{Lee} said he was inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn, and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
I was going to say “that’s going to leave a mark”; but I suspect it’s going straight down the memory hole
He’s just another whack-job who was easily able to arm himself. I guess you could blame that on the right, since most of you gun rights advocates are on the right.
He built a fracking pipe bomb.Or two. I don’t think the legality or lack thereof of his firearms concerned him. At any rate, firearms rights are not exactly a right-wing-only concern.
MikeB302000,
Can you tell us how to identify those on the Left, Right or Center who will become ‘whack-jobs’ before they do something illegal?
Or do you just want to strip everyone of their rights in a doomed effort to protect us?
What do you have to say that the weapons he was “easily able to arm” himself with were mere non-functioning starter pistols?
Do you want to ban those items also?
Where do you stop banning things, where do you stop telling people what they should or shouldn’t do?
And lastly, at what level of violence or death will you say that any new laws would not be ‘sensible’ or reasonable?
Just some simple questions for you to consider and answer — after all if you truly want to discuss the issue, you’ll have no problem with these, right.
My only point was that he was a nut and it doesn’t matter from which side of the political spectrum he comes.
I don’t want to “strip everyone of their rights,” nor do I want to ban starter pistols. I’d like to see the kinds of gun control laws which would force you gun owners to begin being responsible. You keep letting your personal property slip away and end up in the hands of criminals. You obviously can’t be trusted to police yourselves, so stricter laws are needed.
What I can’t understand is why you’re not calling for them yourselves. If you’re truly law-abiding folks, you should be the first demanding these controls. I can’t believe you won’t accept a little inconvenience in order to have a safer society from which you’d benefit as much as the next guy.
Here’s the way it would work. Registration and licensing properly managed, not like in Canada. No private transfers without a background check and an amendment to the Registry. Mandatory immediate reporting for stolen or lost guns.
These initiatives applied federally, in other words in all the states the same way, would result in a major decrease in the gun flow into the criminal world, which nowadays goes unabated.
And when those “reasonable” laws don’t provide the results you want, then what Dictator MikeB302000?
Let’s see: Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows on their own. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Five states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner
Wow, some of the very laws you advocate are already in place.
Have they made those states crime free? Nope.
Certainly one of the most restrictive states — Illinois still has problems in its major city.
See MikeB302000 what you recommend has already been tried and has failed.
What I find personally offensive is being lectured on responsibility be a person who has admitted to breaking the laws regarding firearms.
Which of the laws did you break in order to purchase your firearms illegally?
Exactly how would any of the laws you proposed have stopped you?
I can’t believe you won’t accept a little inconvenience in order to have a safer society from which you’d benefit as much as the next guy.
It’s apocryphal, but there’s a quote for Ben Franklin about that…
How about instead of treating everyone as potential criminals, instead dealing with the actual criminals?
No, Bob, it hasn’t been tried. What’s been tried is a hodge podge of easily circumvented laws which vary so drastically from state to state that they’re all but ineffective. Yet, you keep repeating that gun control’s been tried and found wanting. It’s never been tried properly and you and your friends are doing everything in your power to see that it’s not.
Ian, we do deal with the criminals. Gun control laws are not in place of judicial and social attempts to deal with them. That’s another fallacy you guys keep pushing.
MikeB302000,
Nice of you to avoid answering the questions about your personal history with the effectiveness of gun control laws.
Please answer the question:
Which gun control law that you advocate would have stopped you from owning firearms illegally?
You also completely ignore the fact that gun control has been tried in a national sitting and found wanting.
Has the extremely restrictive gun control laws in the United Kingdom reduced violence?
Don’t limit yourself to just “gun violence” but violence overall.
Let’s also address your ridiculous claim you aren’t trying to strip our rights away.
You want to remove our rights to give a firearms to another person without government approval.
You want to remove our rights to sell a firearm to another person without governmental approval.
You want to remove our right to loan a firearm to another person without governmental approval.
You want to remove our right to privacy concerning the property we own.
and how are you not trying to strip away our rights, Sparky?
Bob, Your continually bringing up my having owned “illegal guns” is nothing more than an attempt to smear me. You know I won’t talk about it, I made that clear to you many times including an entire post about the issue almost a year ago, yet you persist.
Here’s the key part of that post.
“About my having owned legal and illegal guns, I don’t plan to expand on it. Sorry to disappoint. My personal life’s experiences, including my experience with firearms, all contribute to making me who I am today. The same is true for everyone. My choice to remain anonymous and to keep my private life off the pages of this blog, to the extent that I do, is my choice. You can respect it or not, that’s your choice.”
So, why don’t you drop it, Bob? Most people couldn’t care less and the ones who do are just obsessed maniacs like you who can’t let go of something once they’ve grabbed on to it.
What I call inconveniencing you for the greater good, you call stripping away your rights. That’s where we disagree. I really think the word “inconvenience” is appropriate while your describing it so dramatically as “stripping away the rights” is grandiose victimism.
MikeB302000,
I’ll drop it when you come clean about how the very laws you advocate did not, would not have stopped you from owning firearms illegally.
This is where your hypocrisy gets obvious and annoying.
You refuse to address the reality of the laws you advocate. You refuse to address the ineffectiveness of the laws you advocate.
None of the laws on the books stopped you from obtaining firearms legally, so why do you continue to advocate them?
Because you simply are not interested in reducing violence or crime; you simply want to troll for hits on your blog.
Doubt? It already is being blamed on the right wing.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/01/discovery-terrorist-immigration/
Thanks Algore!
Man, there’s some classy commentors over there.
{Lee} said he was inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn, and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
I was going to say “that’s going to leave a mark”; but I suspect it’s going straight down the memory hole
He’s just another whack-job who was easily able to arm himself. I guess you could blame that on the right, since most of you gun rights advocates are on the right.
He built a fracking pipe bomb.Or two. I don’t think the legality or lack thereof of his firearms concerned him. At any rate, firearms rights are not exactly a right-wing-only concern.
MikeB302000,
Can you tell us how to identify those on the Left, Right or Center who will become ‘whack-jobs’ before they do something illegal?
Or do you just want to strip everyone of their rights in a doomed effort to protect us?
What do you have to say that the weapons he was “easily able to arm” himself with were mere non-functioning starter pistols?
Do you want to ban those items also?
Where do you stop banning things, where do you stop telling people what they should or shouldn’t do?
And lastly, at what level of violence or death will you say that any new laws would not be ‘sensible’ or reasonable?
Just some simple questions for you to consider and answer — after all if you truly want to discuss the issue, you’ll have no problem with these, right.
My only point was that he was a nut and it doesn’t matter from which side of the political spectrum he comes.
I don’t want to “strip everyone of their rights,” nor do I want to ban starter pistols. I’d like to see the kinds of gun control laws which would force you gun owners to begin being responsible. You keep letting your personal property slip away and end up in the hands of criminals. You obviously can’t be trusted to police yourselves, so stricter laws are needed.
What I can’t understand is why you’re not calling for them yourselves. If you’re truly law-abiding folks, you should be the first demanding these controls. I can’t believe you won’t accept a little inconvenience in order to have a safer society from which you’d benefit as much as the next guy.
Here’s the way it would work. Registration and licensing properly managed, not like in Canada. No private transfers without a background check and an amendment to the Registry. Mandatory immediate reporting for stolen or lost guns.
These initiatives applied federally, in other words in all the states the same way, would result in a major decrease in the gun flow into the criminal world, which nowadays goes unabated.
And when those “reasonable” laws don’t provide the results you want, then what Dictator MikeB302000?
Let’s see:
Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows on their own. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Five states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner
Wow, some of the very laws you advocate are already in place.
Have they made those states crime free? Nope.
Certainly one of the most restrictive states — Illinois still has problems in its major city.
See MikeB302000 what you recommend has already been tried and has failed.
What I find personally offensive is being lectured on responsibility be a person who has admitted to breaking the laws regarding firearms.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/10/mikeb302000_lying_criminal.html
Which of the laws did you break in order to purchase your firearms illegally?
Exactly how would any of the laws you proposed have stopped you?
It’s apocryphal, but there’s a quote for Ben Franklin about that…
How about instead of treating everyone as potential criminals, instead dealing with the actual criminals?
No, Bob, it hasn’t been tried. What’s been tried is a hodge podge of easily circumvented laws which vary so drastically from state to state that they’re all but ineffective. Yet, you keep repeating that gun control’s been tried and found wanting. It’s never been tried properly and you and your friends are doing everything in your power to see that it’s not.
Ian, we do deal with the criminals. Gun control laws are not in place of judicial and social attempts to deal with them. That’s another fallacy you guys keep pushing.
MikeB302000,
Nice of you to avoid answering the questions about your personal history with the effectiveness of gun control laws.
Please answer the question:
Which gun control law that you advocate would have stopped you from owning firearms illegally?
You also completely ignore the fact that gun control has been tried in a national sitting and found wanting.
Has the extremely restrictive gun control laws in the United Kingdom reduced violence?
Don’t limit yourself to just “gun violence” but violence overall.
Let’s also address your ridiculous claim you aren’t trying to strip our rights away.
You want to remove our rights to give a firearms to another person without government approval.
You want to remove our rights to sell a firearm to another person without governmental approval.
You want to remove our right to loan a firearm to another person without governmental approval.
You want to remove our right to privacy concerning the property we own.
and how are you not trying to strip away our rights, Sparky?
Bob, Your continually bringing up my having owned “illegal guns” is nothing more than an attempt to smear me. You know I won’t talk about it, I made that clear to you many times including an entire post about the issue almost a year ago, yet you persist.
Here’s the key part of that post.
So, why don’t you drop it, Bob? Most people couldn’t care less and the ones who do are just obsessed maniacs like you who can’t let go of something once they’ve grabbed on to it.
What I call inconveniencing you for the greater good, you call stripping away your rights. That’s where we disagree. I really think the word “inconvenience” is appropriate while your describing it so dramatically as “stripping away the rights” is grandiose victimism.
MikeB302000,
I’ll drop it when you come clean about how the very laws you advocate did not, would not have stopped you from owning firearms illegally.
This is where your hypocrisy gets obvious and annoying.
You refuse to address the reality of the laws you advocate. You refuse to address the ineffectiveness of the laws you advocate.
None of the laws on the books stopped you from obtaining firearms legally, so why do you continue to advocate them?
Because you simply are not interested in reducing violence or crime; you simply want to troll for hits on your blog.