats…

        1. I usually assume that Winston Churchill, Einstein, Abe Lincoln, and Mark Twain never said anything. Because they each have way too many false attributions.

          1. “Half of the quotes on the internet are made up on the spot or misattributed.”

            /Thomas Jefferson

            1. whoa

          2. “You Can’t Believe Most of the Quotes You Read On the Internet” -Abraham Lincoln

            1. Shit. 3/4 of those guys were in Star Trek episodes. Weird.

    2. How about

      “There are too many laws, nowadays, for life to be lived naturally.” written by E. Phillips Oppenehim in 1917.

      If only he knew…

  21. “After a shooting spree,” author William Burroughs once said, “they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”

    Some people *always* want to take guns away from law abiding people. The shooting spree is just another rationalization for it.

  22. again and again

  23. and we’re tied!?!

    1. and we’re not again

  24. Here come the copycats!

  25. Anyone see this site?

    Brady Bunch’s newest propaganda site, Concealed Killer… queue dramatic music

    They count up all the people killed by those with carry permits/licenses. I like how they include justifiable killings and suicide, way to pad the numbers you fucks.

    I think that the use of suicides in gun killings is just about as dishonest as you can get with regards to cherry picked data.

    1. Agreed. It’s like linking kids with leukemia to “smoking-related cancer deaths”.

      1. Don’t laugh, that’s precisely what was done in UKR-landia.

        Which by the way, went into effect yesterday, which includes E-cigs, by the by. Russia has done introduced the same Soviet inspired legislation as well.

        Almost makes me want to start smoking again.

        1. are your MPs still brawling?

          1. They’ve calmed down a bit, in lieu of the aftereffects of the snowstorm. At its worst, Kiev got a metre of snow in two days, and that’s unheard of. Still hasn’t stopped the hooliganism of Svobodna lackeys, however.

            Kiev is still pretty much at a standstill, and we got hit with some more snow in Donets’k. I may have to reschedule some appts. because of it.

    2. A lot of them are accidental/negligent discharges, where the “conviction” was for manslaughter.

      1. Also, they used killings in states with constitutional carry as permit holders, like Loughner in Arizona. Such dishonesty. I thing they’d get further with the public if they weren’t so ambitious in their lies.

      2. Most of the incidents they mention in their big list also seemed to be
        1) Incidents that happened in the offender’s home
        2) The offenders and victims have close relationships…husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, neighbors, coworkers.

        None of these situations have anything to do with CCW, other than the offender just happened to have one. The permit did not ‘enable’ the crime. For that matter, the lack of a firearm would undoubtedly not have prevented these crimes either because the home is full of deadly weapons (kitchen knives for example).

        Only a handful of those incidents have anything to do with strangers, ‘out in public’ where a person having a CCW might have ‘enabled’ the crime.

    3. Why? Guns make committing suicide easier and more likely to be successful, just like they do all other types of killing.

      1. Because suicide threats aren’t threatening unless you have suicidal tendencies, and they know it?

  26. Worst onside kick ever.

    OK, I’m 1.05 pts back of Mr. Peanut with Kendall Wright still to go tomorrow. The winner will face Go Pack Go (Anyone know what he posts under?) in the finals.

    C’mon Kendall Wright!

    1. I think he’s “American”.

      1. I don’t think so. That fuck is a racist nincompoop. He is everything wrong with my beloved Republic, a mouth breathing retard. We have all crapped bigger then him, and his dick is smaller then joes.

        Clearly a Cowboys fan.

  27. The news people are going on about how Lanza had hundreds of bullets on him which means the attack could have been much worse. I’m mystified by this conclusion, since he would also have had to have primers, casings, powder, dies, and a press with him to use the bullets.

  28. I haven’t read this entire thread, but in case it hasn’t been brought up: Gun ownership in the United States has been a constant of the modern era; however, violent crime has declined to record lows. Even if you could prove, empirically, a causal link between a civil liberty and an unfortunate result, aren’t civil liberties supposed to be values protected even in the most extreme of circumstance? (Why else codify them in our Constitution as specially protected from the federal government?)

    Let’s not let the raw emotion of this sad tragedy allow us to confuse what’s reality. The liberty of self-defense like the liberties of speech, religion, and association must not be trampled by the hysteria caused by the sensationalized coverage of this horrific event.

    Are ever going to learn our lesson from the unfortunate consequences of the War on Drugs or the War on Terror?

    1. Are ever going to learn our lesson from the unfortunate consequences of the War on Drugs or the War on Terror?

      No.

      1. Note: The scenario doesn’t scare me. It irritates me, but I can live with it.

        It’s always seemed like the position of libertarianism is basically that of Camus’ Sisyphus. Horrifying tragedies and the push for restrictions will continue to occur, but we’re condemned to roll the boulder of freedom back up the hill for the rest of eternity.

        If such is the case, to paraphrase Camus, you must imagine Caleb happy.

  29. Gun Free Zones are a JOKE. Had jsut ONE single person at that school been armed, countless lives could have been SAVED! Gun free zones just make it easier for maniac criminals!

    http://www.Anon-ot.tk

  30. This gun free zone argument, is the argument I find most frustrating correlation is not causation. I think Criminals that want to live after their crimes, are less likely to strike people that might be carrying guns. but also less likely to do so in a large public filled area. suicide killers are likely looking for populations and headlines, maybe even hoping to be shot by cop or citizen as it saves the final action they were already willing to do. continuing to preach that you have to carry to be safe, leads to fear, fear leads to irrational behavior, like thinking you should have to carry death with you at all times in this very safe country. my proposal: serious look at drug law changes, would lower most of the gang crime in this hemisphere, which the fear of those shootings, leads to the fears that we need weapons. American gun mfg make lots of money selling death, our drug war causes cold war like escalations of weapons in this hemisphere. Seriously look at Legal drugs pushed on our nations children, there are appearing in many reviews to be a very strong correlation to mass suicide shooters and legally prescribed (likely over prescribed) Psychiatric drugs. I am not vouching this data, but is seems to be a needed review, which companies are putting money in politicians pockets to get the universal medicine dollars? http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07…..opic-drug/

  31. Leftist thought: “Might makes right. We must increase our own might and decrease the might of those who would resist, so that we may be more righteous and more correct.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.