Previous Post
Next Post claims “38,495,178 members” and touts itself as “the world’s largest community for good.” I don’t think it’s very caring for a website appealing to touchy-feely do-gooders to run the scary pic above over a list of gun rights advocates who were shot in 2016. It looks a lot like gloating. A charge the author tackles in the second paragraph:

Below are four examples of major gun rights proponents who were either killed or seriously wounded by firearms this year. To be clear, this list is certainly not meant to make light of these tragedies or suggest that the victims in any way deserved to be shot. Rather, the intention is to underscore the dangerous nature of firearms by showing that even people who love and own guns can fall prey to accidents or even deliberate violence as well.

What was it Hamlet’s mom said? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. OK, the author of the hit piece is a Kevin. Whatever.

Kevin Matthews’s bullet-riddled rundown tries to temper its anti-gun animus in the profiles of Michael Harmon, Jamie Gilt, Christy Sheats and George Koumbis. It’s peppered with words like “unfortunately” and “in even more tragic news” and “our hearts go out.”

Matthews is fooling precisely no one. In fact, I reckon his summation is aimed more at salving his guilty conscience than putting the list into perspective.

Remember: people who own guns are more likely to be harmed by a gun than manage to protect themselves with their firearms. There are still plenty of reasonable gun control steps that this country can adopt to improve public safety without infringing on a citizen’s Second Amendment rights. If more gun proponents are willing to acknowledge the inherent danger, perhaps a satisfactory compromise can be reached.

Fun fact: more people harm themselves replacing smoke alarm batteries than have their life saved by a smoke alarm. Not that owning and using smoke alarms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right . . .

I know it sounds weird, but the more calm and rational gun control advocates sound, the more frightening they are (to me). They remind me of movie villains like Dr. Hannibal Lecter – all calm and rational and charming until they take your guns and eat your liver. Or something like that.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I take umbrage with RF’s comment “…that owning and using smoke alarms is (not) a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right . . .”
    Is RF completely unaware of the 9th Amendment?

    • I’m not sure the 9th applies. But then, I’m not sure what the 9th is all about, anyway.

      Wikipedia says “The Ninth Amendment explicitly bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but this amendment does not explicitly bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution. It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have pointed, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.”

      Does that mean that because the Constitution doesn’t mention the right to keep and use smoke alarms without government infringement, the right exists? My head hurts.

      • It means that even the founders were capable of muddled thinking. Or maybe they wrote that while enjoying some long bottom leaf.

      • Typical Wikipedia article. The edit that sticks isn’t the best (or even comprehensibly written) one, but rather the one that no one has the persistence to keep reverting. In legible English, it says:

        1. Just because we didn’t cover it here as a right doesn’t mean it isn’t a right.

        2. This amendment doesn’t mean that everything not outlined here as a right necessarily is a right.

        3. Everything not described as a right here, which is also covered by something described as a power, is not a right.

        • Natch. “Amendment IX — The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

  2. “If more gun proponents are willing to acknowledge the inherent danger, perhaps a satisfactory compromise can be reached.”

    Since darling Kevin is worried about us hurting ourselves, here’s the compromise – mind your own business, in return, I will stay out of yours.

  3. “38,495,178 members”. Yeah right. I noticed that the minute I clicked on their website the “member” number increased by one. This is the typical bullshit, astroturf “organization” that nobody’s ever heard of. They then repeat the same tired, anecdotal “facts” and expect us to roll over and play dead.

  4. I agree with the sentiment and the funny fire alarm fact IS funny, but the article could have benefited greatly from a little proofreading:

    his guilty conscious = his guilty conscience

    have their lived saved = have their lives saved

    Oh, and I also agree about calmness. Let them rant and rail, I say.

  5. The only reasonable gun control I can think of that wouldn’t infringe on the right to keep and bear arms runs something like this:
    No person who doesn’t want to keep and bear arms shall be forced to do so, except in the case of a military draft.

    • 5th Amendment: “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…” To which the argument is made that Selective Service is “Due Process”.

      To which I reply: 13th Amendment: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE[emphasis mine], except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

      IMO the draft is unconstitutional. Further, any government than cannot convince enough of its citizens to voluntarily support their foreign policies by service in the armed forces has failed in a primary referendum as to whether or not the electorate supports those policies.

      “The lobster in the pot may be experiencing his finest hour, but the choice was not his.” – Robert A. Heinlein

      “No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has.” – Robert A. Heinlein

      “I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!” – Robert A. Heinlein

      • Conscription is a requirement to show up at the draft board. When the person takes a step forward to join the military they are volunteering to be in military service. You are not required to take that step forward. See here:
        There was a supreme court case on the same matter but I don’t remember the name and date.
        Freedon only has value with knowledge, understanding, and wisdon. All “requirements” from the government have an escape clause!

      • As I recall from (many) years ago when I received my draft notice (1968), you were required by law both to register for Selective Service AND to show up when you got the letter. You had options, of course – go to jail or go to Canada.

        When I arrived in L.A. for my physical I learned of the third option – four young men were escorted through the process in handcuffs by FBI agents. They were peremptorily passed through each station ahead of all those in line and at the end of the day were enlisted into the United States Marine Corps.

        The only amusing thing about the exercise was at the hearing booth. One of the men came out of the booth and the FBI agent called out his name. He turned to the agent and said loudly, “Fuck you!” to which the agent replied, “Back in the booth, asshole. The test says you’re stone deaf.”

        So the bottom line: No, you can’t avoid the draft by just not showing up or not registering.

        • You were going to volunteer for something. Either the military or jail. OTOH, the real pain came from trying to make a living, later. If you did not have a DD214 (discharge document) which showed you with an honorable discharge, you were essentially unemployable, no one would hire you, give you a loan, admit you to school, nothing. With a general discharge, you could possibly find a job at minimum wage.

  6. 38 million members yet this is the first I’ve ever heard of it? I’d hate to sound like a skeptic, but am inclined to call bullish!t…

    • I have actually known and/or saw very valuable classic cars that, after years of meticulous, expensive restoration, were wrecked or demolished on their 1st drive. Just imagine years of work trashed in a few seconds. Used to be very involved with sports cars & muscle cars.

      • It’s a similar thing with the folks that do mega-million restorations on old airplanes. Except they usually die in the splat unless they had a pro do the first flight, but the folks who paid for those restorations usually don’t trust anyone but themselves to fly ’em…

  7. Reading the comment section of the article shows how much the readers of really care. (Which is to say, they don’t, and some even seem to enjoy the fact that innocent people were hurt or killed).

  8. I’m not sure the 9th applies. But then, I’m not sure what the 9th is all about, anyway.

    Wikipedia says “The Ninth Amendment explicitly bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but this amendment does not explicitly bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution. It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have pointed, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.”

    Clear as mud.

  9. And how many health care professionals were killed or seriously injured by medical-care accidents during the same period?

    How many professional drivers were killed or seriously injured in automobile accidents during the same time period?

  10. Not that I care2 read their BS, but is there any discussion of whether or not those four individuals would have been killed anyway, absent the presence of their weapon?

  11. “funny fire alarm fact IS funny”

    Or not. I got my first gun around 1960, when there was no such thing as a smoke alarm. In 2006, I fell off a ladder while trying to replace the battery in a smoke alarm, as a result I now have a metal hip and would be a few hundred thousand bucks poorer if I weren’t retired military. But guess what!? Still not a sign of a bullet hole. I know which one *I* consider dangerous! Yet our wonderful, caring government *forces* smoke alarms on us and attempts to *prohibit* firearms. I think we’re being lied to.

    • Sorry to hear of your misfortune, Larry.

      Respectfully, it comes to mind that ladders, like firearms, have a few simple safety rules that, when followed, are quite effective at preventing injury. And I’m not buying the suggestion that your accident was the government’s fault.

      Aren’t we all about personal responsibility?

      • So, the smoke alarms in my house are battery and wired into the house electrical system (yay, lots more wires to potentially short and create a fire). Anyhow, when the battery gets low, they start chirping. Here’s the thing about batteries, they are sensitive to the cold. So the battery will ALWAYS first drop below the threshold that triggers the chirping as your house cools. Guess what, that usually happens around 2am to 4am in the frigging morning. That reminds me, . . . time to change all then damn batteries again before the f*ckers start chirping again.

      • An accident, by definition, is not anyone’s fault. I don’t think a sensible person would read that I thought the government was responsible for my misfortune, but I *did* say, and reiterate, that the government FORCES smoke detectors on us (I survived several decades without them, as did my ancestors since the dawn of time), while PROHIBITING firearm ownership to whatever extent we allow.

  12. V. McCann beat me to it.

    Even quoting the anti’s, it’s *with* guns. Make the point, every time. Much mischief follows from the notion that guns themselves do things … spontaneously combust, or something.

    For example: “Turf-y McNo-Agenda begins by naming 4 pro-gun ‘advocates’ who were ‘killed by guns last year. (*Using* guns, unless he means the guns involved spontaneously flew into the air and beat the victims to death. Otherwise, its on the people who did the shooting – ed.)”

  13. Everybody Dies! some sooner than others and by varying means too numerous too mention! All Anti-American, anti gun, (mostly Democrats) Ignore this fact!
    Must be with Bloomberg” financial backing outright lies and untrue insinuation’s, Hes Anti everything except for putting money in his back pocket!
    as for the gun barrel looks to be an extended barrel, do not see any threads so may or may not be for a sound suppressor!

    • Yup. And about 2.5 million people are going to die this year in America alone. And the number of them that will die from gun violence is going to be only the most tiny sliver even of that.

      But as we all well know by now hoplophobes don’t believe in statistics unless it supports them.

  14. And per usual Liberals aren’t very good at math or logic with their arguments. Yeah 4 people of a group of literally hundreds of thousands (active gun advocates/activists), which in of itself is just a sliver of a much larger greater community of gun owners that reaches in the hundreds of millions. And yet we’re supposed to think this matters as a real anti gun argument. These regressives are literally taking the most extreme outlier and trying to make it look more of a big deal that it is.

    Hey, how many Black Lives Matter ‘activists’ died this year thanks to being shot by a cop while they were committing a crime? Or how about how many of BLM activists have shot cops? 5 at least, in Dallas that immediately come to mind. Let’s take a look at the numbers on that and see what we see.

    • Watch the word games, here. The fact that one BLM moron shot 5 cops is *not* the same as saying 5 BLM morons shot cops.

  15. I really wanted to let this one go. But, the possibilities are just to rich to ignore. Then I thought, “No, let them live in the oxygenless echo chamber”. Sloganeering is so much more rewarding for them.


    G’day, mate.

  16. “Remember: people who own guns are more likely to be harmed by a gun than manage to protect themselves with their firearms.”

    Can TTAG provide a link to the source for this claim? I’ve seen this claim made A LOT on other websites and the only source anyone has ever provided does not say this. Instead what was provided was a look at the likelihood of a domestic turning to a murder when a firearm is present and found that the chances went up by a few percentage points. IIRC correctly a woman had a 1.7% increased chance of death at the hands of a man, a man ~5% at the hands of a woman etc.

    In other words the only data I’ve seen on this suggests that if your domestic partner has already decided to take your life they are marginally more likely to be successful if they use a gun vs something else.

    • I suspect it includes suicides, which are 2/3 of all deaths by gunshot. I think it also deliberately obscures the fact that the majority of gunshot homicide victims are gang members who are also “gun owners.” Add those to your DV escalation scenario and they effectively misrepresent the reality that law-abiding gun owners are no more likely to be murdered with a gun than law-abiding non gun owners.

  17. “… the intention is to underscore the dangerous nature of firearms life by showing that even people who love and own guns can fall prey to accidents or even deliberate violence as well.” — Kevin somebody-or-other

    There, fixed that for him.

  18. My friend spent years restoring a 67 vette. He finally took it out for a test drive and had a gas link that caused that car to burn beyond repair. He did have a small fire extingusher that ran out before he could contain the fire.

  19. “people who own guns are more likely to be harmed by a gun than manage to protect themselves with their firearms.”

    So cops should be disarmed for their own good? Good to know.

  20. If so many people are shot with their own guns, then why, out of the millions that must be getting shot on a yearly basis, could find only four?

    I used to believe that BS, to the point where I started to wonder if I needed to give up my new favorite hobby in the name of health & safety. So I looked into the evidence — not just articles on Slate or Mother Jones or TTAG or, but the articles and sources they linked to.

    And…surprise… The anti-gun places almost exclusively linked to each other in an endless circle of self-reference. The pro-gun places, on the other hand, frequently linked to original sources and cited verifiable data. When I dug into those original sources, I found that the anti-gun “facts” were almost always either cherry-picked or shamelessly misrepresented (if not plucked out of thin air), while the facts and conclusions presented by pro-gun places usually matched the evidence provided by the sources they cited.

    In short, the people on one side of the argument spend an awful lot of time lying to themselves and everyone else, while the people on the other side deal honestly and care about the facts. Which is why I’m on this side, and not the other one. The difference is blazingly obvious…if only more people would take the time to look.

  21. “Fun fact: more people harm themselves replacing smoke alarm batteries than have their life saved by a smoke alarm.”

    Citations…..please provide proof to back up this assertion. Otherwise you are no different than the libtard left spouting opinions and presenting them as fact.

  22. I hate smoke alarms! I would much much rather die a terrible death in a fire, than to deal with them beeping internittantly at 3am when the battery is low. It always happens at 3am, u can never tell which of the ten in the house is beeping. Worst invention ever!

    • There was a third world country that the US helped clean the water system. There were 300 cases of cancer one year that the local government blamed on chlorine in the water. They banned chlorine and the death toll skyrocketed to 3,000 annually due to dysentery.

  23. I can see both sides of the picture:


    Radical far Right claims they have unlimited rights and should be able to leave loaded guns around the house so children and even visiting children can find them a get themselves killed.

    Radical far Left wants all guns not only locked up but completely disassembled making them utterly useless for self defense in a break in situation.

    Result: Nothing gets done because both sides are too pig headed to compromise and pass laws making irresponsible adults liable for such needless deaths, as well as mandatory trigger locks, desk safes etc.

    • Laws in place are sufficient to hold irresponsible adults liable. Mandatory trigger locks or any other mandatory storage laws can go straight to hell.

      • You simply cannot be that big a Moron or can you? You conveniently forgot to mention all the dead children didn’t you. You are a perfect example of what I just posted. An ignorant radical far right nut case that believes he has the right to unrestricted rights even if it means needless deaths. Nothing in the Constitution gives you unrestricted rights including freedom of speech. Hate speech which leads to violations of human rights, or causing panic by yelling fire in a crowded theater that causes deaths from stampeding would be good examples. The Second Amendment also is not without restrictions otherwise you would be allowed to own an atomic bomb or a brand new machinegun (which Reagan outlawed way back I the 80’s). In California last year they outlawed ownership of semi-auto assault rifles (to be confiscated and melted down over the next 2 years). Just some of many examples proving your Constitutional rights are not unlimited and never were meant to be. You can argue about that until your blue in the face but the Supreme Court and the laws passed by Congress are not figments of anyone’s imagination. They exist, they are the law and according to the Supreme Court passed Constitutional muster. You can disagree as to the Constitutionality of them but the Court could not care less, they ruled and that is the end of it for all time. Reversing their decisions is a “loss of face” even if they know they screwed up. It rarely happens.

        Gun trigger locks, gun desk safes, full size safes do not violate anyone’s right to self defense. Anyone who denies this never has used them because if they had they would know that a loaded gun can be accessed immediately if the need arises. I used all of them for many years and still do. So do not bullshit me with any of your paranoid nut case diatribes. These devices work, and they save countless lives not only of children but of adults who are not familiar with firearms. And if the threat is so serious as to merit more drastic measures carrying a gun on ones person in the home would not violate the law either. So every angle is covered completely nullifying the ranting of paranoid nut cases like yourself that scream and rant they cannot protect themselves.

        I might add that most civilized nations (something the U.S. has yet to achieve) have had such laws for many years. Yes, some Nations have gone too far as I previous stated requiring the guns to be disassembled which I do not agree with at all. Those Nations have done this because their laws do not even allow for self-defense. When you do not have adequate restrictions the body count piles up until the Far Left uses such examples to go too far and take away the right of self defense. Nut cases like yourself cannot see that this is what will likely happen in the future because of the lack of restrictions which causes the present carnage.

        Another good example of the above are restrictions that have worked for decades which was the present Silencer Law that made it mandatory to have them registered along with back ground checks. This past law’s history proved that people could own them but not dump them out onto the street when they got bored with them. Silencer murders to date have been very rare as the average “street punk” simply did not have access to them. When people did make them illegally from time to time they were quickly arrested as the punk caught with one soon squealed as to how he got it. Now there is a push to deregulate them so anyone can buy them over the counter after a back ground check (which would be ok) but there will not be a restriction on dumping them onto the street to anyone (this will be a disaster in the making) which will result in a back lash that will result in banning them altogether because of the mass panic that will ensue when the street punks start using them on an everyday basis to commit robbery and murder.

        I think too that the Gun Show Loophole will inevitably be closed as well. I used to be against having to sign for used privately owned guns but the current mass carnage in Chicago and other cities is showing street punks by and large are not using stolen weapons in great quantities(the supply is not large enough) but most of the weapons were shown to have been actually bought legally and then dumped out into the open market and sold to anyone with cash when the legal owners got bored with them or needed quick cash. Every weapon going through a dealer with a back ground check would severely cut the mass supply of weapons being sold out on the street to felons and nut cases.

        Now the counter argument is that registration will lead to confiscation. Well this is not exactly true either as it does not matter as to whether you have an unregistered weapon in your possession or a registered one as when the Government outlaws a particular firearm the penalty for owning such a weapon would be so severe that the average law abiding citizen would not risk not turning them in as they would end up losing everything they currently own if caught with one. So the registration paranoia argument does not jive with the harsh reality of past confiscation laws. The Australian confiscation proved that beyond any doubt. The bulk of the people turned them in registered or not.

        In conclusion the Far Right wants no restrictions on anything including Atomic Bombs and the Far Left wants a gun free society. No one is willing to budge. No one is willing to compromise. Each side is out to destroy the other in total no matter what rights are taken away or no matter how high the unnecessary deaths are. You are living proof of the radical far Right as I am sure you would advocate the unrestricted ownership of Nuclear dirty bombs that you could carry in your brief case.

        • I’ll respond to this properly tomorrow. But for now:

          Gun show loophole? Really?

          Try having even a modicum of knowledge before beclowning yourself by going on such a ridiculous diatribe.

            • Ah, yes: sticking with the Saul Alinsky Rules For Radicals approach, I see. Unfortunately for you, once you’ve demonstrated that you have no clue what you’re talking about, your attempts at using ridicule against me are as impotent as a trigger-locked firearm.

  24. Conservative author William F. Buckley Jr. said in 1966 that Alinsky was “very close to being an organizational genius”.[7]. His organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across America. In the 1950s, he began turning his attention to improving conditions in the African-American ghettos, beginning with Chicago’s and later traveling to other ghettos in California, Michigan, New York City, and a dozen other “trouble spots

    Its not hard to fathom Chip Bennett’s fixation and hatred of Alinsky. I think Trump could use you in his propaganda department. Joseph Goebbels is dead and Trump needs a replacement.

    • Be a man and reply to Chip since you have such a hard on for him. It makes you look like a punk ass bitch to keep name dropping rather than man up and face your enemy. No one else sides with you so stop trying to rally support.
      Alinsky may have been a genius. We wouldn’t be mentioning him if he didn’t have some profound impact. But to improve conditions in the ghetto doesn’t get people out of the ghetto. I can spray Poo-Pourri on a pile of dog shit and I have made an improvement. I’m a fucking genius too!

        • Never heard of the philanthropy of Saul Alinnsky. Given the Ideology of the mainstream media, don’t you think that would have been highly publicised?
          Besides that, aren’t they still poor?
          That’s like saying FDR was the greatest President for all he tried to achieve on behalf of the poor.
          The poor have no more rights than the rich or middle class. They have no less either. That’s the difference between Alinsky, FDR, Obama, Sanders, you, and Conservatives. You think equality means everybody is entitled to money at the expense of other’s rights. I believe equality means equal rights regardless of income.

          • Your the a-typical Right Wing Moron. A society has a duty to take care of its citizens. Capitalism has been the most ruthless and depraved form of economic systems every invented and today no country on earth is purely Capitalistic anymore. A study of the first and second industrial revolutions in Britain is perhaps on of the most obscene episodes in modern economic history. The treatment of its workers, people and even its children were truly horrifying. Today the U.S. lags far behind in the economic programs that civilized industrialized countries have given to their citizens for decades and in the case of Germany for 121 years. We can use our tax dollars for the benefit of our own citizens or give or tax dollars to the greed monger rich who enhance their own wealth by starting countless unnecessary wars of rape, pillage and conquest as well as using the slave labor of illegal immigrants that are by design deliberately brought here to enhance their wealth. And of course both politically parties have shipped high paying manufacturing jobs all overseas. Its still the corner stone of Republican economic policy despite the wishes of Donald Trump. It will be interesting during his Presidency as to whether he can actually halt the flow of jobs or only make a half hearted show of force without passing any new meaningful laws that will stay in force after his Presidency is over.

            Your making disparaging remarks about Roosevelt is typical of the average radical far right wing fanatic. Roosevelt was the right man for the right job at precisely the right time in History for without him the Great Depression would have been far worse and lasted much longer and ditto for the Obama years as well. History simply repeated itself. If the U.S. had had Romney as President and followed his absurd statements as to his plans for the economy we would still be in the “Great Recession just as Europe is to this very day as they have still not fully recovered from it.

            All this brings us back to the great influence Alinnsky had on future leaders including Obama and Hillary Clinton. Since your obliviously a totally ignoramus in regards to this great man here are a few snippets in regards to his influence on great people.

            Alinsky described his plans for 1972 to begin to organize the white middle class across the United States, and the necessity of that project. He believed that many Americans were living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically active citizens. He feared the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, “making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday.”

            As you can see by the above quote Alinsky predicted the rise of the future President Donald Trump and his tactics. This is chilling indeed.

            According to Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. Horwitt asserted that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by Alinsky’s teachings.[31] Alinksy’s influence on Obama has been heavily emphasized by some of his detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Historian Thomas Sugrue writes, “as with all conspiracy theories, the Alinsky-Obama link rests on a kernel of truth”.[26] For three years in the mid 80s, Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, which was influenced by Alinsky’s work, and he wrote an essay that was collected in a book memorializing Alinsky.[26][32] Newt Gingrich repeatedly stated his opinion that Alinsky was a major influence on Obama during his 2012 presidential campaign, equating Alinsky with “European Socialism”, although Alinsky was U.S.-born and was not a Socialist.[33] Gingrich’s campaign itself used tactics described by Alinsky’s writing

            Small wonder crack pots like Chip Bennett, Rush Limb Head (with his high school education) and Glen Beck launched hateful diatribes against the man. After all he stood for the Middle Class Working People not the greed monger political hacks kept in power by the ignorant far right fanatics who always vote for the very people who are out to screw them.

            While Right Wing Fanatics live in a fantasy world in regards to the desirability of all people of the world wanting to come here but the facts are often very different. Germany today is one of the top destinations for people looking for a better life, not the U.S., not only in regards to the superiority of its social programs but because of its educational system that is available to all unlike the U.S. were it has become totally unaffordable even to many in the upper classes.

            It was interesting to note that in the past as for one example of many that during the 1970’s a large amount of Russian Immigrants came to the U.S. and after a short period of a few years half of them went back to Russia. They realized that although the U.S. at that time paid them more money and they had more of a variety and quantity of consumer trash goods to buy this was counter balanced by a ruthless society that economically ruined people if one lost his job as the social programs and medical care and education was so inadequate and or unaffordable that when one lost his job one lost everything including even a roof over ones head. In Russia everyone was given an apartment to live in, free medical care, free education, free child care, far more holidays and longer vacations something that to this very day is still lacking in the U.S. as compared to the much more civilized European cultures.

            In conclusion your cockeyed view of society owing nothing to the poor or working classes is pure Republican propaganda designed to brain wash the uneducated into believing that every one has an equal chance at life and that if your are a failure you deserve to live under a bridge and or starve to death or go bankrupt because the State owes you nothing, not medical care, not an education, not a safe environment to live it in terms of both pollution and crime. And of course that the State should not be required to take care of the welfare of anyone. All this of course is based on the “greed factor” as the stingy, greedy, penny pinching far right believes it should pay no taxes for anything as it is better to save a penny in taxes today even if it means going personally bankrupt tomorrow because you do not have the safety nets of social programs that prevent such tragedies from happening. The Far Right philosophy is to hell with every one else except “Me” as I am too cheap and stingy to make sure that my countries people are adequately educated for a better future, have adequate affordable health care and a safe place to live and work.

            While the far right falls easily to Republican propaganda the real truth is that Obama never wanted “The Affordable Health Care Act”. It was the only thing he knew he could get passed and that was certainly much better than letting the greed monger Insurance companies steal peoples money for health care and then give them nothing in return when they needed their health care most. And of course due to pre existing conditions and lack of government subsidies 20 million Americans had no health care at all. An absolute disgrace amongst the other Industrialized Countries of the World. Now the Republicans are screaming to repeal it and they have nothing at all to replace it with which is exactly what they want as the greed monger Insurance Companies are chomping at the bit to turn the clock back so they can once again have insurance caps, pre-existing conditions and a myriad of other crooked business practices that make them billions of profit every day and bankrupt the working class that are in such dire economic straights that many are now working 3 part-time jobs just to keep from starving to death. Reagans crushing of Unions was a windfall to the greed monger big business men who did away with protective tariffs and reduced the average Americans wages to near starvation levels not to mention doing away with guaranteed retirement benefits so that now many Americans must work until they drop dead as they cannot ever afford to retire.

            In conclusion the most important asset of any country is the welfare of its own people and to paraphrase your statement “The poor have no more rights than the rich” is so outrageous it is beyond ignorance.

            • Dude! Nobody is going to read that garbage. Why are you here? I mean, on this website. And why don’t you go live in one of the shining examples of Socialism that you so dearly admire?
              Here’s a hint; your ideals are not new. Show me a happy society of over 100,000,000 in the history of the world with a Socialist economy. Concider this my last word. I don’t have time for your SJW bullshit. I have too many good Americans to hash out finer points of freedom to be pulled back into the dark ages by the likes of you.

              • The socialist country of Denmark has been voted to have the happiest people in the world several times over. This is not surprising as the social benefits ensure these people never suffer through the uncertainty of life that Americans do. Its that simple but beyond the comprehension of brain washed Right Wing Fanatics who know absolutely nothing as to how the rest of the world lives.

                Here is another listing for 2015 and guess what genius they are all Socialistic and as to be expected the uncivilized country of the U.S.A. has never ever made the list. Not surprising.

                •New Zealand. …
                •The Netherlands. …
                •Canada. …
                •Finland. …
                •Norway. …
                •Iceland. …
                •Switzerland. The world’s happiest country in the 2015 rankings, Switzerland is known for being a prosperous nation with magnificent ski slopes and rich chocolate. …
                •Denmark. This isn’t the first time that Denmark has been named the happiest country in the world.

              • China, North Korea, Cuba.
                Socialism doesn’t guarantee happiness any more than capitalism does.
                In order for socialism to work at all, there needs to be an economic base strong enough to support it, and few countries have that base. Even fewer socialist countries have it.
                Why do you think the Soviet Union failed?

              • You replied “Few countries have that economic base to support Socialism”? Poor wild guess. I suggest you take a look at the rest of the civilized world. They are all Socialistic to one degree or another.

                Now lets ask a question. How in the world can small countries often 50 times smaller that the U..S. and far less rich able to afford civilized social programs? Simple, instead of spending the lions share their tax dollars on war they spend it on their own people.

                You mention countries that have failed like Russia. Not true in Russia’s case at all but you failed to mention the country of Greece which has been a catastrophic failure. When any form of economic system fails its because of mismanagement not necessarily because it is not workable to one degree or another. When we compare the outstanding socialistic countries like France and Germany they succeeded because of sound economic management, keeping corruption also to a minimum. Their socialism is not any different than socialism of Greece.

                This is where Greece failed because every one from the Government down to the man in the street avoided paying taxes and any government will fail if they do not take in enough money to pay the bills, its that simple no matter what economic system we are speaking of. How quick would the U.S. economy fail if right wing fanatics got their way and no one paid any taxes at all. Answer it would happen over night.

                Norway once one of the poorest countries in Europe, largely agricultural went to one of the richest through their superior educational programs. Here is a quote as to the results of their outstanding success.

                The highest accumulated revenue surplus in the world, worth $1 Trillion (held in a sovereign pension fund)
                Strong and steady GDP growth (see chart below)
                Very low Debt-to-GDP (see chart below)

                A #1 to #4 ranking on the UN Happiness Index (varies by year)

                A #1 ranking on the Social Progress Index (see chart below)
                Typically a #1 or #2 ranking on the highest per capita income in the world
                In the Top 5 worker productivity rankings in Europe (and by extension, the world)

                One of the lowest crime rates in the world
                One of the ‘least corrupt’ nations. Ranked #5 on the Corruption Perception Index

                An average 2.5% unemployment rate (except during the global financial crisis where it shot up to 5.5%. Not to worry, it’s already fallen to 3.0%)

                Free university tuition for all citizens and residents
                Free universal healthcare ranked 7th in the world (It would rank higher, but maintaining full-service Hospitals in remote regions with tiny populations is uneconomical)
                Virtually 100% of the country is powered by renewable energy except for some remote settlements where a microgrid (natural gas power) is the only choice
                Unparalleled diplomatic credentials. Everyone knows Norwegians are among the best ‘honest brokers’ in the diplomatic world making Norway the ‘go-to’ arbitrators for nations in crisis
                A favorite country of the Olympics committee having hosted successful games twice in recent years

  25. Well we are off to a great start in 2017. The first child death from an accidental shooting. Are you reading this Chip Bennett? Here it is.

    Fifth-grader Ian Sevostjanov was getting ready for school Thursday morning when he got himself in trouble.

    The 10-year-old boy was sent to a room by his mom, Olga Grusetskaja, 49, in the apartment where their family lives in Clearwater, Fla., authorities said. Grusetskaja was “addressing a behavioral issue,” according to police.

    In the room, Ian found a gun, authorities said, which he used to fire a “lone shot” at himself.

    First responders did “everything they could” to treat the boy, Clearwater Police Chief Dan Slaughter said at a news conference Thursday morning, but their lifesaving efforts were unsuccessful. Ian was pronounced dead at the scene.

    At first it was unclear to authorities what transpired inside the apartment room, but Ian’s death is now being investigated as an apparent suicide.

    Two other family members, Ian’s brother and father, were not home at the time of the shooting, but when family arrived on scene “they were overcome with grief,” Slaughter told reporters.

    “We’re trying to definitely approach this taking care of all our responsibilities, while also being respectful that there’s an emotional trauma that’s occurred,” he said.

    Gun deaths involving children were one of the defining narratives of 2016, a year that brought heart-wrenching stories of toddlers and small children accidentally shooting themselves, accidentally shooting their parents, accidentally shooting other children. The pro-gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety has been tracking accidental shootings involving children for years, and in 2016 found 247 shootings across the United States where a person age 17 or younger unintentionally killed or injured themselves or someone else with a gun.

    An investigation by the Associated Press and USA Today found that in the first six months of 2016, “minors died from accidental shootings — at their own hands, or at the hands of other children or adults — at a pace of one every other day, far more than limited federal statistics indicate,” according to the report.

    And the deaths raised so much alarm that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released a jarring PSA in October with a satirical message: “Guns don’t kill people, toddlers kill people.” It featured fictitious mug shots of children in diapers and onesies, cast as criminals who must be locked up — a way to make a point about gun safety.

    “This PSA is satire,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, told The Washington Post at the time. “But the public health crisis it calls attention to is anything but. Whether the trigger is pulled by a toddler, a convicted felon, domestic abuser or terrorist, we have a problem in America with guns too easily falling into the wrong hands. And that translates to hundreds of lives lost or changed forever every single day.”

    What separates the death of 10-year-old Ian — perhaps the first shooting death involving a child in 2017 — from many of the most tragic headlines of 2016 is that his, according to investigators, was a suicide.

    Even so, Police Chief Slaughter, cautious about weighing in on such a hot-button political issue, addressed gun safety at his news conference Wednesday.

    “There are rules and restrictions on making sure that you keep a gun in a safe manner that’s not accessible to a child,” he said. “I think it’s just a responsible thing to do as a gun owner. I’m not in a position to debate the Second Amendment here or anything, but with certain rights … in the Constitution come great, great responsibility. And if a person chooses to own a firearm there is responsibility for them to keep that in a safe location.”

    The investigation, still in its infancy, will “include a look at how the firearm was stored,” authorities said.

    “There are things we have to evaluate even if it is an accident,” Slaughter said. “Just because an incident is an accident, that doesn’t mean there’s not other things that have to be reviewed from a culpable negligence standpoint. There are rules and laws we have to evaluate.”

    Ian was a fifth-grade student at Belleair Elementary School in Clearwater, a town west of Tampa on Florida’s Gulf Coast. In local news reports, neighbors described the boy as happy, seen often around the neighborhood playing with other children.

    “He’s very intelligent, smart, cordial and just a happy kid,” Lesley Sarchione told TV affiliate Fox 13. “He played with all the other kids. They used to play soccer right in front of my apartment every night. I can’t imagine how it’s going to be for the other kids when they find out.”

    Grief counselors were available to students and staff at Belleair Elementary Thursday after the shooting, reported the Tampa Bay Times. A police spokesman told the Times that there have been no disturbance calls to the family’s residence in the last two years.

    The boys’ parents, Olga Grusetskaja and her husband, identified by the Times as Leonid Sevostjanov, were described as caring parents.

    “They’re very protective of their kids,” Patricia Rudd, who knows the family, told ABC Action News. “Shocking, I cannot imagine what they’re going through right now.”

    The Times reported that the family’s previous home, in nearby Largo, was foreclosed upon in 2007. A former neighbor at that residence told the Times the parents got behind on their house payments and, when the property went into foreclosure, left all their belongings behind. The neighbor described them as “quiet neighbors,” according to the Times, who mostly kept to themselves.

    Olga sometimes waved hello over the backyard fence.

    Slaughter said the family had been “very cooperative” with the investigation and was in a “great amount of distress, as you can imagine.”

    “It’s a tragedy in all respects,” he said.

    Yet nut cases like Chip Bennett claim none of this happens or if it does, so what, its not my kid and I will not be inconvenienced by locking up my guns in a safe way.

    I have locked up my guns for years and still had access to them if I needed a gun in a hurry. Its not a problem, its not rocket science and its not a violation of my Constitutional rights in the least. But there is no sane reasoning with nut cases that look for the Constitutional boogey man under ever rock and bush

    • Tide Pods, electrical sockets, drownings, hit by cars, other poisonings, by the hands of their own parents, car accidents, falls, etcccccccccc; yup, kids get killed everyday.

    • Keep waving that bloody shirt.

      Me locking up or not locking up my firearms would not save the life of a single child who has been or will be accidentally killed with a firearm.

      How many children have been killed accidentally by the medical industry (or by automobiles) so far in 2017?

      • As usual your wrong on both counts. You live in a fantasy world at best or more likely you suffer from metal illness that’s for sure. In the first instance you mentioned you are in denial that a gun tragedy could not happen in your home. God Lord how naïve or mentally incompetent are you anyway? Visiting adults or children could shoot themselves accidentally with a loaded gun in a fraction of an instant. And do not stick your nose in the air and claim that your children are infallible and not capable of acting like “normal children”. Kids are kids and they do stupid things, anyone that would deny that never had kids or is living in a fantasy world.

        Waving a bloody shirt in the air, you say? I think you are totally incapable of facing reality or the truth or gravity of the present situation in the U.S. To make claims that kids get killed in other ways is denying the reality of the situation no matter what caused the death and are we to do nothing about it because it might inconvenience you? In your case the answer would be yes.

        • To the contrary: I can state emphatically: no children will die accidentally from a firearm in my home. That outcome will have nothing to do with the government mandating that I use trigger locks. Some of us are capable of ensuring safety without government-imposed rules. And what I said was completely accurate: government mandate – much less, the actual presence or absence – of trigger locks on any of my firearms would have had zero impact on the accidental death you referenced, or on any other accidental death. Government-mandated rules don’t prevent bad things from happening as a result of willful or negligent action.

          Approximately 60 children per year are killed accidentally involving firearms. (See: CDC stats) More children drown in bathtubs than are killed accidentally by firearms. (ibid) While clearly tragic, the death of 60 children is under no circumstances sufficient grounds for the government to impose upon 100 million firearm owners (much less, the citizenry as a whole).

          2ASux tried to Alinsky me with this same argument; you’re not nearly as good at it as he is.

          And, yes: you’re merely waving the bloody shirt. Anyone who focuses on a firearms, which account for a fraction of a percent of all accidental deaths of children, while claiming to be concerned with preventing accidental deaths of children, is merely waving the bloody shirt, in order to push a political agenda.

          • Your statistics are not only open to question as to the real casualty rate but they are very misleading as well. 48 children are shot every day In the U.S. and no they all do not die but they often end up crippled for life or undergo months and often years of painful and expensive surgeries and medical treatments. 48 children x 365 days of the year equal a horrific 17,520 children.

            Even if you ignore the horrific carnage of the wounding’s (which you will) stating on a public forum that 60 dead children a year is acceptable so you will not be inconvenienced is so outrageous and unconscionable as to prove to everyone you are not mentally fit to even own a weapon. And your statement that you or your kids are incapable of making a mistake is pure nonsense. Sane people do not make such outrageous statements.

            • Your statistics are not only open to question as to the real casualty rate but they are very misleading as well. 48 children are shot every day In the U.S. and no they all do not die but they often end up crippled for life or undergo months and often years of painful and expensive surgeries and medical treatments. 48 children x 365 days of the year equal a horrific 17,520 children.

              Actually, according to CDC, in from 2005-2014 (the most recent ten-year span for which data are available), for ages 0-14, “Unintentional BB/Pellet Gunshot” accounts for a total of 58,233 unintentional, nonfatal injuries, or just shy of 6,000 per year.


              Now, how many of those 6,000 are actual firearm-related injuries? That’s tougher to ferret out, but according to this NY Times article, in 2011, out of just under 6,000 “Unintentional BB/Pellet Gunshot” injuries, a grand total of 247 were firearm-related.

              17,520? Not hardly. 247: You’re only off by two orders of magnitude.

              Nice try, though.

              • You admit your statistics are voodoo guesses but lets pretend they are somewhat accurate. 247 needless injuries with firearms that could have been avoided by mandatory lock ups again negates your callous disregard for human life and suffering.

                Between 2005 and 2010 toddlers shot and killed 104 people.

                Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

                In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

                From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

                Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20

                People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21

                A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22

                The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).23

                As we can see when we are talking about accidental deaths the death of adults are no less important than the deaths of children as well. Especially when children accidentally shoot adults who are often their own parents which will haunt the child for the rest of their life. And again failure to keep guns locked up all result in such tragedies. Your counter argument is that the body count can never be too high because it inconveniences you to keep your guns under lock and key and you could not care less how many people are killed or injured.

                Here is a link to the entire article.


              • Let me know when you want to talk about something that is a cause of more than a fraction of a percent of accidental deaths, mmkay? Until then, I’ll just let you keep waving those bloody shirts in pursuit of your political agenda.

              • I exposed you for what you are. A mentally ill person who’s callus disregard for human life is absolutely appalling.

                As I said before I and many other sane people that I personally know have used various devices and ways to keep guns out of the hands of children or adults that are unfamiliar with firearms. To sane people even the loss of one life when it could be prevented is unconscionable and uncivilized. To claim as you have that the body count can never be to high to inconvenience you are the ranting’s of a mad man. The Constitution does not grant nut cases like yourself unlimited freedom to put peoples lives at and end simply because you do not want the inconvenience of handling and storing firearms in a safe manner. As a matter of fact when people like you make such absurd statements your gun rights should be revoked for life as you are not mentally competent enough to even own a firearm. And this is exactly what does happen in countries that have such laws. You can have a firearm if you act in a responsible manner but when you violate such laws passed for the safety of people you then have no right to own one ever again.

              • Your last response proves that I am dealing with the ranting’s of a mentally ill person. Your responses all have been illogical. In foreign countries those who cannot obey laws that are passed for the safe handling of firearms result in your rights revoked to own a firearm for life which is the only sane option open to prevent the needless deaths of innocent people. To claim that deaths cannot ever be too high is simply beyond comprehension to mentally competent people.

              • You still don’t have a coherent response, just more of the same tedious, tiresome ad hominem.

                One of the two of us can be accused of ranting. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out whom.

              • Even a Moron could see which person is not playing with a full deck. Your illogical ranting’s make no sense except to you

              • You should probably try to understand the meanings of words before you use them.

                Or, as Inigo Montoya would say: you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

              • mo·ron



                a stupid person.

                synonyms: fool, idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, clod;

                The definition personifies you to a “t”

              • Here is yet another reason to keep guns locked up in the home. Something “Chip’s in the Head” is not intelligent enough to have ever thought off. Today there is an article about a young girl in Baltimore that was shot and killed with a gun stolen out of a nearby home. Her boy friend was killed as well and the girls mother wounded. It never would have happened if the irresponsible owner of the gun had had it locked up in a gun safe. But “Chips in the Head” will claim “the body count can never be too high to inconvenience me”.

              • The gun was stolen, and you want to criminalize the victim of the theft for the actions of the thief.

                Typical progressive.

              • You would not recognize a sane response if the sane response walked up and kicked you in the leg. And if you had any reading comprehension you would have realized I did not blame the two victims at all. The perpetrator of the crime committed suicide and he therefore is not a victim, he is the killer of the other two people including himself. Just because the crime probably would not have happened if he did not have access to a stolen gun because the gun was not locked up does not make him a victim. And by the way the article does not stipulate who stole the gun as for all we know it may have been the shooter himself but that we do not know that for sure. What part of this do you not understand?

                Every response you seem to make becomes more and more twisted from your bizarre twisted mind which is grasping for straws while trying to save face when your sub-conscious mind is in full blown panic as it faces the truthful consequences in regards to the tragedies that come about when you act irresponsibly and do not keep guns locked up. Three people are dead unnecessarily but lets remember the body count according to you can never be too high as it would inconvenience you. And remember too that any sane person could not rule out the fact that it could have been your unlocked gun that could have been used to do a similar crime then or in the future. Something your twisted mind will never accept as you are totally divorced from reality.

              • Someone who has a firearm stolen is, by definition, a victim of theft. Thus, in your desire to criminalize the act of not locking up firearms, you are, by definition, criminalizing a victim. The only one who has done anything at all wrong in this scenario is the person who broke into another person’s home, and stole that person’s property. What part of this do you not understand?

                Given that I don’t act irresponsibly, no tragedies will result from my non-existent, irresponsible behavior. Thus, both my conscious mind and my sub-conscious mind are perfectly at ease.

                But, please: keep on with the Alinsky tactics. You seem rather fond of “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” and, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” They don’t help you argue your position, but as long as TTAG Housekeeping remains seemingly content with allowing you impunity to use them, they do make your lack of logical, articulate argument quite obvious.

              • Quote: The only one who has done anything at all wrong in this scenario is the person who broke into another person’s home, and stole that person’s property. What part of this do you not understand?—–Quote.

                Brother you are really something else. As I stated before we do not know who stole the gun. And if it proves the killer did not steal the gun but bought it and then killed with it then your response makes about as much sense as the rest of the lunatics yelling and screaming in a nut house. In case you are unaware of the law in this country murder is against the law whether or not you stole a gun and killed someone or whether you bought a gun and killed someone. Now genius what part of this do you not understand.

                Quote: ——-Given that I don’t act irresponsibly, no tragedies will result from my non-existent, irresponsible behavior. Thus, both my conscious mind and my sub-conscious mind are perfectly at ease.———- Quote:

                Brother you really make this easy. I really should not have called you nuts, Your posts make it quite obvious because your constantly proving it with your posts. You responded just like I predicted, completely proving you are out of touch with reality by deigning your unlocked guns could never be stolen or used in a crime. Now if that is not nuts I do not know what would be.

              • As I stated before we do not know who stole the gun.

                We know, definitively, that the owner of the gun – who had the gun stolen – did not steal the gun. Yet, that’s the person whom you wish to criminalize.

                It doesn’t matter what happens using the gun after that point, because the gun was stolen. It was acquired unlawfully. The rightful owner bears zero responsibility for what the thief does with his stolen gun, or what anyone to whom the thief transfers the gun later does with it. Yet, it is the original gun owner – the victim of a crime – that’s the person whom you wish to criminalize.

                …by deigning your unlocked guns could never be stolen or used in a crime.

                False premise. I have yet to divulge in this or any other comments thread the manner in which I store and secure my firearms. Rather, I have asserted that government laws regarding mandatory firearms storage do not compel anyone’s behavior, and that such laws do not prevent theft of firearms, or any other malum in se criminal behavior.

                Thus, you are making a specious assumption in that regard. I award you zero points for the effort. Thanks for playing, though.

              • Quote——————We know, definitively, that the owner of the gun – who had the gun stolen – did not steal the gun. Yet, that’s the person whom you wish to criminalize.

                It doesn’t matter what happens using the gun after that point, because the gun was stolen. It was acquired unlawfully. The rightful owner bears zero responsibility for what the thief does with his stolen gun, or what anyone to whom the thief transfers the gun later does with it. Yet, it is the original gun owner – the victim of a crime – that’s the person whom you wish to criminalize.———————————————-Quote:

                You bet I want to criminalize him. Yes we should have a law that makes the owner of the Gun liable for not locking it up as it was his irresponsibility that cause tragedies like this. Now on the other hand if the owner had locked the gun in a safe and it was cut into then in such a circumstance he would not be liable. And if the law allowed trigger locks and the gun was stolen and then the trigger lock cut off then again the owner would not be liable. In any case a law that requires deadly weapons to be made safer in the home and more difficult to steal or use with safes or trigger locks is certainly a step in the right direction and no there is not any law ever passed that is a panacea but to pass no law is to live in a sea of blood and bullets because juveniles, criminals and nut cases get their hands on weapons all to easily.

                I think also the latest blood bath at the Florida Air Port showed that law enforcement had their hands tied and even had to give a weapon back to a nut case that “heard voices” and then we all know what happened after that. One Senator today said that they were not even allowed to ask the mentally ill persons relatives about his recent behavior as it would have violated his medical privacy. Again this is another area that is in dire need of reform. With proper safeguards of course for legal redress if one is falsely accused.

                Quote——————–False premise. I have yet to divulge in this or any other comments thread the manner in which I store and secure my firearms. Rather, I have asserted that government laws regarding mandatory firearms storage do not compel anyone’s behavior, and that such laws do not prevent theft of firearms, or any other malum in se criminal behavior.

                Thus, you are making a specious assumption in that regard. I award you zero points for the effort. Thanks for playing, though.———————–Quote

                Now you have proved to everyone that you are a pathological liar as well. In prior posts you did indeed claim you left loaded guns around the house because your children were incapable of doing what children often do, be children. You claimed in prior posts some months ago that your superior training made your self and your children incapable of ever making a mistake. Later in the posts when I brought up children coming over to play that were not familiar with guns you then back tracked and said “sometimes I do lock them up”.

                Forget it Bud, you are not credible in anything you say on this forum. You have lied too many times.

              • You bet I want to criminalize him.

                Criminalizing the victim of a crime is depraved.

                In prior posts you did indeed claim you left loaded guns around the house because your children were incapable of doing what children often do, be children.

                Go ahead and quote where I said that. Cite and link. I’ll wait.

                You claimed in prior posts some months ago that your superior training made your self and your children incapable of ever making a mistake.

                Go ahead and quote where I said that. Cite and link. I’ll wait.

                Later in the posts when I brought up children coming over to play that were not familiar with guns you then back tracked and said “sometimes I do lock them up”.

                Go ahead and quote where I ever said that I do or do not lock up my own firearms. Cite and link. I’ll wait.

                Forget it Bud, you are not credible in anything you say on this forum. You have lied too many times.

                Go ahead and quote where I ever said that I do or do not lock up my own firearms. Cite and link. I’ll wait.

                I’ll be waiting for quite a while, because you are either lying or simply mistaken about what I have and have not said.

                Perhaps the Ft. Lauderdale attacker isn’t the only one listening to voices in his head.




    Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczinski brings to light something I was previously unaware of, namely the role that Ronald Reagan played in passing the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban:

    As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

    “We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,” the letter said.

    “While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons,” the letter said concluding.

    More substantially, though, Reagan apparently persuaded at least two Republican Members of Congress to change their vote:

    Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after “a last minute plea from President Reagan” in the form of a handwritten note.

    ”Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

    ”I can think of no one who has been a stronger supporter of law and order and a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment,” Klug said in a statement regarding Reagan’s note announcing his support for the ban.

    Another former Congressman, New Hampshire Democrat Dick Swett, also credited the former President with influencing his voting. Swett was unsure of how to vote on the ban, but made up his made after direct lobbying from Reagan.

    The bill ended up passing the House by two votes, 216-214.

    This wasn’t the first time that Reagan had come out against the Republican position on gun rights. In 1991, he authored a New York Times Op-Ed in which he called for passage of The Brady Bill:

    Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

    While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

    The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser’s sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill — on a nationwide scale — can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

    And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.

    Critics claim that “waiting period” legislation in the states that have it doesn’t work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don’t. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.

    Today, nobody seriously challenges the idea of pre-purchase background checks. Indeed, thanks to computer systems, they are largely instantaneous in most cases (unless the computer system itself happens to be down). What we’ve learned in recent years, though, is that the background check system is incomplete. For example, it doesn’t necessarily catch people who have been adjudicated mentally ill or other problem areas. When the the Brady bill was first proposed, though, opponents characterized it as one step on the road to tyranny. I’d argue that they were wrong. The Gipper certainly thought so.

    NOW WHAT HAS THIS ALL TO DO WITH MY PRIOR POSTS? When states that have lax laws that do not trace the resale of used guns these guns can and often do get funneled into states and cities that have restrictive gun laws. Guns used in crimes are often traced right back to the states that have lax gun laws that do not trace the sale of second hand guns. It does not matter if they are purchased between individuals on the street or between friends or bought with no paperwork at a gun show. All these methods are often used by people who deal guns interstate which in most cases (not all) are usually against the law.

    While there is extreme paranoia amongst the far right about signing for all guns the fact remains that when second hand guns have no requirement for background checks its a prime source of guns for criminals and many of these guns have never been stolen at all. AS A MATTER OF FACT ONE FELON THAT WAS CAUGHT DEALING IN ILLEGAL INTERSTATE SALES OF GUNS SAID THAT HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY NEVER EVER TO BUY GUNS HE EVEN SUSPECTED AS EVER HAVING BEEN STOLEN. Why? Because although he could have bought a few illegal stolen guns cheaper the legal guns were far more plentiful by the tens of thousands and if he was caught with a large amount of guns in his home nothing could be done to him because being legal he had done nothing wrong, ditto if he was caught with them in his vehicle. As a matter of fact he later made known that in todays world of trafficking guns interstate many of the transactions are done without the illegal gun dealer ever even leaving his home either to purchase, sell or collect the money. In other words the old fashioned midnight gun runner transporting guns across state lines and then bringing back suit cases full of money is now only a memory. In todays computer world large amounts of cash change hands electronically whether it be in the selling of narcotics or guns and shipments often go concealed as other merchandise by common carrier to “fences” in other states that funnel the merchandise to known contacts on the street. This eliminates a person from out of state that is unfamiliar with the local gangs from getting robbed or killed when attempting to sell his illegal merchandise.

    As one can see when one mentions the controversial phrase “gun show loophole” its simply a broad term that actually refers to guns being sold without paperwork through a variety of ways, not always at a gun show, the emphasis is actually “with no paper work and background checks”.

    Even if the “the universal background check” becomes law someday does this mean now the Feds have a new way to come after everyone’s guns that are presently legal? No, this is absurd because if the Feds do pass a ban on certain firearms it matters not as to if they are registered or not, because they now become illegal with draconian penalties that would ruin person for life if caught with one. In short the fantasy is that I will keep my gun no matter what laws are past is not born out by reality as the average sane person is never going to take the risk of losing everything he ever worked for or ever will work for in his life. Its a simple as that. And History in other countries has proven this to be true many times over. Tough talk is cheap but reality is far different.

    In conclusion the amount of guns flowing into other states with restrictive laws is becoming a national crises as exhibited by the wholesale slaughter in Chicago whose death toll seems to equal or surpass even war zones in foreign countries. There can be no deigning that if the bulk of guns being sold had a background check requirement it would reduce the numbers of guns finding their way into the hands of juveniles and convicted felons and nut cases by a huge margin. No it is not a panacea but to sit back an do nothing is to continue to live in a seal of blood and bullets with some cities being totally unsafe to walk the streets in broad daylight which is certainly the case in Chicago today.

    While Right Wing Fanatics will counter with the reference to the “good old days” of “3 strikes and your out” the result of that disaster was that the prison population soared to such astronomical levels that even the rich U.S. was going bankrupt warehousing them. What was even more tragic is that many people who used up their 3rd strike were sent to prison for 20 years for crimes as ridiculous as stealing a $1.00 VCR tape. This just did not happen once , it happened over and over again for minor crimes resulting in people 20 years down the road that had no job skills and some never even had used a computer. Now old, and after leaving prison they went on welfare causing a further drain on the economy and again costing the State millions of dollars.

    As you can see many solutions to crime have been tried before but getting a handle on illegal guns going to the wrong people is something the U.S. has to face head on and soon if we are all going to have safe streets to walk down and safe schools to send our children to. Its just going to be a balance of keeping your right to own a gun without going to far and simply outlawing them altogether because if nothing is done this is what will eventually happen to us all, as history as certainly proved this in other countries.

    Again remember the dire predictions of Right Wing Fanatics that after the Brady Bill was passed the Feds would swoop down and confiscate every gun in the U.S. It did not happen and as a matter of fact it did prevent a lot of people from getting guns as just happened in Ohio where one Student who was not a citizen did not even attempt to buy a gun at a gun store because he knew he would be refused so he used a knife instead which was far less deadly and the students stabbed all survived. Try telling the parents of those “surviving kids” that the Brady Bill or Universal Back ground checks is not a good idea. The survival of their kids that day are living proof that in that instance the Brady Bill saved their children’s lives so why not extend it to all gun sales. No law is perfect and no law is a panacea that works in every instance but to do nothing is insane with todays mass carnage on our streets with illegal guns and lets face facts this does not happen in other countries with sane ways to control illegal guns. No, laws do not stop state sponsored terrorists but the street punk and the juvenile, the felons and the nut cases certainly do have a much more difficult time even attempting to get one. History has proven this.

Comments are closed.