Gun loons--the best argument for gun regulation on the planet.

First off, we have the open carry movement imploding all around us with Veronica Dunnachie showing she wasn't a victim.

Nope, she was a killer.

Of course, the Open Carry Movement wants to say they never heard of her.

Yeah, right....

But, the best thing to do to get ammunition to shoot down your arguments is to just let you babble.  Like this.

I feel safer already knowing you people have guns in your homes.

Especially since it will help buttress the claim that guns in the home are more likely to injure or kill a family member than a criminal.

Gun loons--a dying breed.

You wonder why I think you are a pack of morons?

It's the Second AMENDMENT, not ARTICLE II--Dipshits!

Article II deals with executive powers, which you would know if you had any idea of what the Constitution actually says.

Oh the irony! Article 2, Section 2: "...The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States..."

But, you DON'T have any idea of what the fuck is going on most of the time (pointing out how stupid you people are would be a full time job), which is why you can be duped into an idiotic interpretation of the Second Amendment--you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about.

Even better, the Second Amendment is misquoted instead of "the free state" this says "the state".

Oh, dear: he's a STATIST.

Well, this clown now has a permanent reminder of his stupidity.

Or maybe he likes Obama deep down in his heart...which goes with his latent statist tendencies.

Now, piss off and worry about how much drool is dripping from your mouths.

Something to think about:

From Salon:

Death threats. Think about that for a moment. Is there anything that says you have lost the argument more loudly than that? When you make death threats in place of arguments, it’s because you know your argument’s laughable. A joke. Increasingly that is what the so-called gun rights organizations have become. A sick joke. And everything Raymond said — about their hypocrisy, their cowardice and their hostility to freedom — is absolutely true.

As I have said before, gun loon arguments do not stand scrutiny, which is the major reason I don't pay too much attention to what you have to say (not to mention I've pretty much heard them all and found they are Bullshit).

After all the reason that gun violence research cannot receive federal funding is that the law says that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” And this was in reaction to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues called “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

That study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

So, is this yet another thing you lot are afraid of?

Better to keep your mouth shut...

But, this person opened it and confirmed himself to be a total fuckwit on the Esquire forum.  He thought he would be clever and delete the second comment, but it had already been screen capped:

No, asswipe, we think about your type all the time.  We do count on people like you since you are the type of asshole we think shouldn't have a gun because you are irresponsible. You make our job easier by making statements like this.

And you are dumb enough to make a statement where admit you are irresponsible.

What would your friends say if you said stupid shit like this to them?  Or are your friends assholes like yourself?

I'm a nice guy and redacted your info, but you know who you are.  Live with your stupidity.

I know it must be tough being you.

Gun extremists and intimidation

From Chris Hayes "All In"

People unclear on the issue

Meet Mike Lynn, from Memphis, Tennesse, the spokesperson for Fathers for Gun Violence [1]:

Nothing like using fear and emotion to make your point.

He asks a question which he should have thought about before he made this phone call:

"Are you guys for real?"

But, from his phone message--it sounds as if he is indeed for gun violence.

The type of person we really want walking around with a gun.

[1] Before you people go apeshit for me giving his "personal information"--he already does that in the video--if you actually watched it.

If you actually understood it.

Gun Nut the Gathering

Of course, they left out "Dickhead who fancies himself to be a wild west gunslinger"

You know you're a gun loon when...

You make death threats against someone who sells custom assault rifles and describes himself as on the “right-wing vanguard of gun rights”.

You probably even call him "anti-gun".

Support gun rights...

SUPPORT GUN RIGHTS  
OR
I'LL SHOOT YOU.

I'll Second Amendment Your ass.

Gun rights activists threaten Maryland Gun Shop Owner

And while we are on the topic of "getting away with murder" laws and gun fanatics who want to test the limits of those laws: let's look at the case of Andy Raymond, owner of Engage Armaments, who wanted to sell the Armatix iP1 handgun, but ended up backing down due to threats made against him, his girlfriend, and even his dog.

Dude, I can relate they make their threats against us as well. 

Although, I have to admit that actual threats of physical violence from the "pro-gun" crowd don't reflect well on them.  And it would really hurt the "gun rights" cause if they decide to "Second Amendment" on of their perceived enemies.

And in the case of Andy Raymond, he is indeed a perceived enemy since this is a person who sells custom assault rifles.  In fact, his reason for selling the iP1 was that he thought people should have that option.  In fact, he thought more people might warm up to gun ownership if the possibility of accidental injury were reduced.

Of course, that's not how the "pro-gun" side sees this whole thing. Anything which might infringe the right of a disqualified person from access to a firearm is something which should be viewed with suspicion: even if it comes from someone who is so obviously "pro-gun" that you would need to be a total gun loon to not see it.

In fact, Andy may just have learned the difference between a gun loon and a responsible gun owner.

The problem with this topic is that some people are too swayed by their emotions (gun loons) that they cannot tell the difference between reality and their fears.

And, boy are they one crowd who is scared shitless.

And they have guns.

Teabaggers/gunloons need a reality check. Here it is.

I keep trying to make this point, but some of these people are too thick to get it.

We didn't call the thing the "Grid Square Removal Service" for nothing!

Gun lunacy hits new levels

Come on, tell me this person is a responsible gun owner!

Not to go into the gory details, but novelist Cormac McCarthy's former wife pulled weapon from a most unusual holster.

Seriously, are there some people you think shouldn't own guns?

Nice one

Tell us again  about how you are responsible gun owners:

In a comment thread last January, a Redditor whose account has since been deleted asked FirearmConcierge if he had faced criminal charges related to firearms trafficking. FirearmConcierge replied that he had not, adding: "There are plenty of dealers out there who make sales without doing background checks. I know dealers that operate exclusively without doing any background checks." He also stated: "I too have been known not to do a background check on some transactions."

You, gun loons, in your Bizarro World way you tell US we "dance on the graves of the dead".

Do you have any fucking idea what that term means?

Well, we have seen that mass shootings are good for gun sales.

More here

True Confession

I know that the usual gunloon belief is that people who are "anti-gun" have no experience of firearms, hate guns, or are just "bigoted against guns".

In fact, I've noticed that whenever anyone who is a gun owner comes out for anything which might be remotely considered to be "reasonable" the gunloons shoot him down (e.g., background checks).  I can give you examples of Smith and Wesson's agreement with the Clinton Administration where S & W agreed agreed to were; to sell guns with locks, to build the locks in the weapons within two years, implement smart gun technology, and take ballistic fingerprints of its guns.  Or Former Field and Stream Editor, Dick Metcalf Supporting gun control with this statement:

“I bring this up,” he wrote, “because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The pro-gun side will call the people who admit the US has a serious problem with firearms all sorts of nasty name: including "sheeple".  Bus, isn't the term "sheeple" referring to people who follow and don't think?  Isn't it implying a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty?

Anyway, I bet you wouldn't guess that I was once one of the gun rights fold?

Yep, serious gun rights.  Maybe on the verge of militia movement.  What happened?

I grew up.

First off, I'm probably a LOT better traveled than most of you.  And guess what?  Lots of other countries have guns!  Yeah, they do.

As for the Second Amendment, I actually looked into it and its history.  I didn't bother with the books by the pseudo-scholars.  Does the term taking things out of context have any meaning to you?  trust me, that is what they do.  And if you think for yourself, you will see that. For example:

The current gun control debate has resurrected a quote allegedly from George Washington that goes like this: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”  The quote is floating around on Facebook and on various anti-gun control blogs like "Ammunition Depot"  and "Famous Second Amendment Quotes."  Sometimes the quote has a source, usually the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790 but usually is just attributed nakedly to George Washington.

The actual quote comes from Washington's address to Congress on January  8th, 1790 and goes like this: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."  Note that the quote has nothing to do with gun rights and is clearly concerns properly equipping the military.

That is not a unique example of how the gun rights crowd distort the Second Amendment historical roots.

Anyway,you need to go beyond your own comfort zone here.  Because if you really want to believe  in the gun rights version of the Second Amendment, because that's the way you want it to read, then you are going to have a serious problem dealing with the truth.  But, that's what the gun rights people want you to do--accept lies.

You are going to actually have to read the primary sources and do some historical research on your own.

It requires actually thinking for yourself.

Let's toss in a well meaning home maker who lived near my mother getting murdered.  Not really anyone who was close to my family, other than she lived near my mother.  Then, there are too many other innocent people who get shot.  They may not die, but they drain on the public's resources.

Is my having a gun really that important?  Is it rally the best method of home defence?

Anyway, I have really looked into this topic. I have considered most of your arguments and found them to not be valid.  Especially if the only reason why you believe in gun rights is that is the way you want it to be.

Life is tough, man, grow up if you just want your guns because...

So, I am not really an "anti-gun bigot".  If I were bigoted, I would still be on the "pro-gun" side.

Great Alfred Hitchcock Quote

I now understand Greg camp's fixation with guns  and why he needs them so much.

And while we're at it...

The Last Hand Gun On Earth

Take an old movie serial, add a new voice over by the Firesign Theatre and you have some very funny stuff.  In this case, the gun loon’s nightmare: Big Brother’s henchmen come for the last handgun on earth.

“To think people used to sleep with these things under their pillows.”

The Mark Kessler Fan Club

And I do have to wonder how many of you "gun rights" clowns are disqualified persons just hoping that gun laws will be repealed so you can get your hands on guns.

Tom Diaz's Response to A Coward's Threat

National Rifle Nut Association - A word about guns

Why repeating lies and other nonsense won't work

The problem is that when your spout stuff which isn't based in fact, someone can verify the information pretty easily on the internet as this article points out:

There are roughly 30,000 deaths a year in the U.S. due to gunshots. As this week's news makes clear, incidents of children killing themselves or other children are appallingly common. They are also the types of stories -- compact, outrageous, horrifying -- that are readily transmitted through Twitter, Facebook and other forms of social media. As such stories spread, they make it increasingly obvious to increasing numbers of people that American gun laws are uniquely insane.

The NRA has been remarkably successful in suppressing government research on gun violence and hindering dissemination of data on guns. Legislators in Washington and state capitals have been ghoulishly accommodating. The Internet, it seems, won't be so easily bought.

So when you try to lie about the meaning of the Second Amendment, say by using the quote:

The great object is, that every man be armed.

Realise not only can people get the quote in its entirety since Patrick Henry’s “That every man be armed” speech found at The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (3 Elliot’s Debates 384-7), Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788. Page 386-7 (see also 5 June)
. . .

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects…May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavoured to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.

We can add in this gloss from an expert on Patrick Henry:

In this connection, however, I need to say something about a recent popular misconception concerning Patrick Henry’s legacy and the genesis of the Second Amendment, which states, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Despite efforts of a number of misguided scholars to construe this language as justifying individual, unregulated gun ownership, I am firmly convinced that the Second Amendment is concerned with the state’s power to control its own militia as a civilian alternative to a professional standing army. In raising the issue in the Virginia Convention Patrick Henry several times pointed to Art. I, Section 8, Clause 16, as an example of the potentially threatening effect of dual state and congressional jurisdiction over the militia and the possibly dangerous union of the purse and sword vested in Congress. Yet wielding the scholar’s power of the ellipse several partisans of gun ownership have edited Henry’s remarks about how best to regulate the militia into an inflammatory half-truth “The great object is that every man be armed….Every one who is able may have a gun.” The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry’s image.
This is not, I repeat NOT, part of Patrick Henry’s legacy. Clearly speaking of the problem of militia organization, what he actually said is, “The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.–But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance….”
Not to belabor the argument, but cinch it, I would also remind you that the liberty or death speech itself was in support of a resolution to put the colony in a mode of defense, and the plan proposed by Henry’s committee as a result of its passage included a militia law that described in great detail not only the number of men, but the amount of ammunition to be raised by a collective levy, and a very clear procedure for maintaining county and provincial control over the militia system. If Henry’s remarks were intended to cast doubt upon the adequacy of a hypothetical Congressional militia law, they only affirmed his commitment to the traditional method of state control over a militia that, far from being a privatized collection of gun-toting individuals, was a community temporarily called to arms and always subservient to public authority and law.

from  Henry Mayer, A Patrick Henry Essay (No. 5-98), THE POLITICAL LEGACY OF PATRICK HENRY.

And funny how it seems to back up the things I have been saying.

As I like to say, your arguments don't stand scrutiny--and the internet is extremely unfriendly to them.