At Least One Obama Showed Up


That link is fucked.
Was Rahm Emanuel there? Maybe whichever Obama attended could talk to him about why his city is full of lawless criminals and unregistered guns. Why isn't anyone criticizing Rahm Emanuel for protecting criminals?

Or maybe they could view this clip of Corey Booker telling us that in his tenure as Mayor of Newark only one homicide occurred with a legal, registered gun.

This past Friday night, Newark NJ Mayor Corey Booker appeared on Bill Maher's HBO show and the topic of guns and gun control arose. Despite being in favor of strong gun laws (the type that get guns off of city streets), Mayor Booker said: "Legal gun buyers are not causing murders in Newark and Chicago and other places". A link to the relevant dialogue is attached.

For those who only read, the Mayor said:

"To me, the data should drive our decision making. So I know, I’m not afraid of people having guns who are law abiding citizens. In the analysis of gun murders and shootings in my city, I could only find one in the entire time I’ve been mayor – and unfortunately there have been hundreds and hundreds – where a person who was involved in a shooting where they had their gun legally, where they legally acquired their gun. The guns that are causing carnage in our cities, my city and our country, every single year are acquired illegally."…
you ain't black.
I think that photo will be on her shrine as long as her family lives. So, more soothing and peaceful language was appropriate.
How about "Hadiya's violent, painful, and utterly unnecessary and preventable death

Because it's a funeral that has real members of the family mourning the child, but also celebrating her life. But hey, it's a free country, so maybe you should have shown up at the funeral carrying a sign with a photo of a shot up corpse.
The NRA's radical, extremist reinterpretation of the Second Amendment is what has politicized this shooting, and every shooting in America. Back before they erased the words "a well regulated militia", there were no political points to be made over the shooting of any child. Everyone who mattered agreed it was obviously intolerable. But now there's an opposition to that view, represented by a respectable, politically viable faction. Just a few decades ago, nobody could have imagined.
That link doesn't work, and even when you take out the "" part at the front, it goes to a Guardian article about the non-tipping Applebee's pastor.
I am sure she was shot by an NRA member and not some urban gang member.

Oh wow looks like SCOTUS disagrees with you, as do the writings of the founding fathers, but bigoted little fascist like Chicago Fan and yourself have no need for facts or historical precedent. Instead you stroke yourselves to the idea of denying this countries citizens their inalienable human rights while using the bodies of children as your political pawns.
"Fuck that polite euphemism. How about 'Hadiya's violent, painful, and utterly unnecessary and preventable death, which happened in no small part not just because of the NRA and the right-wing gun nuts, but because no one will stand up to them, including me and the rest of the Democratic Party.'"

Yes, because funerals are really about the opinions of unrelated people rather than for the family.
Maybe you could have been standing with Westboro Baptist Church on that one?

The NRA's politicized response is to move more product. Sell more guns to their paranoid base, sell even more guns to teachers, and sell still more guns to school guards. Sell, sell, sell. Pawns indeed.
Maybe Obama put it that way because he has an ounce of class?
Gun sales increased due to the threat of a ban by progressive politicians who are hoping to use the bodies of Sandy Hook students to promote their own anti-American values. The NRA did not increase gun sales, gun sales were increased due to the irrational outcries of people like yourself. I do have to thank you though, thanks to panic buying I am around $5000 richer and where there was one owner of detachable magazine fed gas operated semi-automatic rifles there are now six.
cascadian, you're just wrong. the original intent of the second a is shown in the state law cases about state constititonal individual rights to bear arms, in the 19th cnetury they ruled it's okay to ban an entire class or arms, like say, revolvers. so we can ban handguns today. like we can ban you from owning nuclear weapons, though they be arms duh. you have the right of free speech, but you are not free to day i do without us regulating that, and you are not free to say hey let's commit fraud without us regulating that, and you are not fee to say hey buy this stock without us regulating that. every right has its own limits and is not unlimited and to suggest any right is unlimited is simply stupid. property? if your house must be torched to stop the fire from consuming the town, the government can lawfully burn down your fucking house asshole. society has a right to exist and to have relative security. you know who's using his second amendment rights right now to fight for liberty after being vitimized by racism ? that enraged la pd cop down near big bear lake. you and him are of like minds i see, why don't you go join him and stand up for your crazy interpretation of the second amendment.

Congratulations on your Sandy Hook windfall. You must be so proud. You sure have me beat: I haven't made a dime off any dead kids. One of us doing it wrong, that's for sure.


Gun sales ALWAYS increase the moment NRA shills get on the media and start in with their Chicken Little rants that the big, bad gubbamint is about to come a-knocking on gun owners front doors - ANY MINUTE NOW, JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE! - and round up your grandpa's WW-II souvenirs and the family squirrel rifle.

Strangely, these NWO sanctioned, black helicopter confiscation actions NEVER take place, but NRA members have been so conditioned that their responses nowadays border on the Pavlovian: All the NRA has to do is say it's going to happen and it's almost like they can't stop themselves from buying up more guns and ammo, which of course is precisely what the gun manufacturers propping up the NRA desire.
your stupid post is detached from reality, chicago fan.
No one bothering to condemn the gun nut, violent hip-hop culture of our inner cities that is responsible for 50% of all gun murders?
14- you may not have made a dime, but I'd guess that it's ever so sweet business for the media when dead kid tragedies happen. Ka-Ching!
@18, it's obviously very lucrative for The Stranger, or they wouldn't be beating this dead horse the way they are.
@18 @19

I know! We need to crack down on Hollywood! We need to censor video games! Should news reporters really be allowed to bring their cameras to the scene of a shooting? They're only doing it to sell airtime to advertisers. And bloggers? Lock 'em up.

Funny how the First Amendment is so pliable while the Second is sacrosanct. You guys are so quick to throw free speech under the bus, but you squeal like little babies if anybody thinks about touching your guns. If tyranny ever does come to America, you gun nuts will be as useful as a football bat. As long as you have your guns, you don't give a shit about anybody's rights. You'd stand by and let civil liberties go right in the toilet for any tinpot dictator who let you feel big and bad with your assault weapons. Case in point, Saddam Hussein. You'd be happy as clams under a guy like that. Not an ounce of freedom but armed to the teeth.

And don't get me started on the hypocritical brand name gun product placement in the very video games that Wayne LaPierre is disingenuously condemning.

Fucking hypocrites.
@2: Are you really harping about gun registration? The NRA has blocked every attempt to make a registry of guns. If there was a national registry of guns that tracked the firearms from construction and through each sale, then there would be a serious crack down on people who sell these guns to criminals. Right now it is a mystery where the guns come from because there are no records.
@12 - "anti-American values". Ya know what? Fuck you and your egotistical belief that YOUR vision of the 2nd Amendment is the only true "American" way to view it. There are a LOT more people in this country that disagree with your simplistic viewpoint, as evidenced by the fact that the NRA only represents 1.3% of the US populace. You can continue to be the NRA shill that you are paid to be ($5K richer? good for you), but it IS going to change, so once again - FUCK YOU and your anti-Americanism. You are the minority, fuckwad
@12 $5,000 for 5 ARs? Sounds like you were robbed. From what I here the going rate for a decent AR-15 rifle is about twice that. Or do you mean you sold 5 ARs for $5,000 more than what you paid for them?
blame the NRA for inner city thug murderers.

classic liberal delusion.

you deserve the shitty hellhole you have created.

Hadiya did not, however.....

The Bill of Rights was specifically intended to protect minorities from the tyranny of a political majority. Since it seems you have poor reading comprehension I will remind you again that my view of the Second Amendment is confirmed by The Supreme Court decisions handed down in both Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago, as well as the writings of the founding fathers. To attempt to undermine any freedoms or protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights is anti-American, be it free speech, the freedom to assemble, the right to due process of law or the right to bear arms. Rights are RIGHTS and are inalienable regardless of how they hurt your widdle feelings of offend your delicate sensibilities.

I sold at a fair price considering the panic,and came out way ahead.

To be fair I now have less guns since all this shit started going on. Also IIRC California just introduced a bill that specifies gun confiscation, and New York's 7 round mag law and elimination of grandfathering has turned a whole swath of the states population in to criminals virtually overnight, and New York gun owners have vowed to resist.…
@20 hey man I hear ya. I was just pointing out that the media probably makes more money from dead kid stories than you do. BTW I Love your new little square picture. did you take that photo? and what is it, if you care to share? Ominous, nice.
The NRA is nothing more than a domestic terrorist organization. If Obama had balls he'd target their next convention with a drone strike or two. There I said what most of us were thinking.

Their faux claim of "protecting the second amendment" is a bunch of bullshit while they cover the asses of the arm dealers who kill our kids in their schools.

Thank you for showing your true colors and coming out as traitorous scum that would murder your fellow citizens for their political beliefs. Stalin would be proud.


It's neither here nor there, but consider also that while the TV news gets a ratings boost, Hollywood often has to delay release or re-shoot movies after an emotional event. Like the theater massacre scene in "Gangster Squad" after the Aurora killings. Numerous movies had to be changed after 9/11. It costs them millions, and the studios don't get any pity or sympathy from consumers for their sacrifice.

And of course conservative bloggers gets as much of a traffic boost as liberals when there's a big controversy.

So statements about "the media" getting rich off tragedy don't mean much: some media win, some lose, and some make money no matter what. Unlike the arms industry, which only stands to lose from peace, tranquility, equality, justice, and security. They profit from fear, hatred, violence and chaos. And the NRA works for them.
@25: intended to protect SLAVE OWNERS from their SLAVES, too.…

don't gloss over the nasty bits in genesis of our glorious bill of rights.

In honor of your dispassionate profiteering, I bestow the nickname "Five Large" on you, Mr. Cascadian "Five Large" Bacon, O ye who made $5,000 off the 20 dead kids at Sandy Hook.

Five. Thousand. Smackers. Yowza. You're a thosandaire now, Five Large! I could never have done what you did.
And gun control has it's roots in keeping African Americans from owning firearms.… So neither one of us should be glossing over history.

But I guess the real beauty of The Bill of Rights is that despite some of the shortcomings of the founding fathers, this document gives its Freedoms and protections to all Americans regardless of race/gender/religion etc. Because of the Bill of Rights we were able to abolish such heinous practices as slavery and work to see that all people receive equal protection under the law.

I would prefer to say that I made 5k off the bleating of "liberal" sheep attempting to push their agenda with the corpses of children.
@25 I don't think our weak gun laws have much to do with the 2nd amendment. There is plenty of room in the Hellar decision for stricter gun laws. The barrier to stricter gun laws is the influence gun nuts have on the legislative process. In a democracy where most citizens are apathetic and uninformed a small group of reliable voters can wield power disproportionate to their numbers, especially in midterm and primary elections.
Well isn't keeping politically informed, and participating in the political process and actually voting what democracy is all about yet you seem to be saying that "gun nuts" are somehow wrong for doing so.
@20: we may be in different sides of gun control in general, but I think we agree that the NRA's willingness to sacrifice the 1st amendment to preserve the 2nd is disgusting. Fuck those guys; they can't see the forest through the trees.
@32 Is it possible that the whole right to bear arms thing was something the founding fathers got wrong, CB? If you look around the world today you see plenty of stable democracies in which the right of the people to keep and bear arms has not only been infringed, it's been completely abolished. In Japan private ownership of firearms was almost completely abolished after WWII. Yet, those evil warlords have yet to make a comeback. Maybe a well regulated militia isn't necessary to the security of a free State in the way that Thomas Jefferson and Co. thought that it was?

Conservative and liberal bloggers are both 'the media' to me.

I don't see any media losing off of tragedy, a BIG win for them. Hollywood, to see it from your standpoint, is simply doing the right thing in those reshoots. Doing the right thing far outweighs their profits, shouldn't it?. Pity and sympathy is actually admiration as we get told and told of these reshoots, proving the "benevolent conscience" of Warner Bros. And they will likely use the misfortune to grow, the setback is a springboard to something better for them, just think of all the editing decision experience!

As for your list of Platonic Ideals, peace etc vs hatred etc. it's nice to be idealistic, but I believe that whole bunch will be with us for a long time in full force with or without the NRA.
@35 I try to refrain form making value judgements about other people's behavior in all but the most extreme circumstances. I'm more interested in understanding things than moralizing.
40- very cool, I like the misshapen aspect to those fields for the poverty kids. in contrast, i'll switch my picture to Capitol Hill's Miller Field. Rigid symmetry, the artificial grass, beautiful boys and girls playing on the 2 million dollar facility.…
@37 You don't want to mess around with the Bill of Rights, man. Those are the guarantees of our freedoms. You take one away and, by precedence, you can take all away. We have to keep that holy and live with it.
Regardless of the Constitutional issues, what proposed actions on firearms have anything to do with gang violence?

"Assault Weapons Ban"? How many "assault weapons" were used in the 500+ homicides in Chicago last year?

"Limited magazine capacity"? Does anyone really believe that a 10 round limit would have reduced the 500+ homicides in any way?

"Requirements/strengthening background checks"? Out of those 500+ homicides, how many of them used legally purchased firearms? Do you really believe that "closing" the 'gunshow loophole' will significantly reduce the amount of illegal weapons available?

Maybe the NRA opposes these things because they will be ineffective at combating the majority of gun violence in the USA. Maybe, gun owners who don't agree with the NRA (the NRA is a very very small portion of gun owners) also don't support these things because they will be ineffective at combating the majority of gun violence.

There are a lot of "gun-nuts" here. Why don't you ask them if they'd support things like a ban, or restrictions, on cheap handguns (You could put a $300 tax on all handguns selling for less than $500.) You could put that money towards anti-gang programs. Increased liability if a weapon you own is used in a crime, or accidentally by someone not authorized. Stronger penalties, or even just enforcing the existing penalties, on people that A) lie on the background check, B) make straw purchases, C) knowingly sell to criminals..etc..etc. How about requirements for education for potential gun owners, or existing ones.

I don't actually know how other people feel about it, but as a responsible gun owner, I'd support legislation that targeted the majority of firearm violence. I'd support legislation that targeted a majority of criminal users/owners rather than a majority of non-criminal users/owners.

Oh. And as far as the POTUS and the funeral goes - unless you expect the POTUS to start visiting 10,000 funerals a year, I'd have to say, a card from him is a hell of a lot more than most homicide victims get.

In reference to your third point regarding background checks and whether or not any of these crimes are committed using legally purchased firearms... I'm gonna defer to chicagofan here once again, since he's a good deal smarter than I am. Suffice it to say, your logic would seem to be quite short-sighted.

"... these illegal guns were all at one point or another legally purchased. Then they were stolen, or sold by straw buyers to gang-bangers. The argument that we must have legal guns to prevent the threat posed to the law-abiding by illegal guns is bullshit. ALL GUNS START OUT AS LEGAL GUNS. It's not like Smith and Wesson or Glock have a special catalog for criminals.

If we eliminate legal guns—and it will take a generation of guns not being legally available, guns being confiscated after crimes and melted down, guns being bought back by government—then we won't have nearly as many illegal guns. And we will have less gun bloodshed..."…
@44 You have some good ideas there, I guess, but I think the reason we're going on and on about high-capacity magazines and assault rifles is that we really, really, really don't want to wake up another morning and hear about another classroom of elementary school kids shot up, or dozens of people killed or injured and traumatized at a movie theatre, or another high school cafeteria or library shot up by a couple of disaffected kids with a death wish. Yes, some mass murders are committed with handguns, but we look at other countries with near total gun bans and know that it's not impossible to nearly eradicate murders commited with guns. We know that we won't be able to replicate that quite nearly because there's already a ton of guns out there, and those aren't coming back. But we know that it's fully possible to ban assault rifles, weapons that serve no good purpose at all, or at least the further production of them, before there's so many out there that it won't make a difference. We could even ban anything that's not a six shooter and wait for semi-automatic hand guns out there to very gradually diminish. That would probably help a lot with the "urban crime" (what the trolls mean is "minorities with guns"). Your recommendations would help, too.

But there isn't the political will, and the far-right Supreme Court delights in hobbling gun control efforts.

That's what we're after, though. We know that the Aurora shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting were fully (or mostly) preventable, which is truly what aggravates us. However, we all get bogged down in this ideological shouting match over the Second Amendment and then nothing gets done.
#43 - there's nothing "holy" in the constitution. It was written by committee, by a group of fallible men who put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else. The 2nd amendment in particular reads like it was written by someone for whom English was a second language. And as someone else pointed out, the fact that there exist hundreds of free countries with very limited gun ownership gives the lie to the claim that guns are somehow necessary to safeguard our freedom.

#27 thinks #28 is traitorous scum who'd murder his fellow citizens. The question I never see asked is this: when this second 'murican revolution happens, when the NRA and its allies finally take up arms against our oppressive federal government - who will they be shooting with all their precious guns? Local police, state police, FBI? Will they concentrate on shooting IRS or ATF agents? Or will they just target politicians? And where do you start - city council, state house? Or just go all they way to the White House and start there? Whatever the ragtag patriot/warriors decide, one thing is certain: they'll be murdering their fellow Americans. The traitorous scum.

The UK has gangs too. They have 1/4 the homicide rate of the US.
@44 W/o a comprehensive firearms registration system closing the 'gun show loophole' won't do a lot of good. Suppose a firearms bought by a straw purchaser and sold on the black market shows up at a crime seen and the cops come around asking questions. The straw purchaser can simply say "Gee officer, I must have lost that gun, and no I don't remember when I last had it or where or how I might have lost it, sorry can't help you" or the straw purchaser could simply take the 5th and not tell the police anything. Either way they can't touch him. I think a lot of the public support for requiring all gun purchases be cleared through the instant background check system is based on ignorance about the difficulties in implementing such a law.
First off, if you're quoting "CHICAGO FAN" as a reliable source then you do not know enough about the subject.

"If we eliminate legal guns—...—then we won't have nearly as many illegal guns. And we will have less gun bloodshed..."

That is rather easy to disprove.
Just look at the recent events after the Seattle gun-buy-back day.
It ONLY works when you remove ALL the guns from society.
That is because 99%+ of the guns owned are owned by law abiding citizens and will never be used in a crime.

If you do not believe that statistic, just look at the coverage in The Stranger.
It is Feb 10, 2013 and there has been a SINGLE shooting incident in Seattle that The Stranger has covered.
Just one single incident so far this year.
Yet guns are relatively easy to purchase in Seattle.
So either The Stranger is not covering crimes involving guns (why wouldn't they?) or your attempt at linking gun ownership to gun crime is flawed.
A point that no one seems to be paying attention to is that the 2nd Amendment specifically calls for regulation, which is the very thing the NRA is resisting so vocally.
Y'know, I am so glad I have all these NRA members out there protecting our freedom. They sure showed the Bush Administration they meant business when our phones were being tapped and the PATRIOT Act was being pushed through Congress, didn't they? Let's just count how many government power grabs in the last couple of decades were stopped cold by those awesome legal gun owners - seriously, let's count them.

I'm coming up with zero.

Okay so what is the great social benefit of bearing arms, again?
what is the great social benefit of bearing arms?

I don't know, Obama said this in a press release last week - “Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas,” Obama said.
“Advocates of gun control need to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.”…

so what's the benefit? maybe it's a rural thing, that Obama seems to have some respect for.
@52 I agree that privately owned firearms are not an effective check on state power. However, I think privately owned firearms, especially privately owned handguns, have a role to play in defending law abiding citizens from criminals.
@53 Gun sports are more popular in rural places because blasting empty milk bottles and old fashioned TVs down at the old rock quarry is a lot more fun than shooting paper targets at a suburban pistol range. I think hard-line gun rights activists are motivated, more than they care to admit even to themselves, by the simple joy of shooting.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, the use of the word "regulation" in the 2nd Amendment isn't a reference to regulating (i.e. restricting) firearms, as it's used in a modern context, but refers instead to a "well-regulated (that is, well-maintained) militia".

It's important to keep in mind that, at the time Madison proposed the Bill of Rights, the U.S. did not have a standing federal army; instead it relied on voluntary state militias comprised of "citizen soldiers", who could be called up for active duty on short-notice. Madison, an anti-federalist, held an innate distrust of consolidating too much power into the hands of a strong, centralized government, and used the Bill of Rights to propose a number of amendments to the Constitution (not all of which were accepted by the 1st Congress, BTW) that would enumerate specific rights of individual citizens that he considered more-or-less sacrosanct, and which therefore should not be revoked or easily modified by the federal government. The right of states to defend their interests and property, and the necessity of state citizens to be the primary instruments of such defense, was one of his major concerns.

This is one of the salient points of the Amendment the NRA and most of their members tend to overlook: that the 2nd Amendment, in acknowledging the possibility of some future threat to states from an outside force, be it a foreign invader, or even from a tyrannical federal government (taking the recent actions of King George II against the colonists as a prime example), granted citizens the right to bear arms for the specific purpose of providing individual states, THROUGH THEIR OWN MILITIAS, the ability to counter such a potential threat.

That's why the clause about maintaining a well-ordered militia (which, again, at the time only the states had authority to do) precedes the secondary clause granting citizens the right to bear arms, because, it was understood that this was the MOST IMPORTANT purpose for securing the right; not to bear arms for hunting, or for self-protection, but to perform what at the time was considered an essential Civic Duty - to protect the state.

In short, the 2nd Amendment was never about securing the right of individuals to own firearms, simply for their own sake, which is essentially the NRA's main argument; but rather that the "right to bear arms" was predicated on the principal that owners of those firearms had a responsibility to the state (in this case, quite literally the state in which they resided) to provide for and to participate in its protection and preservation, and that for this reason, if for no other, citizens right to own such firearms was not to be infringed.

Of course, over the intervening 222 years, and particularly since the first comprehensive federal firearms regulations were introduced in the 1930's, the NRA has, hand-in-hand with their allies in the gun manufacturing industry, become increasingly influential in this particular area of civic debate.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the NRA actually supported many of the same restrictions being debated today; however, in the past several decades the Association has become increasingly radicalized, as it's membership (roughly 1.3 of the U.S. population, assuming their membership figures are correct) has devolved from a constituency comprised primarily of sports enthusiasts, hunters and ex-military, to one more-and-more aligned with religious fundamentalists, and the modern neo-militia movement, who themselves assume a massive and imminent UN-sanctioned firearms confiscation program as an integral platform of their ideology, and which is aided and abetted by a highly profitable firearms manufacturing industry intent on preserving their market.
@54 Any evidence to back up that belief? Because, I mean, private handgun ownership to deter crime worked out real well for Nancy Lanza.
Japan is not a good comparison, Japanese citizens have never been allowed to bear arms, and traditionaly have been serfs. Their culture is very different than the US which was built on firearms and individual liberty.

Well I swore an oath to defend The Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.

Well I was getting recall getting teargassed, and fighting police lines. What were you doing when your hero Obama extended the patriot act?
@58 So were you fighting those police lines with your gun in hand?

What is a good comparison, anyway? Nowhere, I'm sure! That's what American exceptionalism is all about.
@54 @55

The irony is that gun owners, and hunters, have been in steady decline for decades. Why? Disappearance of habitat. There are fewer and fewer places to hunt, due to urban sprawl. Sprawl is worst in the very places where gun owners and conservatives are politically strongest.

They're doing this to themselves. If they believed in a managed, solution-based approach to problems, instead of rigid ideologies of free market and individualist absolutism, they could have saved their hunting grounds and could still count a majority of Americans as gun owners.

The number of gun owners is shrinking as the number of guns grows. The gun owners are getting more strident, and weirder. The more they frighten the average person with their fanaticism, the easier it is to pass restrictions on guns. They're doing it to themselves.

There's a lot of hunters organizations that understand this, and they're sick of the NRA. Working to protect cop killer bullets and undermine the ATF, while real hunters would just like a little help from that powerful lobby saving game habitat.
@60: What is the "this" that "they" are doing to themselves? Expanding gun rights? Getting Obama to do a goofy photo op with a gun to try to tamp down the reaction against his exposed Senate flank? Selling out millions of guns and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo nationwide?
@57 During the 1990s crime plummeted at the same time as the proliferation of 'right to carry' laws made it much easier to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Experts disagree about whether this played a role in reducing crime, but there is a general consensus that it hasn't made the problem any worse. You can read more about that here;…

If law abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns poses no threat to public safety shouldn't it be allowed?

@58 There are certain American institutions, such as a free press and an independent judiciary, that have been emulated in democratic nations around the world. Yet the American tradition of private gun ownership is not one of them. Why do you think that is? How is that the Japanese, the British, the French, the Germans, and the Australians manage to keep their freedoms w/o anybody keeping an AR-15 in his or her coat closet?
"So were you fighting those police lines with your gun in hand?"

I don't think that you're making the point that you think you're making.
You seem to be demanding that SOMEONE ELSE with a gun attack the government because of laws that YOU do not approve of.
But YOU are not willing to do so YOURSELF.
Is it because you are not that upset about those "government power grabs" you mentioned?
@62: I take it you are giving our European friends a pass on their most recent century when you talk how well they've done with their "freedoms?" And overlooking all that Japanese stuff where they, you know, starting killing (and raping as an occasional bonus!) massive numbers of people and went on to literally attack the United States?

Anything else about those cultures we should emulate?
Pretending that independent poll data is a liberal conspiracy is what is really boring. It was funny when Mitt Romney thought he was going to win because the polls were skewed. Now it's just boring.

(And the Obama skeet photo was taken August. The man isn't clairvoyant. If he knew this was going to happen, there'd be a lot more of those photos and they'd be a lot less goofy looking. And he'd be a witch.)
@63; Uh, what I wanted to know was whether @58 was making use of his gun when he fought for his rights, or whether he left it at home. I thought his answer might be illuminating as to the practical value of guns for defending oneself against tyranny.
@65: You could get independent poll data showing that majorities of Americans are in favor of repealing pretty much every aspect of the bill of rights at given points in time (it's been done, many times). Luckily we live in a representative republic and not a mob.

You are not only losing the current political fight, you're endangering the rest of your agenda, and even putting some Team Red seats in Congress in play, all while doing absolutely nothing to address suicides, violent crime, or the next Adam Lanza. I don't get it.
@68: Drunk typo: Team Blue. I can't tell them apart.

Yeah, because literally tens of people read what I post on Slog. And the course of history will change because I gave about six gun owners a big sad.

Delusional, and a poll denialist to boot. Boring.
@67 Do you think anything can be done to stop the next Adam Lanza? It's my understanding that his mother was pretty well fixed so I'd imagine he was getting decent mental health services. Also, every society has it's homicidal lunatics. The difference is that in America they tend to be better armed then in the rest of the world.
@69: Your trolling is getting weaker, you need new material - seriously.

I'm specifically not denying polls. People can get whipped into frenzies to support lots of stupid shit. That's a far cry from legislation that threatens politicians' jobs, and they have a not-so-far-in-the-past lesson on how this works.

Meanwhile, you (and by 'you,' I mean 'you' as a representative of a large group who vocalizes similar mindless garbage) are doing zero about the actual issues.
@70:Every single day I, and an enormous number of parents, walk into work past a secure door, secured by a key card, past a camera that is monitored by security personnel. Our kids, meanwhile, sit in schools with (usually) none of the above.

So yeah, there's a whole lot you can do to stop a lunatic who is determined to kill children. Disarming and pretending these people don't exist (Norway, anyone?) appears to maybe not be a winning strategy.

We're now in a position where people are literally dismissing the idea of bolstering protection against the next copycat, for reasons of political posturing. It disgusts me.
@72 I'm sure an electronic lock will foil the next Adam Lanza. Unless he does something diabolically clever, like break a window.
@73: ...and you precisely make my point. If you were serious about securing a school, which by your comment you most definitely are not, then hire the fucking guy who sets up security at the strip mall jewelry store or local bank branch or my local boring employer and have him secure the fucking school.

Pretending that the only option is to somehow magically make psychopaths and 300 million guns disappear is not a serious position and I hope that people holding that position feel dirty and ashamed when the next asshole who wants to be the most famous guy in the world breaks into your local "GUN FREE ZONE" sitting duck elementary school.


As we all know, what a troll wants is attention. Every time you reply, the troll wins.
@75: Foiled again. Dammit.
@74 What about the option where we ban certain types of firearms that are especially lethal? That way the next time some psycho decides to shoot up an elementary school, or a movie theater, or a congress person on your corner event, he doesn't have as much fire power at his disposal.
"Uh, what I wanted to know was whether @58 was making use of his gun when he fought for his rights, or whether he left it at home."

So you believe that someone can only effect political change with a gun?
And you want someone else to do that on your behalf with regards to laws you do not like?
Boring Dad Is Boring reminds me of a cross between Seattle Blues and Mister G.
@78: are you just really bad at grasping sarcasm? FWIW while I don't think my opinion is particularly relevant, it seems clear to me that owning a gun does not help anyone effect political change and I suspect that @58 knows this and therefore left his gun at home. But rather than simply assuming this, I figured I'd ask him.
"FWIW while I don't think my opinion is particularly relevant, it seems clear to me that owning a gun does not help anyone effect political change ..."

So our Revolutionary War was fought with words?
Was World War I also fought with words?
World War II?

Or are you only talking about political activities AFTER a stable Democracy has been achieved?…
I like your thinking. Unfortunately, I kind of remember ignoring both Mister G and Seattle Blues for the most part. They did like to yabber on and on the I AM RIGHT philosophy, no?
@45, There are 330 million, give or take 10 million or so, firearms in civilian hands in the USA. Do you have any idea how many “generations” it will take to substantially reduce that pool? We could start enforcing laws against straw purchasers. We could start going after illegal dealers before they’ve sold 200+ firearms. We could start actively pursuing penalties against people that lie on background checks. All of those things would, most likely, be supported by the majority of firearm owners. All of those things would be much more effective at reducing the availability of illegal firearms than an “assault weapons” ban.

@46, You do realize that the highest fatality of any mass shooting was the Virginia Tech shooting, right? Which was done with handguns. You also realize that both the Newtown shooting and the Aurora shootings would have been just as deadly with handguns? It isn’t “some” mass murders that are committed with handguns, it is MOST. I understand that “assault weapons” are very scary looking, but they are simply not more deadly at close range (most mass shootings have been at close range) than a semi-automatic handgun. An “assault rifle” is very simply a scary looking (to you) semi-automatic rifle. The exact details have been covered ad nauseum in other threads so I won’t rehash them here.

Additionally, do you realize that, at least in 2000, which is the only year I’ve found data for, the Smith and Wesson .38 revolver was the number 1 gun used for crime? For criminal use, huge magazines aren’t the most important feature. Cost and availability are.

As far as “assault rifles” being weapons that “serve no good purpose at all”, perhaps not to you. However, there are millions of law-abiding owners that would disagree with you.

I actually don’t think the mass shootings that we’ve seen in the last 20-30 years have been fully preventable. And they certainly would not have been prevented by any gun control legislation that has been discussed so far. If you have some data on how any specific legislation (proposed or not) could have prevented a majority, or even a large minority of the 30-40 mass shootings that have occurred in the last 3 decades, please let us know as I seem to have missed it. I’ll give you a couple hints though - most were done with handguns and nearly all of them were perpetrated by people that most of us would consider bat-shit-crazy.
@48, As we’ve discussed many many many times, the UK ban did nothing to reduce their homicide rate. So what exactly is your point when you bring the UK up over and over and over? Also, unless you "piece together all sorts of disparate clues, pick out certain statistics while ignoring others, and make a huge deal out of well-chosen outliers." (your words, not mine), the fact is that higher levels of legal firearm ownership do not necessarily equate to higher levels of firearm violence. To repeat:

Let's take a look at the homicide rate for the top 5 states/firearm ownership:

Wyoming: 47th for firearm homicides @ 0.59/capita
Alaska: 26th for firearm homicides @ 2.58/capita
Montana: 29th for firearm homicides @ 2.31/capita
South Dakota: 43rd for firearm @ 0.74/capita
West Virginia: 31st for firearm homicides @ 1.9/capita
Average of 1.62/capita

Now, let's compare them with the 5 lowest states for firearm ownership:
Hawaii: 48th for firearm homicides @ 0.51/capita
New Jersey: 25th for firearm homicides @ 2.65/capita
Massachusetts: 33rd for firearm homicides @ 1.53/capita
Rhode Island: 34th for firearm homicides, @ 1.48/capita
Connecticut: 37th for firearm homicides @ 1.4/capita
Average of 1.5/capita

Do you see a big difference in homicide rates? Because I sure don’t.

@54, Once again, a gun-control-nut has to, as Ph’nglui puts it, "piece together all sorts of disparate clues, pick out certain statistics while ignoring others, and make a huge deal out of well-chosen outliers." Sorry, but the Newtown shooter's mother is a poster child for outliers.
By the way, if you actually want to understand/research the weapons used in mass shootings, here's a list compiled by Mother Jones':…

Keep in mind, their data on "assault weapons" is faulty. Basically they refer to all rifles, of any caliber, automatic, semi-automatic, bolt-action or otherwise as "assault weapons." (They probably have Dr. Awesome disease where you just make shit up.)

For example, in the Amish School Shooting they attribute an "assault weapon" to a bolt action rifle (not an "assault" anything). In the shopping center spree killing they refer to a Ruger Mini-14 as an "assault weapon" even though it has never been available as a fully automatic weapon and was not included in the original AWB. Lockheed Martin - also a Ruger Mini-14, not an "assault weapon" and a .22 rifle not even close to an "assault weapon".

The actual number for "assault weapons" should be closer to 20 and the number of incidences with "assault weapons" should be about 15, or less (I didn't research every single one) out of 62.

However, the actual incidents are all real and they provide links and names so you can do your own research.
I hope her family can find some peace.
Randoma is the sgt_doom of gun nuts.

@82 - Very much so. He's got the blustery righteousness of SB with the "I'm pretending I'm a rational voter just like you except we share no interests" BS of Mister G.

I enjoy using the traits of old trolls to categorize the new ones.
@87 "Randoma is the sgt_doom of gun nuts."

That's not fair, Sgt Doom's paranoid ramblings are much more imaginative than Randoma's posts.

BTW if your honor demands satisfaction, because of something somebody said about you on a Slog comment thread is there a way you can challenge the poster to a World of Warcraft duel?
@88 It is true that referring to actual statistics rather than fantasized ones is pretty unimaginative.

I'd also like to point out that one of the shooters that are being charged for Hadiya's murder is currently on two year probation for an aggravated weapons (firearm) charge.…

All the laws we can come up with are not going to do a damn thing if they aren't enforced. Here's a quote from the linked article:

" Anita Alvarez, the Cook County state’s attorney, said that gun offenders here sometimes get one-year sentences and may serve only about half of their sentences or even less.

Mr. Ward, who was charged with murder and attempted murder in the shooting that left Ms. Pendleton dead in a park not far from Mr. Obama’s Chicago home on Jan. 29, in 2012 received a sentence of two years’ probation, Superintendent McCarthy said, after being charged with unlawful use of a weapon. A mandatory prison sentence, the superintendent said, could have changed everything. "

You get put in prison for multiple years for a few ounces of pot, but a firearm offense gets you a slap on the wrist??
So how many people think that "two purported gang members" would have a tough time finding guns if they weren't legal?
Because criminals follow the law amirite?

Also you are saying that millions of Americans be criminalized overnight, be deprived of their property and that every structure in America be systematically searched for all fire arms and ammunition to make sure that a criminal would not be able to get his hands on a firearm.