‘Come And Take It Texas’ To Join Parade Today With Men Carrying Long Guns And Riding On A Float
An Open Carry group in Texas plans an armed walk in a parade today and they’ve also booked a float. What fun! I wouldn’t take the kids out to this parade, though. The group states that the long guns will be unloaded but only because, “The parade people are making it that way” but you can “just carry a mag in pocket if you are worried.”
The protesters will be joined by lots of flags, which means they are real ‘patriots’ while they ruin a parade for families with children.
A picture of their freedom float:
Celebrate “Come & Take It!” with us! Be part of history by walking armed with us in the parade. C.A.T.I. will have a float this year and we are encouraging everyone interested in gun rights to participate. Bring your long arm on a proper sling, unloaded and walk with us showing solidarity in the gun rights movement sweeping the state.
The dates for the Come & Take It Festival are Oct. 3, 4 & 5, 2014. The parade we will participate in is Oct. 4th. Be there by 9:00 and the parade starts at 10:30.
The Come & Take It Festival celebrates the firing of the first shot of the Texas revolution on Oct. 2, 1835, which took place near Gonzales. Come & help us celebrate history with the firing of the first shot!
(Republican exclamation marks, theirs!!!)
Joseph Walker writes in the comments, “Empty guns ? What about black powder pistols ? When did the new rules come out ? How is carrying a empty long gun fighting for our rights to carry a pistol constitutionally ?”
Why can’t they have snipers on the floats? What a crappy revolution.
Weapons will be loaded after the parade so don’t worry.
Scheduled to attend are David Amad of Open Carry Texas in Houston, Lamar Russell of Open Carry Texas in San Antonio (he’s also an Admin at OCT).
Misty Witt of Open Carry Texas of Houston and she’s a “Gun Goddess” (see image below):
Most of the “Goddesses” attending a recent rally turned out to be men, but whatevs.
These three “Goddesses” where there, though.
The motivation for the rally seems clear: piss of Moms Demand Action.
I’m pretty sure the Moms group is smiling right now. You see, these Open Carry groups are their own worst enemies. We just have to sit back and watch their examples of extreme behavior while carrying firearms and gun sense laws will follow their lead. If gun activists are allowed to ride on floats with their long guns strapped to their backs, then the gun laws in that state are already lax.
Big thanks to my tipster whose anonymity shall be respected here.
All images were obtained through social media after the group circulated them, thereby making them fair use.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
uzza October 4th, 2014 at 11:46
“Daddy, ‘what’s ‘come and take it’?”
“They’re talking about their guns, honey.”
“They want us to take their guns away from them?”
“No, honey, they want us to TRY to take their guns”
“Why would we want their guns?”
“I dunno, hon.”
“Well, why do they want us to try?”
“I guess so they can shoot us.”
“Then we better take away their guns, huh dad?”
whatthe46 October 4th, 2014 at 22:48
clever. i like it.
uzza October 4th, 2014 at 11:46
“Daddy, ‘what’s ‘come and take it’?”
“They’re talking about their guns, honey.”
“They want us to take their guns away from them?”
“No, honey, they want us to TRY to take their guns”
“Why would we want their guns?”
“I dunno, hon.”
“Well, why do they want us to try?”
“I guess so they can shoot us.”
“Then we better take away their guns, huh dad?”
whatthe46 October 4th, 2014 at 22:48
clever. i like it.
Carla Akins October 4th, 2014 at 12:05
Come and take it? The name is aggressive and confrontational, not inclusive. What exactly is their goal?
neworleans878 October 4th, 2014 at 12:05
Here in NOLA, people throw stuff off of floats to the crowd…beads, doubloons, all kinds of junk that the crowd scrambles for. Great fun.
If this parade were to have throws, wonder what they might be? NRA bumper stickers, hats, holsters? Toss a handful of bullets like they do with doubloons here? The biggest prize down here is the coveted Zulu coconut…wonder what the biggest catch in this parade would be? A Hello Kitty gun?
Cosmic_Surfer October 4th, 2014 at 12:39
They could call Magpul…Magpul does helicopter drops of oversized magazines http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-721142.html
Maybe a few cases on their heads….Shouldn’t do any damage. These tools already appear to hold parades after brain-death
crewoldt October 4th, 2014 at 23:05
Grenades perhaps?
Carla Akins October 4th, 2014 at 12:05
Come and take it? The name is aggressive and confrontational, not inclusive. What exactly is their goal?
nola878 October 4th, 2014 at 12:05
Here in NOLA, people throw stuff off of floats to the crowd…beads, doubloons, all kinds of junk that the crowd scrambles for. Great fun.
If this parade were to have throws, wonder what they might be? NRA bumper stickers, hats, holsters? Toss a handful of bullets like they do with doubloons here? The biggest prize down here is the coveted Zulu coconut…wonder what the biggest catch in this parade would be? A Hello Kitty gun?
Cosmic_Surfer October 4th, 2014 at 12:39
They could call Magpul…Magpul does helicopter drops of oversized magazines http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-721142.html
Maybe a few cases on their heads….Shouldn’t do any damage. These tools already appear to hold parades after brain-death
crewoldt October 4th, 2014 at 23:05
Grenades perhaps?
Skydog2 October 4th, 2014 at 13:12
It’s always nice to see citizens PEACEFULLY protest to protect their rights.
OldLefty October 4th, 2014 at 13:21
PEACEFULLY protest to protect their rights.
_________
protect their rights???.
Who says that is what they are doing??
Does Stand your ground apply to the locals?
BillMillerTime October 9th, 2014 at 01:10
Why do liberals hate “stand your ground” laws? Apparently they’d prefer “run away” laws.
OldLefty October 9th, 2014 at 06:50
Why do liberals hate “stand your ground” laws?
_________
Because they give any yahoo the right to be judge, jury and executioner in one emotional moment.
Example; with ALL the shootings, it is reasonable for anyone who sees someone with a gun to be fearful, shoot them and claim stand your ground.
It is reasonable for one of the residents in the open carry march town to fear these people and shoot the first one who makes eye contact.
In November 2007, Joe Horne, in Houston pulled out a shotgun and killed two men whom he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor’s home. Joe Horn, a 61-year-old retiree, called 911 and urged the operator to “ ‘Catch these guys, will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.’ ” Despite being warned to remain inside his home, Horn stated he would shoot, telling the operator, “ ‘I have a right to protect myself too, sir. The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.’ ”
First thing is, these guys did not get to stand trail for B&E or burglary to ascertain guilt.
Secondly, If they were found guilty, it does not carry a death sentence.
And again, the law allows Joe Horne to be judge, jury and executioner, FIRST….then worry about due process later.
BillMillerTime October 11th, 2014 at 20:03
It is incorrect to claim that “stand your ground” laws allow someone to be judge, jury and executioner. “Stand your ground” laws simply mean that if a person is where he has the right to be and comes under attack, he has no duty to retreat before defending himself. That’s all.
“with ALL the shootings, it is reasonable for anyone who sees someone with a gun to be fearful, shoot them and claim stand your ground.”
No, it is not reasonable to shoot someone simply because they possess a firearm, and no, simply asserting a claim under stand your ground does not bestow a get out of jail free card upon the shooter. Any use of deadly force is subject to review by the legal system.
If you are ever foolish enough to act on your erroneous beliefs, you will quickly find yourself under felony indictment. And if your case goes to trial before a jury of twelve people like me, then you’re going away for a long long time.
The Joe Horn case was reviewed by a grand jury that determined that no crime had taken place. Apparently the two criminals charged at Joe on his own property. Two fewer weeds in the garden of society.
OldLefty October 12th, 2014 at 08:10
It is EXACTLY correct to claim that “stand your ground” laws allow someone to be judge, jury and executioner.
“Stand your ground” laws simply mean that if a person feels threatened, he has no duty to retreat before defending himself. That’s all.
And you SHOULD have a duty to retreat, because you most often don’t know.
“No, it is not reasonable to shoot someone simply because they possess a firearm, and no”
_______________
I did not say it was reasonable to “shoot someone simply because they possess a firearm”, I said it was reasonable for one of the residents of the neighborhood to be afraid of there people marching through their streets brandishing, and say they felt threatened.
“The Joe Horn case was reviewed by a grand jury that determined that no crime had taken place. Apparently the two criminals charged at Joe on his own property. Two fewer weeds in the garden of society”
_________
That, EXACTLY is the problem.
They actually WERE retreating. Both were shot in the back.
BillMillerTime October 16th, 2014 at 01:48
“Shot in the back”
Texas law allows the use of force to protect property regardless of whether the burglar is approaching your or fleeing with your property. Anyone who is considering engaging in the occupation of professional burglar here in Texas might want to take that into consideration.
And now I can just hear the plaintive whining: “But human life is worth more than property!” Oh yeah? Well I’ll let the burglars make that decision.
You said: “With ALL the shootings, it is reasonable for anyone who sees someone with a gun to be fearful, shoot them and claim stand your ground.”
And I said: “No, it is not reasonable to shoot someone simply because they possess a firearm.”
A firearm is simply a tool.
Your interpretation is erroneous. Did you see that just two weeks ago Michael Dunn was convicted of first degree murder? Florida has a “stand your ground” law, but it did not keep Dunn from being convicted and sent away for at least 25 years. You people act as if “stand your ground” is a license to commit murder; It isn’t.
You said: “And you SHOULD have a duty to retreat, because you most often don’t know”
I have a duty to protect myself and my loved ones from death or grievous bodily injury; I have no duty to retreat. If I must use deadly force, I know full well that a grand jury will take days or weeks to deliberate over a decision that I had to make in the blink of an eye.
Why is the Left so intent on disarming the American people? What do they have planned for us for which we must first be disarmed?
Recommended reading: Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control – September 1, 2001, by Jeff Snyder
OldLefty October 16th, 2014 at 07:06
– Texas law allows the use of force to protect property regardless of whether the burglar is approaching your or fleeing with your property.
__________
That’s the problem.
These guys were fleeing the neighbor’s property and Horn was told by the police to do nothing, they were on their way.
The Horn case is more like the Dunn case. Horn got away with it only because his victims were illegal.
Robbery does not come with the death penalty, and any yahoo who can shoot himself in the foot should not be able to mete it out as these stand your ground laws allow.
– Nobody has a problem with your right to protect your family, (Horn was not protecting anything, he was an overgrown child playing ‘bang, bang, shoot em up”), there is no issue of “protecting one’s family or property here.
The issue is you don’t get to be the judge, jury and executioner.
If I see a few of these guys open carrying guns in my neighborhood, knowing that recent history tells me that it is reasonable to assume that these guys may open fire on the neighborhood at any moment, I can claim to feel threatened, stand my ground and shoot them first?
– Why is the Left so intent on disarming the American people? What do they have planned for us for which we must first be disarmed?
_______
Don’t be silly.
Common sense laws, (like the ones Reagan proposed?) do not constitute “disarming”.
Few believe in “disarming the public”, just responsible gun ownership.
As Mike the Gun Guy said of irresponsible gun ownership and Sandy Hook;
“Why did the parents of these murdered children have to wait for the president to invite them to Washington to plead their case? Why didn’t a bunch of gun owners chip in and send a plane up to Connecticut to bring those shattered parents down to DC? I’ll tell you why we didn’t. Because after the massacre Wayne LaPierre and all the pro-gun organizations rallied around the flag saying the problem wasn’t guns. The problem was lack of school security, or lack of mental health facilities. It wasn’t “us,” it was “them.” “We” didn’t have to take responsibility because gun owners are responsible. But let’s be honest. The truth is that what murdered those kids and their teachers was an emotionally-disturbed young man whose mother should never have given him access to her guns. ”
If gun owners were REALLY “responsible gun owners”, we wouldn’t be need so much regulation.
By the way, the Iraqi people were all well armed in Saddam’s Iraq as well, so what?
Recommended reading…
What the Founders meant by a well regulated militia;
Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide
for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the
United States.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
BillMillerTime October 17th, 2014 at 10:39
OldLefty wrote: “That’s the problem. These guys were fleeing the neighbor’s property and Horn was told by the police to do nothing, they were on their way.”
He was told by a dispatcher. You know that that’s not a lawful order by a peace officer, right?
I’m trying to understand your position here. Do you think that Joe Horn violated the law? or do you think that Joe Horn followed bad laws and therefore escaped justice?
I’ll admit that I have not read the police report filed by the Pasadena PD although we do know that according to Pasadena Police Capt. A.H. “Bud” Corbett, the two burglars ignored Mr. Horn’s order to freeze and that one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn. Show in the back? Perhaps, but the forensic report doesn’t say that.
Of course none of us were present during the grand jury deliberations. When you claim that Horn “got away with it only because his victims were illegal,” you’re simply speculating. If those two burglars had been legal, I’d give 1000-1 odds that we would have seen the same outcome.
Here’s what the Texas Penal Code says about the legitimate use of force.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
You will note that the words “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” do not appear. What we have is articulated 9.31(f).
“For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.”
When you write that “any yahoo who can shoot himself in the foot should not be able to mete it out as these stand your ground laws allow,” it makes me think that you have a poor grasp of the concept under-girding “Stand Your Ground” laws.
For example, suppose that the door to your home is kicked down by a pair of illegal alien/professional home invasion criminals such as Hernando Riascos Torres and Diego Ortiz, the two crooks who broke into Horn’s neighbor’s house. Texas Penal Code 9.31(f) means that when you’re on the stand explaining why you had to shoot them, the prosecutor can’t barrage you with silly questions such as “well why didn’t you run out the back door?” Don’t laugh; other states with a strong anti-self-defense mentality have allowed such interrogation.
OldLefty wrote: “Few believe in ‘disarming the public’, just responsible gun ownership.”
Oh really? Did you know that in California it’s legal to own a long rifle such an M1 Garand, and it’s legal to own a flare launcher, but that if you attach the flare launcher to the rifle, all of a sudden you have created something that California law calls an “assault weapon,” and can be incarcerated for five years. Does that sound reasonable to you? How about banning guns simply on the basis of their appearance and not on their actual functioning? Does that sound like “reasonable, commonsense guns safety” laws? That’s exactly what the useless federal “assault weapons” ban 1994 – 2004 did. (By the way, “assault weapon” is a meaningless bullshit propaganda term like “gateway drugs.”)
OldLefty wrote: “The truth is that what murdered those kids and their teachers was an emotionally-disturbed young man whose mother should never have given him access to her guns.”
Pull over, buddy; fact police. Adam Lanza used his .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle to kill his mother and then took her Bushmaster. (Dang it, there oughtta be a law against killing someone and taking their guns in order to go out and commit more crimes….)
OldLefty wrote: “If gun owners were REALLY ‘responsible gun owners’, we wouldn’t be need so much regulation.”
Here’s the difference between you and me: you think that America has a “gun problem.” In reality, America has a problem with criminal violence. Did you know that 70% of the homicides are committed in just 3% of the counties? The overwhelming majority of gun owners are in fact responsible. Your argument is akin to blaming “car owners” as a group for the 32,000 deaths annually on the highways. 9Did you know that anyone – even people with a string of DWIs and vehicular homicides – can just walk into a car show and buy a car without a background check? I blame car shows! We must stop car shows!)
Regarding Iraqi gun laws under Saddam, according to oThe New York Times, “Mr. Hussein, never one to tolerate competition, forbade private citizens to carry weapons, effectively outlawing the security industry.” http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/international/middleeast/20SECU.html
There are any number of reasons why some people build violent dictatorial societies and others build peaceful, ordered, democratic societies. A gun is simply a tool. Possessing one neither wards off evil, attracts bad joojoo, or guarantees one’s freedom. Look at America today: private ownership of firearms has steadily risen over the past several decades even as we rush head first into a totalitarian state.
OldLefty wrote: “What the Founders meant by a well regulated militia…”
Did you even read the law?
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be
enrolled in the militia,…”
Suggested reading: “The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction,” by Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, Akhil Reed Amar.
tinyurl.com/chcfv
OldLefty October 18th, 2014 at 09:20
You know that that’s not a lawful order by a peace officer, right?
________
That is irrelevant. He was told by “the police”, (makes no difference whether or not it was an officer or their representative).
I don’t think Joe Horn thought about the law at all, I think he acted out of raw emotion.
And, yes, I believe it is bad law that is administered capriciously.
“Show in the back? Perhaps, but the forensic report doesn’t say that.”
______
Post mortem was inconclusive.
In my opinion, the Texas law is the problem, and basically errs on the side of recklessness.
“that the door
to your home is kicked down by a pair of illegal alien/professional home invasion……”
______
?????
1) There is no evidence that anything like that happened.
2) They did not break into HIS house and no one was in the neighbor’s house, therefore, no one was in danger.
3) I would be more afraid, that if I moved in next door, locked myself out, had a hoodie on and went through the window, that Horn would have shot me, (under the law).
OldLefty wrote: “Few believe in ‘disarming the public’, just responsible gun ownership.”
“Oh really?
Did you know that in California it’s legal to own a long rifle such an M1
Garand, and it’s legal to own a flare launcher, but that if you attach the
flare launcher to the rifle, all of a sudden you have created something that
California law calls an “assault weapon,” and can be incarcerated for
five years. Does that sound reasonable to you?”
___________
Yes!
Absolutely, and goes to the premise that no one wants to disarm the public.
I firmly believe in the assault weapons ban as well as a ban on high capacity magazines.
There is no more reason for them than there is for RPGs and Bradley tanks.
Nothing that you said about Adam Lanza refutes the facts that neither he nor his mother
should had had weapons.
Here’s the difference between you and me: I believe we have a problem with guns AND crime AND a worship of guns and violence.
If you want to compare gun and car….
There are a lot more regulations for cars and driving than for guns and gun ownership.
To REALLY drive home the analogy, how about we make gun owners carry insurance, to cover damages incurred by their guns?
As with car insurance, dwi’s and previous reckless behavior will jack up premiums.
Let the “market” decide.
Iraq gun laws??
I think the
NYT piece is wrong.
1) “Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/world/threats-responses-iraq-sandbags-already-streets-baghdad-city-waiting.html
2)THAT comports more with the Iraqi doctors whom I have worked with since the
1980’s who would talk about Iraqis always firing guns into the
air, especially for celebrations.
Today, I fear the tyranny of the gun lovers more than criminals or the government. (And I even own my dad’s old rifle, and my daughter and husband have gone shooting on
occasion, (neither owns a gun or wants one in their home)).
OldLefty
wrote: “What the Founders meant by a well regulated militia…”
Did you even read the law?
________
Did YOU???
BillMillerTime October 19th, 2014 at 02:40
As far as the law is concerned, it does in fact make a difference whether a command delivered by a costumed state employee is a “lawful order.” For example, if you get pulled over by the police and ordered to step out of your car and you refuse, you can be arrested.
A dispatcher working for a PD cannot give “lawful orders” requiring your compliance under penalty of law.
It has no bearing on whether Joe Horn’s use of force was lawful.
On the other hand, if you worship at the altar of state power, then you’ll probably drop to your knees and lick his boots.
OldLefty wrote: “????? 1) There is no evidence that anything like that [home invasion] happened.”
So you think it’s reasonable to make it a crime to attach a legal flare gun to a legal rifle? Remind me again how this reduces crime and enhances public safety?
I firmly believe in the assault weapons ban
That’s why I used the word “IF”! Home invasions happen. IF it happens to someone in Texas, the occupant is NOT required to run out the back door. If he shoots the home invaders, the prosecutor can NOT argue that the occupant’s use of force was unlawful because “he could have run out the back door.” THAT’S what stand your ground/castle doctrine means.
OldLefty wrote: “I firmly believe in the assault weapons ban…”
There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Or rather, “assault weapon” simply means any weapon that liberal lawmakers don’t like. You know, anything black and scary. The fact is that more people are killed each year by people wielding baseball bats, frying pans and other blunt objects than semi-automatic rifles.
OldLefty wrote: “There are a lot more regulations for cars and driving than for guns and gun ownership.”
I can buy a car without having to undergo an FBI background check. I can buy the same kinds of cars and gasoline as the police. I drive across state lines without committing a felony.
I’ve met people who have claimed that they think that the state should regulate guns “just like cars, with licensing and registration.” I always ask them, “Great! My concealed carry license would be valid in all 50 states just like my driver license, right?” The stunned look on their faces is hilarious.
OldLefty wrote: “Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.”
So what? Has no bearing on any of the topics under discussion. Has no bearing on, for example, whether it is reasonable for OldLefty to shoot someone who is openly carrying a sidearm just because he feels fearful. It has no bearing on your ridiculous notion that someone under attack “SHOULD have a duty to retreat, because you most often don’t know.”
OldLefty wrote: “how about we make gun owners carry insurance”
How about we make all reporters carry insurance just in case they defame someone?
I have a better idea: each person should be free to choose how much insurance he wants to cover, and for which losses.
You suggested that I read the cited the Militia Act of 1792 for to find out “what the Founders meant by a well regulated militia.” Well here it is: “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,…”
Able-bodied white men. Do you agree with the Founders (who were after all white supremacists) that gun ownership should be restricted to able-bodied white men?
OldLefty wrote: “no one wants to disarm the public.”
That is a lie. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/debunking-the-myth-that-no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns/
The civilian disarmament advocates at slate.com took a look at a recent Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council report, a non-profit think tank that publishes studies with the aim to assist the government in their decision-making process. And much to their dismay, it seems to have debunked just about every major claim that gun control advocates made in their recent push for an assault weapons ban.
As independent as it gets, this study by the National Academies (ordered by Barack Obama) shows that an assault weapons ban won’t reduce crime, that crime is on the decline, and that defensive gun uses are frequent and effective.
tinyurl.com/pnv4u69
I completely understand why George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and the other billionaire globalists advocate disarming civilian populations. They don’t want any pushback from We The People to their elitist plans for global domination.
OldLefty October 19th, 2014 at 11:18
“lawful order.” Is not the issue.
The issue is bad law.
Who told him to stay inside, is irrelevant because the issue in this debate is his intent and the fact that he was NOT acting defensively.
I would say that if YOU worship at the alter of the gun, You would ‘probably drop to YOUR knees and lick the boots of he who has the biggest gun’.
California law;
A semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine may not have a forward pistol grip, flash hider, collapsible stock, thumbhole stock, grenade/flare launcher, or pistol grip. A rifle breaking these rules is an assault rifle.
A rifle that is NOT semi automatic, or a semi automatic rifle with no detachable magazine, may have all the above features without violating the law, provided that minimum length limits are adhered to.
I think that is very reasonable.
Remind ME of how people running around with grenade/flare launchers are NOT a threat to public safety.
Home invasion… IF it happens to someone in Texas, the occupant is NOT required to run out the back door. ….
_______________
This was not a “home invasion”, as no one was home.
The definition is, In the United States, a home invasion is an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with violent intent to commit a crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping.
There was no occupant.
That is castle doctrine, not stand your ground.
There was no element of self defense.
Assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid and accurate spray firing.
I might also say that NOTHING is allowed to be called an “assault weapon” by the arms dealers and their lobbyists.
There is a reason why the inventor of the Kalashnikov now has regrets.
“baseball bats, frying
pans…”
That OLD chestnut??
And the victims have a fighting chance while nothing else kills so many so quickly.
Cars;
And you can lose your right to drive for infractions that did not result in death and injury.
“I can buy the same kinds of cars and gasoline as the police. I drive across state lines without committing a felony.”
And, again, they are not designed to kill a large number of people over a very short time
“The stunned look on their faces is hilarious..?
Somehow I doubt that, unless you seek out people who are not very bright.
How about we make all reporters carry insurance just in case they defame someone?
_________
Their employers do.
“each person should be free to choose how much insurance he wants to cover, and for which losses.”
_________
That does not help the people who’s lives they damage or ruin.
Again, require insurance and let the market decide.
OldLefty wrote: “Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.”
So what?
Has no bearing on any of the topics under discussion.
____________
Then why quote sources who were wrong about it?
The bearing it has is that their arms did not help them overthrow Saddam.
“cited the Militia Act of
1792….”
You already said that.
Get back to me when gun owners report for muster and inspection.
All military used to be men, until it wasn’t.
That has nothing to do with what a “well regulated militia” meant when the amendment was drafted.
Why do you give me a pro arms dealer site?
Much of what he, himself said is debunked in the very report he cites, and funny how he fails to mention;
• CDC ordered to resume, support of firearm-related violence
research.
(“resume” because the NRA passed legislation to ban research;
CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage
The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s budget the exact amount it hadallocated to gun violence research.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UWqhghyBiDs )
Public health approach used to address firearm violence because: • Is complex and frequent
• Is associated with high morbidity and mortality
•Has major impact on health and safety of U.S. residents
• U.S. has highest rate of firearm-related deaths among
industrialized countries, despite violent crime rate decline
“assault weapons ban won’t reduce crime,”
_______
Where does it say that in the report?
That report supports the other side who want to go back to common sense regulation.
“We The People to their elitist plans for global domination.”
_____
Jon Stewart puts it best;
“Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from
addressing our actual dystopic present.
Because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of
imaginary Hitler.”
But more accurate;
The NRA and global arms dealers don’t want any push back from “We the People” against the tyranny of the gun nuts that provide great profits for them.
Better “We the People” cower under our beds, home school our children and never leave the house.
tiredoftea October 4th, 2014 at 15:43
Mock is more like it.
StoneyCurtisll October 4th, 2014 at 18:17
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR31tXTSf1Um8qNsKeZRLsJutR7fOXQuug8Mat7HzOnuxARZT8Oow
Skydog2 October 4th, 2014 at 13:12
It’s always nice to see citizens PEACEFULLY protest to protect their rights.
OldLefty October 4th, 2014 at 13:21
PEACEFULLY protest to protect their rights.
_________
protect their rights???.
Who says that is what they are doing??
Does Stand your ground apply to the locals?
BillMiller66 October 9th, 2014 at 01:10
Why do liberals hate “stand your ground” laws? Apparently they’d prefer “run away” laws.
OldLefty October 9th, 2014 at 06:50
Why do liberals hate “stand your ground” laws?
_________
Because they give any yahoo the right to be judge, jury and executioner in one emotional moment.
Example; with ALL the shootings, it is reasonable for anyone who sees someone with a gun to be fearful, shoot them and claim stand your ground.
It is reasonable for one of the residents in the open carry march town to fear these people and shoot the first one who makes eye contact.
In November 2007, Joe Horne, in Houston pulled out a shotgun and killed two men whom he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor’s home. Joe Horn, a 61-year-old retiree, called 911 and urged the operator to “ ‘Catch these guys, will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.’ ” Despite being warned to remain inside his home, Horn stated he would shoot, telling the operator, “ ‘I have a right to protect myself too, sir. The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.’ ”
First thing is, these guys did not get to stand trail for B&E or burglary to ascertain guilt.
Secondly, If they were found guilty, it does not carry a death sentence.
And again, the law allows Joe Horne to be judge, jury and executioner, FIRST….then worry about due process later.
BillMiller66 October 11th, 2014 at 20:03
It is incorrect to claim that “stand your ground” laws allow someone to be judge, jury and executioner. “Stand your ground” laws simply mean that if a person is where he has the right to be and comes under attack, he has no duty to retreat before defending himself. That’s all.
“with ALL the shootings, it is reasonable for anyone who sees someone with a gun to be fearful, shoot them and claim stand your ground.”
No, it is not reasonable to shoot someone simply because they possess a firearm, and no, simply asserting a claim under stand your ground does not bestow a get out of jail free card upon the shooter. Any use of deadly force is subject to review by the legal system.
If you are ever foolish enough to act on your erroneous beliefs, you will quickly find yourself under felony indictment. And if your case goes to trial before a jury of twelve people like me, then you’re going away for a long long time.
The Joe Horn case was reviewed by a grand jury that determined that no crime had taken place. Apparently the two criminals charged at Joe on his own property. Two fewer weeds in the garden of society.
OldLefty October 12th, 2014 at 08:10
It is EXACTLY correct to claim that “stand your ground” laws allow someone to be judge, jury and executioner.
“Stand your ground” laws simply mean that if a person feels threatened, he has no duty to retreat before defending himself. That’s all.
And you SHOULD have a duty to retreat, because you most often don’t know.
“No, it is not reasonable to shoot someone simply because they possess a firearm, and no”
_______________
I did not say it was reasonable to “shoot someone simply because they possess a firearm”, I said it was reasonable for one of the residents of the neighborhood to be afraid of there people marching through their streets brandishing, and say they felt threatened.
“The Joe Horn case was reviewed by a grand jury that determined that no crime had taken place. Apparently the two criminals charged at Joe on his own property. Two fewer weeds in the garden of society”
_________
That, EXACTLY is the problem.
They actually WERE retreating. Both were shot in the back.
BillMiller66 October 16th, 2014 at 01:48
“Shot in the back”
Texas law allows the use of force to protect property regardless of whether the burglar is approaching your or fleeing with your property. Anyone who is considering engaging in the occupation of professional burglar here in Texas might want to take that into consideration.
And now I can just hear the plaintive whining: “But human life is worth more than property!” Oh yeah? Well I’ll let the burglars make that decision.
You said: “With ALL the shootings, it is reasonable for anyone who sees someone with a gun to be fearful, shoot them and claim stand your ground.”
And I said: “No, it is not reasonable to shoot someone simply because they possess a firearm.”
A firearm is simply a tool.
Your interpretation is erroneous. Did you see that just two weeks ago Michael Dunn was convicted of first degree murder? Florida has a “stand your ground” law, but it did not keep Dunn from being convicted and sent away for at least 25 years. You people act as if “stand your ground” is a license to commit murder; It isn’t.
You said: “And you SHOULD have a duty to retreat, because you most often don’t know”
I have a duty to protect myself and my loved ones from death or grievous bodily injury; I have no duty to retreat. If I must use deadly force, I know full well that a grand jury will take days or weeks to deliberate over a decision that I had to make in the blink of an eye.
Why is the Left so intent on disarming the American people? What do they have planned for us for which we must first be disarmed?
Recommended reading: Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control – September 1, 2001, by Jeff Snyder
OldLefty October 16th, 2014 at 07:06
– Texas law allows the use of force to protect property regardless of whether the burglar is approaching your or fleeing with your property.
__________
That’s the problem.
These guys were fleeing the neighbor’s property and Horn was told by the police to do nothing, they were on their way.
The Horn case is more like the Dunn case. Horn got away with it only because his victims were illegal.
Robbery does not come with the death penalty, and any yahoo who can shoot himself in the foot should not be able to mete it out as these stand your ground laws allow.
– Nobody has a problem with your right to protect your family, (Horn was not protecting anything, he was an overgrown child playing ‘bang, bang, shoot em up”), there is no issue of “protecting one’s family or property here.
The issue is you don’t get to be the judge, jury and executioner.
If I see a few of these guys open carrying guns in my neighborhood, knowing that recent history tells me that it is reasonable to assume that these guys may open fire on the neighborhood at any moment, I can claim to feel threatened, stand my ground and shoot them first?
– Why is the Left so intent on disarming the American people? What do they have planned for us for which we must first be disarmed?
_______
Don’t be silly.
Common sense laws, (like the ones Reagan proposed?) do not constitute “disarming”.
Few believe in “disarming the public”, just responsible gun ownership.
As Mike the Gun Guy said of irresponsible gun ownership and Sandy Hook;
“Why did the parents of these murdered children have to wait for the president to invite them to Washington to plead their case? Why didn’t a bunch of gun owners chip in and send a plane up to Connecticut to bring those shattered parents down to DC? I’ll tell you why we didn’t. Because after the massacre Wayne LaPierre and all the pro-gun organizations rallied around the flag saying the problem wasn’t guns. The problem was lack of school security, or lack of mental health facilities. It wasn’t “us,” it was “them.” “We” didn’t have to take responsibility because gun owners are responsible. But let’s be honest. The truth is that what murdered those kids and their teachers was an emotionally-disturbed young man whose mother should never have given him access to her guns. ”
If gun owners were REALLY “responsible gun owners”, we wouldn’t be need so much regulation.
By the way, the Iraqi people were all well armed in Saddam’s Iraq as well, so what?
Recommended reading…
What the Founders meant by a well regulated militia;
Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide
for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the
United States.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
BillMiller66 October 17th, 2014 at 10:39
OldLefty wrote: “That’s the problem. These guys were fleeing the neighbor’s property and Horn was told by the police to do nothing, they were on their way.”
He was told by a dispatcher. You know that that’s not a lawful order by a peace officer, right?
I’m trying to understand your position here. Do you think that Joe Horn violated the law? or do you think that Joe Horn followed bad laws and therefore escaped justice?
I’ll admit that I have not read the police report filed by the Pasadena PD although we do know that according to Pasadena Police Capt. A.H. “Bud” Corbett, the two burglars ignored Mr. Horn’s order to freeze and that one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn. Show in the back? Perhaps, but the forensic report doesn’t say that.
Of course none of us were present during the grand jury deliberations. When you claim that Horn “got away with it only because his victims were illegal,” you’re simply speculating. If those two burglars had been legal, I’d give 1000-1 odds that we would have seen the same outcome.
Here’s what the Texas Penal Code says about the legitimate use of force.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
You will note that the words “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” do not appear. What we have is articulated 9.31(f).
“For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.”
When you write that “any yahoo who can shoot himself in the foot should not be able to mete it out as these stand your ground laws allow,” it makes me think that you have a poor grasp of the concept under-girding “Stand Your Ground” laws.
For example, suppose that the door to your home is kicked down by a pair of illegal alien/professional home invasion criminals such as Hernando Riascos Torres and Diego Ortiz, the two crooks who broke into Horn’s neighbor’s house. Texas Penal Code 9.31(f) means that when you’re on the stand explaining why you had to shoot them, the prosecutor can’t barrage you with silly questions such as “well why didn’t you run out the back door?” Don’t laugh; other states with a strong anti-self-defense mentality have allowed such interrogation.
OldLefty wrote: “Few believe in ‘disarming the public’, just responsible gun ownership.”
Oh really? Did you know that in California it’s legal to own a long rifle such an M1 Garand, and it’s legal to own a flare launcher, but that if you attach the flare launcher to the rifle, all of a sudden you have created something that California law calls an “assault weapon,” and can be incarcerated for five years. Does that sound reasonable to you? How about banning guns simply on the basis of their appearance and not on their actual functioning? Does that sound like “reasonable, commonsense guns safety” laws? That’s exactly what the useless federal “assault weapons” ban 1994 – 2004 did. (By the way, “assault weapon” is a meaningless bullshit propaganda term like “gateway drugs.”)
OldLefty wrote: “The truth is that what murdered those kids and their teachers was an emotionally-disturbed young man whose mother should never have given him access to her guns.”
Pull over, buddy; fact police. Adam Lanza used his .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle to kill his mother and then took her Bushmaster. (Dang it, there oughtta be a law against killing someone and taking their guns in order to go out and commit more crimes….)
OldLefty wrote: “If gun owners were REALLY ‘responsible gun owners’, we wouldn’t be need so much regulation.”
Here’s the difference between you and me: you think that America has a “gun problem.” In reality, America has a problem with criminal violence. Did you know that 70% of the homicides are committed in just 3% of the counties? The overwhelming majority of gun owners are in fact responsible. Your argument is akin to blaming “car owners” as a group for the 32,000 deaths annually on the highways. 9Did you know that anyone – even people with a string of DWIs and vehicular homicides – can just walk into a car show and buy a car without a background check? I blame car shows! We must stop car shows!)
Regarding Iraqi gun laws under Saddam, according to oThe New York Times, “Mr. Hussein, never one to tolerate competition, forbade private citizens to carry weapons, effectively outlawing the security industry.” http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/international/middleeast/20SECU.html
There are any number of reasons why some people build violent dictatorial societies and others build peaceful, ordered, democratic societies. A gun is simply a tool. Possessing one neither wards off evil, attracts bad joojoo, or guarantees one’s freedom. Look at America today: private ownership of firearms has steadily risen over the past several decades even as we rush head first into a totalitarian state.
OldLefty wrote: “What the Founders meant by a well regulated militia…”
Did you even read the law?
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be
enrolled in the militia,…”
Suggested reading: “The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction,” by Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, Akhil Reed Amar.
tinyurl.com/chcfv
OldLefty October 18th, 2014 at 09:20
You know that that’s not a lawful order by a peace officer, right?
________
That is irrelevant. He was told by “the police”, (makes no difference whether or not it was an officer or their representative).
I don’t think Joe Horn thought about the law at all, I think he acted out of raw emotion.
And, yes, I believe it is bad law that is administered capriciously.
“Show in the back? Perhaps, but the forensic report doesn’t say that.”
______
Post mortem was inconclusive.
In my opinion, the Texas law is the problem, and basically errs on the side of recklessness.
“that the door
to your home is kicked down by a pair of illegal alien/professional home invasion……”
______
?????
1) There is no evidence that anything like that happened.
2) They did not break into HIS house and no one was in the neighbor’s house, therefore, no one was in danger.
3) I would be more afraid, that if I moved in next door, locked myself out, had a hoodie on and went through the window, that Horn would have shot me, (under the law).
OldLefty wrote: “Few believe in ‘disarming the public’, just responsible gun ownership.”
“Oh really?
Did you know that in California it’s legal to own a long rifle such an M1
Garand, and it’s legal to own a flare launcher, but that if you attach the
flare launcher to the rifle, all of a sudden you have created something that
California law calls an “assault weapon,” and can be incarcerated for
five years. Does that sound reasonable to you?”
___________
Yes!
Absolutely, and goes to the premise that no one wants to disarm the public.
I firmly believe in the assault weapons ban as well as a ban on high capacity magazines.
There is no more reason for them than there is for RPGs and Bradley tanks.
Nothing that you said about Adam Lanza refutes the facts that neither he nor his mother
should had had weapons.
Here’s the difference between you and me: I believe we have a problem with guns AND crime AND a worship of guns and violence.
If you want to compare gun and car….
There are a lot more regulations for cars and driving than for guns and gun ownership.
To REALLY drive home the analogy, how about we make gun owners carry insurance, to cover damages incurred by their guns?
As with car insurance, dwi’s and previous reckless behavior will jack up premiums.
Let the “market” decide.
Iraq gun laws??
I think the
NYT piece is wrong.
1) “Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/world/threats-responses-iraq-sandbags-already-streets-baghdad-city-waiting.html
2)THAT comports more with the Iraqi doctors whom I have worked with since the
1980’s who would talk about Iraqis always firing guns into the
air, especially for celebrations.
Today, I fear the tyranny of the gun lovers more than criminals or the government. (And I even own my dad’s old rifle, and my daughter and husband have gone shooting on
occasion, (neither owns a gun or wants one in their home)).
OldLefty
wrote: “What the Founders meant by a well regulated militia…”
Did you even read the law?
________
Did YOU???
BillMiller66 October 19th, 2014 at 02:40
As far as the law is concerned, it does in fact make a difference whether a command delivered by a costumed state employee is a “lawful order.” For example, if you get pulled over by the police and ordered to step out of your car and you refuse, you can be arrested.
A dispatcher working for a PD cannot give “lawful orders” requiring your compliance under penalty of law.
It has no bearing on whether Joe Horn’s use of force was lawful.
On the other hand, if you worship at the altar of state power, then you’ll probably drop to your knees and lick his boots.
OldLefty wrote: “????? 1) There is no evidence that anything like that [home invasion] happened.”
So you think it’s reasonable to make it a crime to attach a legal flare gun to a legal rifle? Remind me again how this reduces crime and enhances public safety?
I firmly believe in the assault weapons ban
That’s why I used the word “IF”! Home invasions happen. IF it happens to someone in Texas, the occupant is NOT required to run out the back door. If he shoots the home invaders, the prosecutor can NOT argue that the occupant’s use of force was unlawful because “he could have run out the back door.” THAT’S what stand your ground/castle doctrine means.
OldLefty wrote: “I firmly believe in the assault weapons ban…”
There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Or rather, “assault weapon” simply means any weapon that liberal lawmakers don’t like. You know, anything black and scary. The fact is that more people are killed each year by people wielding baseball bats, frying pans and other blunt objects than semi-automatic rifles.
OldLefty wrote: “There are a lot more regulations for cars and driving than for guns and gun ownership.”
I can buy a car without having to undergo an FBI background check. I can buy the same kinds of cars and gasoline as the police. I drive across state lines without committing a felony.
I’ve met people who have claimed that they think that the state should regulate guns “just like cars, with licensing and registration.” I always ask them, “Great! My concealed carry license would be valid in all 50 states just like my driver license, right?” The stunned look on their faces is hilarious.
OldLefty wrote: “Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.”
So what? Has no bearing on any of the topics under discussion. Has no bearing on, for example, whether it is reasonable for OldLefty to shoot someone who is openly carrying a sidearm just because he feels fearful. It has no bearing on your ridiculous notion that someone under attack “SHOULD have a duty to retreat, because you most often don’t know.”
OldLefty wrote: “how about we make gun owners carry insurance”
How about we make all reporters carry insurance just in case they defame someone?
I have a better idea: each person should be free to choose how much insurance he wants to cover, and for which losses.
You suggested that I read the cited the Militia Act of 1792 for to find out “what the Founders meant by a well regulated militia.” Well here it is: “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,…”
Able-bodied white men. Do you agree with the Founders (who were after all white supremacists) that gun ownership should be restricted to able-bodied white men?
OldLefty wrote: “no one wants to disarm the public.”
That is a lie. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/debunking-the-myth-that-no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns/
The civilian disarmament advocates at slate.com took a look at a recent Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council report, a non-profit think tank that publishes studies with the aim to assist the government in their decision-making process. And much to their dismay, it seems to have debunked just about every major claim that gun control advocates made in their recent push for an assault weapons ban.
As independent as it gets, this study by the National Academies (ordered by Barack Obama) shows that an assault weapons ban won’t reduce crime, that crime is on the decline, and that defensive gun uses are frequent and effective.
tinyurl.com/pnv4u69
I completely understand why George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and the other billionaire globalists advocate disarming civilian populations. They don’t want any pushback from We The People to their elitist plans for global domination.
OldLefty October 19th, 2014 at 11:18
“lawful order.” Is not the issue.
The issue is bad law.
Who told him to stay inside, is irrelevant because the issue in this debate is his intent and the fact that he was NOT acting defensively.
I would say that if YOU worship at the alter of the gun, You would ‘probably drop to YOUR knees and lick the boots of he who has the biggest gun’.
California law;
A semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine may not have a forward pistol grip, flash hider, collapsible stock, thumbhole stock, grenade/flare launcher, or pistol grip. A rifle breaking these rules is an assault rifle.
A rifle that is NOT semi automatic, or a semi automatic rifle with no detachable magazine, may have all the above features without violating the law, provided that minimum length limits are adhered to.
I think that is very reasonable.
Remind ME of how people running around with grenade/flare launchers are NOT a threat to public safety.
Home invasion… IF it happens to someone in Texas, the occupant is NOT required to run out the back door. ….
_______________
This was not a “home invasion”, as no one was home.
The definition is, In the United States, a home invasion is an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with violent intent to commit a crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping.
There was no occupant.
That is castle doctrine, not stand your ground.
There was no element of self defense.
Assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid and accurate spray firing.
I might also say that NOTHING is allowed to be called an “assault weapon” by the arms dealers and their lobbyists.
There is a reason why the inventor of the Kalashnikov now has regrets.
“baseball bats, frying
pans…”
That OLD chestnut??
And the victims have a fighting chance while nothing else kills so many so quickly.
Cars;
And you can lose your right to drive for infractions that did not result in death and injury.
“I can buy the same kinds of cars and gasoline as the police. I drive across state lines without committing a felony.”
And, again, they are not designed to kill a large number of people over a very short time
“The stunned look on their faces is hilarious..?
Somehow I doubt that, unless you seek out people who are not very bright.
How about we make all reporters carry insurance just in case they defame someone?
_________
Their employers do.
“each person should be free to choose how much insurance he wants to cover, and for which losses.”
_________
That does not help the people who’s lives they damage or ruin.
Again, require insurance and let the market decide.
OldLefty wrote: “Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.”
So what?
Has no bearing on any of the topics under discussion.
____________
Then why quote sources who were wrong about it?
The bearing it has is that their arms did not help them overthrow Saddam.
“cited the Militia Act of
1792….”
You already said that.
Get back to me when gun owners report for muster and inspection.
All military used to be men, until it wasn’t.
That has nothing to do with what a “well regulated militia” meant when the amendment was drafted.
Why do you give me a pro arms dealer site?
Much of what he, himself said is debunked in the very report he cites, and funny how he fails to mention;
• CDC ordered to resume, support of firearm-related violence
research.
(“resume” because the NRA passed legislation to ban research;
CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage
The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s budget the exact amount it hadallocated to gun violence research.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UWqhghyBiDs )
Public health approach used to address firearm violence because: • Is complex and frequent
• Is associated with high morbidity and mortality
•Has major impact on health and safety of U.S. residents
• U.S. has highest rate of firearm-related deaths among
industrialized countries, despite violent crime rate decline
“assault weapons ban won’t reduce crime,”
_______
Where does it say that in the report?
That report supports the other side who want to go back to common sense regulation.
“We The People to their elitist plans for global domination.”
_____
Jon Stewart puts it best;
“Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from
addressing our actual dystopic present.
Because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of
imaginary Hitler.”
But more accurate;
The NRA and global arms dealers don’t want any push back from “We the People” against the tyranny of the gun nuts that provide great profits for them.
Better “We the People” cower under our beds, home school our children and never leave the house.
BillMiller66 October 22nd, 2014 at 02:47
1. There’s no evidence that the federal “assault weapons” ban 1994-2004 saved lives. None. http://www.propublica.org/article/fact-checking-feinstein-on-the-assault-weapons-ban
The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes.”
The homicide rate had already started declining before the federal ban went into effect. After the law sunset, the homicide rate continued to decline. All the insane predictions made by the victim-disarmament advocates turned out once again to be without merit.
Remember in the late 1980s/early 1990s when states took up the issue of licensed concealed carry? Remember all the predictions of doom and gloom made by victim-disarmament advocates such as Molly Ivins? Their predictions were wrong.
2. There is no evidence that banning the attachment of a flare gun to a rifle reduces crimes. None whatsoever.
3. There is no evidence that banning hand grips on rifles reduces crime. None.
4. After you pass a mandating that gun owners purchase special insurance, do you think that the various gang-bangers, drug-dealers, and other thugs responsible for the vast majority of violent crime will go out and purchase insurance?
5. After you pass a law requiring gun registration, do you think that criminals will register their guns? Did you even know that criminals are already exempt from ALL gun registration laws on the grounds that it violates their 5th Amendment rights? Haynes v. U.S. (1968)
6. OldLeft wrote: “Assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid and accurate spray firing.”
Excuse me? What exactly is “spray firing”? You’re simply regurgitating propaganda from the Violence Policy Center.
The truth is that an AR-15 shoots one round with each squeeze of the trigger just like a Remington .750 Woodsmaster.
7. Regarding the Militia Act, you still haven’t answered my question. The law essentially characterized all able-bodied white men as members of the “militia.” They didn’t mean the national guard, which wasn’t even around and would certainly have been regarded as little more than a standing army. The evidence is clear that the Framers considered it to be an individual – not a “collective” – right. Don’t take my word for it; read the works of prominent leftist legal professors such as Lawrence Tribe (Harvard), Akhil Reed Amar (Yale) and Sanford Levinson (University of Texas at Austin). Go read the Heller decision.
8. OldLefty wrote: “U.S. has highest rate of firearm-related deaths among industrialized countries, despite violent crime rate decline”
Oh really? Russia has strict gun laws and a homicide rate of 9.2 per 100,000 population. And you’re telling us that Russia is not really an industrialized country? Mexico has very strict “gun control” laws. It also is an rather violent country with a homicide rate of 22 per 100,000 population. Mexico is industrialized, and if you don’t know that, then you don’t know anything.
Japan has essentially banned all civilian ownership of firearms, and yet its suicide rate is twice as high as ours. People will simply find other ways to kill themselves.
In 2011, Utah, the state that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence determined had the least gun control, experienced just 26 gun murders and a firearms murder rate of 0.97. Look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign. You guessed it — it was California, with a homicide rate of 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.
Whites are twice as likely as black to own firearms, and yet blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. As Ann Coulter observed, “If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium.” Even then it’s problematic, since the statisticians at the FBI count as “white” many people – such as mestizos – who no one would really consider to be “white.” That’s for the purpose of tallyin gup offenders by race. When it comes to victims, the FBI separates out some people into a category called “Hispanics” even though that word refers to a cultural-linguistic and not a racial group. In other words, the real rate of violent crime among whites in America is far lower. Not really surprising. The parts of our country that look like Scandinavia have Scandinavian rates of violent crime. And that is the part of the conversation that lefties really do not want to have. So they’d rather talk about magazine capacity and pistol grips. You know, shit that doesn’t matter.
tiredoftea October 4th, 2014 at 15:43
Mock is more like it.
StoneyCurtisll October 4th, 2014 at 18:17
..
Ol Blue October 4th, 2014 at 13:18
What the hell is going on in that flag? I looks like a poorly drawn cannon or gun or something………….
William October 4th, 2014 at 13:35
“What the hell is going on in that flag?”
Guess?
Ol Blue October 4th, 2014 at 13:57
Let me check with Dr. Freud.
StoneyCurtisll October 4th, 2014 at 18:15
Fleash Light
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR31tXTSf1Um8qNsKeZRLsJutR7fOXQuug8Mat7HzOnuxARZT8Oow
tiredoftea October 4th, 2014 at 15:42
Unloaded Fleshlight.
LJU3 October 5th, 2014 at 05:20
Are you really that ignorant of Texas history, or simply a troll?
Obewon October 5th, 2014 at 06:10
Half of the lone star state is filled with functional and constitutional illiterates worshiping birthers Gohmert & Canadian Ted Cruz nutcases. “Texas history” leaves you with the fewest high school graduates by age 25! Half of Texas is well proven the shithead state.
LJU3 October 6th, 2014 at 19:44
So, both?
Obewon October 6th, 2014 at 21:58
You’re clearly ignorant of Texas’s modern history and unaware your GOP Leader Teabag (R-TX) Ted Cruz “Truth = 3%” http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/ is nearly as bad as GOP Leader Limbaugh “True = 0%” Via nonpartisan Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/
LJU3 October 8th, 2014 at 01:06
I genuinely don’t know what that has to do with the OP’s seeming ignorance/trolling of the history of the Gonzales Flag, which would be found in any search of “Come and Take It.”
ccass357 October 5th, 2014 at 14:23
yes.. they actually are this ignorant.. and if you point this out, it will be immediately followed by a desperate display of name calling and lack of broad enough vocabulary to use actual words rather than vulgar language.
tracey marie October 6th, 2014 at 20:43
are you really that ignorant that this is 2014?
LJU3 October 8th, 2014 at 01:09
What does that even mean? Is that somehow a response to the OP’s ignorance of the Gonzales Flag? I mean, I am as fond of a non-sequitur response as anyone, but wouldn’t “your face” have been just as meaningful and relevant a rejoinder?
Ol Blue October 4th, 2014 at 13:18
What the hell is going on in that flag? I looks like a poorly drawn cannon or gun or something………….
William October 4th, 2014 at 13:35
“What the hell is going on in that flag?”
Guess?
Ol Blue October 4th, 2014 at 13:57
Let me check with Dr. Freud.
StoneyCurtisll October 4th, 2014 at 18:15
Fleash Light
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR31tXTSf1Um8qNsKeZRLsJutR7fOXQuug8Mat7HzOnuxARZT8Oow
tiredoftea October 4th, 2014 at 15:42
Unloaded Fleshlight.
LJU3 October 5th, 2014 at 05:20
Are you really that ignorant of Texas history, or simply a troll?
Obewon October 5th, 2014 at 06:10
Half of the lone star state is filled with functional and constitutional illiterates worshiping birthers Gohmert & Canadian Ted Cruz nutcases. “Texas history” leaves you with the fewest high school graduates by age 25 including those with GED’s! Half of Texas well proves you to be ‘the lone shithead state.’ “What was the 3rd thing? Ughh. ughh..ugh”-GWB’s protégé Guber Perry who is now disarmed & legally barred from firearms and ammo purchase or possession.
LJU3 October 6th, 2014 at 19:44
So, both?
Obewon October 6th, 2014 at 21:58
You’re clearly ignorant of Texas’s modern history and unaware your GOP Leader Teabag (R-TX) Ted Cruz “Truth = 3%” http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/ is nearly as bad as GOP Leader Limbaugh “True = 0%” Via nonpartisan Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/
LJU3 October 8th, 2014 at 01:06
I genuinely don’t know what that has to do with the OP’s seeming ignorance/trolling of the history of the Gonzales Flag, which would be found in any search of “Come and Take It.”
ccass357 October 5th, 2014 at 14:23
yes.. they actually are this ignorant.. and if you point this out, it will be immediately followed by a desperate display of name calling and lack of broad enough vocabulary to use actual words rather than vulgar language.
tracey marie October 6th, 2014 at 20:43
are you really that ignorant that this is 2014?
LJU3 October 8th, 2014 at 01:09
What does that even mean? Is that somehow a response to the OP’s ignorance of the Gonzales Flag? I mean, I am as fond of a non-sequitur response as anyone, but wouldn’t “your face” have been just as meaningful and relevant a rejoinder?
William October 4th, 2014 at 13:25
but you can “just carry a mag in pocket if you are worried.” Worried about what?
Wouldn’t your membership card be more convenient?
William October 4th, 2014 at 13:25
but you can “just carry a mag in pocket if you are worried.” Worried about what?
Wouldn’t your membership card be more convenient?
CoCo October 4th, 2014 at 14:47
Elbow elbow, wrist wrist, touch your ammo, blow a kiss.
CoCo October 4th, 2014 at 14:47
Elbow elbow, wrist wrist, touch your ammo, blow a kiss.
tiredoftea October 4th, 2014 at 15:44
How cool, now that they have come out as Parade Float Queens, the Three Percenters make sooo much more sense.
tiredoftea October 4th, 2014 at 15:44
How cool, now that they have come out as Parade Float Queens, the Three Percenters make sooo much more sense.
StoneyCurtisll October 4th, 2014 at 18:13
LOL..
“Freedum Float”…
StoneyCurtisll October 4th, 2014 at 18:13
LOL..
“Freedum Float”…
fancypants October 4th, 2014 at 18:15
Just stick a mag in your pocket and your good
—————————————————-
ok I can see this happening….
fancypants October 4th, 2014 at 18:15
Just stick a mag in your pocket and your good
—————————————————-
ok I can see this happening….