40% of guns are NOT sold threw privet sales. This has bin proven that was true long time ago but NOT any more.They talk about that in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Wi6gZU01yF8
You've been spending too much time in the echo-chamber gun blogs. I've covered this a few times around here. The statistic that says only 1% of guns used in crime comes from gun shows is all wrong because the biggest category in that chart is "from other criminals." That may be true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. What we're really interested in is where do guns go from being lawful possessions to being part of the black market. Private sales without background checks are a big part of that pie chart. It's all here: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2013/01/how-do-criminals-get-guns.html
To guarantee life, liberty, and property for all citizens of a nation, there must be to some degree a collectivization of resources in order to protect the fundamental liberties of the persons subject to the rule of the State from infringement by their fellow citizen. Without the government there would be no rights. The twenty-first century American is very much a creation of the state, as without police officers, firefighters, social workers, and soldiers, there would be no quality of life, no liberty and no property worth defending. We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted. The collectivization of some rights in inherent to the formation of a civilized society. Police are endowed with coercive power, while mere citizens are not. In order to create a civilized society, where the mighty are not free to exploit the weak, as well as maintain the rule of law, we have traded individual self-defense for the benefit of a professional police force. The mere subject of a State (in this case the U.S.) has no reasonable claim of a "right" to "keep and bear" certain arms, the form of arms which may be lawfully possessed or the manner or place in which such arms are may lawfully used, dependent on the current prevailing interpretation of the (falsely) perceived right. Such a right (as it is claimed) being endowed to the mere person, by the current U.S. constitution, would contradict a (rather fundamental) right to civilian disarmament, which may be derived from the provisions of the preamble which specifically establish the obligation of the State to "ensure domestic tranquility" (therefore requiring a disarmed citizenry) and to "provide for the common defense" which requires State actors to have a monopoly on the lawful use of coercive power (which is illegitimately provided to the subject through the legal codes under names such as "castle doctrine"). Fortunately, the U.S. is solitary in it's (collective) lunacy.
I had a good laugh the other day when I saw that RuPaul who is on some network I never heard of has a larger audience than Piers Moron. Two thumbs up to the Milwaukee County Sheriff. Clearly the people of WI have rejected Tom Barrett's nonsense, not once, but twice, by voting for Scot Walker in the election AND in the Recall election.
The sheriff was such a waffling failure that he couldn't say "No," to a simple question. La Pierre did the same bullshit dance until Sen. Leahy insisted three times.
Mikeb, did you stop beating your wife, yet? Please answer: Yes or No. And as an aside, "The Newtown Board of Education wants more armed police officers in the towns four elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary last month.
Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year's budget."
Mikeb, it wasn't a joke, neither was it an insinuation, it was a question that if you answer either, yes or no, you look like a bad guy. That's what Moron was trying to do to the sheriff. That was the point of my comment.
Such nefarious behavior is to be expected from the likes of Peirs Morgan. It is unfair to descend to that level in order to make one's point. The U.S. is a violent culture, and Morgan may again find himself on the receiving end of a fist when his asinine behavior reduces one of his victims (referred to as "guests") to their primal urge to follow by the example of Clarkson.
I wonder if the protections established under the First Amendment would be applicable to resident aliens such a Morgan? Would the suppression of Morgan's imported ideology be permissible under the current constitutional diction? Morgan's dogmatic, simian, and infuriatingly bombastic display of televised chest-beating does only serves to tarnish his cause with the stain of his idiocy.
While the Sheriff's methods where rather questionable, the concept of an armed citizenry that he advocates (private citizens cooperating with law enforcement in the defense of the person, property, and civil society) is entirely compatible with both the goals of community policing and the intended function of the Second Amendment.
However much you might dislike Piers, his question to the sheriff was a fair and straight one. The sheriff, like his hero Wayne did, waffled rather than answering.
The reason why gun rights folks are reluctant to answer that question is interesting. I suppose it's because you know how wrong you are.
Mikeb, would you mind asking the question again? I find Piers Morgan impossible to listen to. What specifically is it that you think we are reluctant to answer?
The question put to the sheriff and to La Pierre in the Senate hearing, was, do you support universal background checks. Both, rather than answering, did evasion, avoidance and general bullshit beginning with "Well, what I do support is ..."
I am not categorically opposed to requiring universal background checks, so long as no record is kept. Criminals will sell guns to each other or will import them without reference to the law, but perhaps the less enterprising ones will be deterred. That being said, until the gun control side is willing to give something in return, I see no reason to offer anything. /answer
Note that I did not waffle or evade or avoid. I don't see universal background checks as being of any value, but I'd be willing to accept it in return for something--national carry reciprocity, for example. But since that was not a "yes or no" question, I gave a more complex answer. The older I get and the more I learn, the fewer things I see that can be answered by a "yes" or a "no" alone.
40% of guns are NOT sold threw privet sales. This has bin proven that was true long time ago but NOT any more.They talk about that in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Wi6gZU01yF8
ReplyDeleteYou've been spending too much time in the echo-chamber gun blogs. I've covered this a few times around here. The statistic that says only 1% of guns used in crime comes from gun shows is all wrong because the biggest category in that chart is "from other criminals." That may be true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. What we're really interested in is where do guns go from being lawful possessions to being part of the black market. Private sales without background checks are a big part of that pie chart.
DeleteIt's all here: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2013/01/how-do-criminals-get-guns.html
To guarantee life, liberty, and property for all citizens of a nation, there must be to some degree a collectivization of resources in order to protect the fundamental liberties of the persons subject to the rule of the State from infringement by their fellow citizen. Without the government there would be no rights. The twenty-first century American is very much a creation of the state, as without police officers, firefighters, social workers, and soldiers, there would be no quality of life, no liberty and no property worth defending. We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted. The collectivization of some rights in inherent to the formation of a civilized society. Police are endowed with coercive power, while mere citizens are not. In order to create a civilized society, where the mighty are not free to exploit the weak, as well as maintain the rule of law, we have traded individual self-defense for the benefit of a professional police force. The mere subject of a State (in this case the U.S.) has no reasonable claim of a "right" to "keep and bear" certain arms, the form of arms which may be lawfully possessed or the manner or place in which such arms are may lawfully used, dependent on the current prevailing interpretation of the (falsely) perceived right. Such a right (as it is claimed) being endowed to the mere person, by the current U.S. constitution, would contradict a (rather fundamental) right to civilian disarmament, which may be derived from the provisions of the preamble which specifically establish the obligation of the State to "ensure domestic tranquility" (therefore requiring a disarmed citizenry) and to "provide for the common defense" which requires State actors to have a monopoly on the lawful use of coercive power (which is illegitimately provided to the subject through the legal codes under names such as "castle doctrine"). Fortunately, the U.S. is solitary in it's (collective) lunacy.
ReplyDeleteI had a good laugh the other day when I saw that RuPaul who is on some network I never heard of has a larger audience than Piers Moron.
ReplyDeleteTwo thumbs up to the Milwaukee County Sheriff.
Clearly the people of WI have rejected Tom Barrett's nonsense, not once, but twice, by voting for Scot Walker in the election AND in the Recall election.
orlin sellers
The sheriff was such a waffling failure that he couldn't say "No," to a simple question. La Pierre did the same bullshit dance until Sen. Leahy insisted three times.
DeleteMikeb, did you stop beating your wife, yet? Please answer: Yes or No.
DeleteAnd as an aside, "The Newtown Board of Education wants more armed police officers in the towns four elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary last month.
Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year's budget."
orlin sellers
I've never deleted one of your comments, but jokes like that'll get you there if that's what you want.
DeleteMikeb, it wasn't a joke, neither was it an insinuation, it was a question that if you answer either, yes or no, you look like a bad guy. That's what Moron was trying to do to the sheriff. That was the point of my comment.
Deleteorlin sellers
Orlin Sellers,
DeleteSuch nefarious behavior is to be expected from the likes of Peirs Morgan. It is unfair to descend to that level in order to make one's point. The U.S. is a violent culture, and Morgan may again find himself on the receiving end of a fist when his asinine behavior reduces one of his victims (referred to as "guests") to their primal urge to follow by the example of Clarkson.
Mikeb, the beating your wife question is a classic example of one that is unfair to the person being asked.
DeleteThis sheriff is a voice for the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Morgan is a windbag who should go home.
I wonder if the protections established under the First Amendment would be applicable to resident aliens such a Morgan? Would the suppression of Morgan's imported ideology be permissible under the current constitutional diction? Morgan's dogmatic, simian, and infuriatingly bombastic display of televised chest-beating does only serves to tarnish his cause with the stain of his idiocy.
DeleteWhile the Sheriff's methods where rather questionable, the concept of an armed citizenry that he advocates (private citizens cooperating with law enforcement in the defense of the person, property, and civil society) is entirely compatible with both the goals of community policing and the intended function of the Second Amendment.
However much you might dislike Piers, his question to the sheriff was a fair and straight one. The sheriff, like his hero Wayne did, waffled rather than answering.
DeleteThe reason why gun rights folks are reluctant to answer that question is interesting. I suppose it's because you know how wrong you are.
Mikeb, would you mind asking the question again? I find Piers Morgan impossible to listen to. What specifically is it that you think we are reluctant to answer?
ReplyDeleteThe question put to the sheriff and to La Pierre in the Senate hearing, was, do you support universal background checks. Both, rather than answering, did evasion, avoidance and general bullshit beginning with "Well, what I do support is ..."
DeleteThanks. Here's my answer:
DeleteI am not categorically opposed to requiring universal background checks, so long as no record is kept. Criminals will sell guns to each other or will import them without reference to the law, but perhaps the less enterprising ones will be deterred. That being said, until the gun control side is willing to give something in return, I see no reason to offer anything. /answer
Note that I did not waffle or evade or avoid. I don't see universal background checks as being of any value, but I'd be willing to accept it in return for something--national carry reciprocity, for example. But since that was not a "yes or no" question, I gave a more complex answer. The older I get and the more I learn, the fewer things I see that can be answered by a "yes" or a "no" alone.