Posted by Tina
“The sign of an intelligent people is their ability to control emotions by the application of reason.” – Marya Mannes (1904 – 1990), American Author and Critic
It looks like Democrats and Republicans have rached compromise in the Senate for gun legislation. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa have proposed strengthening background checks, while leaving private gun sales/gifting between hunters and family members alone. This proposal might pass but…ho hum! It will accomplish nothing to solve the recent crisis. But it will allow those pushing for more gun laws as a solution to Sandy Hook type murders to pat themselves on the back believing they have actually addressed the Sandy Hook “problem”…but nothing could be further from the truth! This is emotional reaction legislation and nothing more.
There are two things that escape the minds of masters in the “we-must-do-something” cult. One is that mentally unstable people who secretly plot to commit mass killings cannot always be stopped and the other is that such a person becomes dedicated and focused to accomplish the one thing that consumes his troubled mind, i.e., finding a way to acquire weapons.
A quick study of criminal history would show these merchants of emotional legislation that laws do not stop criminals. Laws may deter criminal activity to some extent but they do not stop crime from happening. Laws simply establish rules which can then be used to prosecute wrongdoers after a crime has been committed. The law is a tool of justice.
Our society was founded on the presumption that responsible citizens would obey the law and train their children to respect and obey the laws of the land. The law was established, however, with full realization that people do not always do the right thing. How in the world have we come to the place where citizens and legislators assume laws will prevent tragedy and so attempt to enact new law simply so they can feel better? Many of our legislators are aware of emotional plea legislation (politics). But the game rises or falls depending on the make-up of our chosen leaders. I fear the answer is that of late too many citizens and legislators lack the ability to reason and have failed to mature.
When a crime is in progress, who’s there? You are your own first responder. At that moment, all the laws on the books mean exactly squat. The perpetrator has already made their decision.
Sometime in the early 1970’s I was falsely arrested for some very horrendous, brutal, and heinous crimes. (I fit the description and was identified by the victim by photograph.) I passed a lie detector test and then after the investigating detectives determined that I could not have possibly been in the area at the time when the crime was committed I was strongly advised before release that —
1) I should not try to sue the state for false arrest because the arrest was not unreasonable
and
2) The only record of my arrest would be kept with the jail in which I was shortly incarcerated.
In 1979 I was hired by the Inertial Confinement Laser Fusion project at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to work in the Target Diagnostics group. (It was then more named simply Lawrence Laboratory, Livermore (LLL) before all the idiotic anti-nuke protests took place.)
To work at the ICLF project, of course, required a security clearance (aka a “Q-clearance” or “green badge”) which requires an expensive and exhaustive FBI investigation to be conducted. The security questionnaire, of course, asked if I had ever been arrested. I, of course, answered in the affirmative. Subsequently I underwent further scrutiny and examination before an interview panel conducted by the FBI and another before LLNL security personnel.
I was granted a Q-clearance and spent the next 10 years working on the Argus, Shiva, Novette, Nova ICFL projects, and later the Laser Isotope Separation project.
Outside of a BB gun as a kid and a CO2 pellet gun as an adult, I have never possessed nor operated a burning propellant firearm in my life … until recently. Three years ago I purchase my first firearm, a beautifully machined, hand built and master gunsmith tweaked Smith and Wesson 627 Performance Center revolver. I have long wanted to learn how to shoot a gun, particularly a hand gun, but it was always a low priority and I simply never got around to it. Instead of the two weeks standard waiting time, I was put on delay and it took THREE MONTHS for me to be registered and passed by the DOJ for ownership!
Why? Guess why! See the above!
Since then, I have purchased another short barrel Performance Center S&W 627 and a 327 Night Guard. Guess what? I have been put on delay again, 1-1/2 months now yet unresolved for the 627 and expect the same abuse from the state for the 327.
Yeah, right, we need more “stringent” and “thorough” background check laws. Pardon me, but they already exist! Republicans are posed to sell out to Rats for more costly, unnecessary, and ineffective legislation that will likely do nothing more than infringe the rights of law abiding citizens instead addressing the cause(s) of the violence itself. It’s easier and more politically efficacious.
The ATF says that gun shows in which background checks are not required are the second highest source of illegally trafficked guns in the country.
Clearly, requiring background checks at gun shows will be a roadblock for many criminals who try to illegally obtain guns. Now, of course many of them will still try to get their hands on guns by either stealing them or buying them off the streets. But again: we’re talking about closing off their *second leading source*. That’s going to have an impact. Why should we make it any easier for criminals to get guns? It doesn’t make any sense to say that we shouldn’t have laws because criminals will break them anyway.
The Columbine shooters obtained their weapons through a gun show in which there was no background check. Would they have gotten the guns anyway? Maybe. But it might have taken them longer. And during that time, maybe someone would have come forward, or messed up, and the tragedy could have been prevented. We will never know for sure. But it doesn’t make sense to throw our hands up in the air and say we shouldn’t bother closing this loophole.
Will someone please explain to me how all of the proposed feel-good gun controls will keep guns outta the hands of CRIMINALS?
So far, all of the hurry-up legislation is directed at law-abiding citizens since the bad guys ignore the laws anyway.
And we SHOULD have learned from Obumblecare that hurry-up legislation will return to bite us in the tush . . . . .
Chris: “The ATF says that gun shows in which background checks are not required are the second highest source of illegally trafficked guns in the country.”
Certain folks at ATF, Eric Holder, and the President do know a little something about illegally obtaining and transporting guns…even walking them across our border where they fell into the hands of drug dealers and murderous thugs. Is there anything we can do about that? The media showed little interest in putting pressure on Holder or Obama in this scandal in which literally hundreds of Mexicans and several Americans lost their lives.
Other than the mental health issue another area that sticks out as a bigger problem is stolen weapons:
WSJ Law Blog:
What can we do to cut down on the number of break-in criminals…does anyone care about that?
An article from 2000 reports the number of violent crimes prevented by armed citizens at that time:
Police officers overwhelmingly support legally armed citizens as the best defense against violent crime!
PoliceOne.com:
Closing this loophole is not the goal. This is another step to disarming the public.
We have a lot of big problems in this country. Would it be possible to do something effective about the economy and jobs after almost four and one half years?
Dear serial liar Chris, clearly further background checks will not solve the problem. I am also not surprised that you would go to bat for the ATF under gun grabber Obama and gun runner in chief, Attorney General Eric Holder. But hey, if it is only Mexican criminals slaughtering Mexicans with illegal guns supplied by the US government, who the hell cares.
See The Voice From Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights
http://tinyurl.com/c2nvulo
Click on NRA-ILA | Statement from the National Rifle Association Regarding Toomey Manchin Background Check Proposal
Backgound Checks Could Allow Holder to Create Gun Registry Using Regulations
http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/sen-lee-backgound-checks-could-allow-holder-create-gun-registry-using
“Would” is a better word than “could”.
Democrat admits Obama’s agenda is for a total gun ban. So is serial liar Chris’ agenda. Do not be fooled by gun grabbing, constitution hating progressive fascist fools.
http://www.infowars.com/video-democrat-admits-obama-agenda-is-total-gun-ban/
J. Soden: “Will someone please explain to me how all of the proposed feel-good gun controls will keep guns outta the hands of CRIMINALS?”
I think I just explained this. Criminals ARE getting guns from gun shows, since they don’t have to get a background check first. So many criminals are doing this that it is the second leading source of illegally trafficked guns.
What serial liar and deceiver Chris fails to mention (by way of twisting the issue to suit the progressive gun grabber agenda) is that the leading source of illegal trafficking in weapons is by straw purchase, the method also deployed by criminals at gun shows to obtain illegal weapons.
Again, the criminals commit crime to obtain illegal weapons. So, of course, we should pass laws that punish legitimate gun dealers and law abiding citizens and infringe our second amendment rights while the criminals still merrily break the law any way they can.
CNS News article posted by Pie: “One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee- on which I sit- would allow the Attorney General of the United States (Eric Holder) to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns. Something my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and understandably so,” said Sen. Lee.”
Load up just three little words, the “Attorney General shall” or the “Director, ATF shall: and you’ve got yourself a Kathleen Sebelius maker of regulations!
Technology is moving so fast I’m not sure we’re adequately prepared to make law about such things:
Watch out who you vote for…we need strong, well grounded leaders that love America and freedom.
Chris please define, “…it is the second leading source of illegally trafficked guns.”
Whoa, Pie, the man actually said:
Yep, dumbed-down Americans happily cheering to hand over their personal right of defense.
The right to life and the right to live free are so precious…what is wrong with these people!
How about we enforce the laws we already have before we pass more to ignore. In 2010 more than 15,000 felons and fugitives tried to buy guns, but only 13 resulted in guilty pleas. I repeat only 13 were found guilty!! I feel sooooo much safer knowing those 13 are off of the street. Now, where the he… are the other 15,000?!
If a gun is used in a crime it’s a federal case right? Well, lock the felon up and throw away the key instead of letting them go to buy a gun off of the street or steal it from someone’s home. They broke the law, enforce it! Problem solved instead of just passing more laws like Chicago and DC, who have the highest crime rates in the US.
Instead of harassing people like Pie our DOJ needs to be overhauled so the real criminals are arrested and off of the streets. Come on 2014 and 2016 we need a major change of personnel in Washington!
SC lawmakers tell DOJ to prosecute felons, fugitives trying to buy guns:
“Since the December shooting in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 elementary students, Democratic lawmakers have been calling for stricter gun-control measures — such as reinstating the assault weapons ban, implementing stricter background checks and banning high-capacity ammunition clips. But Republicans have said those ideas would limit U.S. citizens’ Second Amendment rights and that the key is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, not law abiding citizens.
Gowdy and Graham said they’ve discovered that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is prosecuting a fraction of the convicted felons and fugitives who are failing background checks under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
“While we understand that not every denial needs to be prosecuted, every case involving a fugitive from justice or felon in possession of a firearm should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” the letter stated.
Graham and Gowdy said that in 2010, 76,142 individuals failed a gun purchase background check and that more than 15,000 of those failed background checks were applications from felons and fugitives, who are no longer legally allowed to own a gun. The lawmakers said that only 13 of those cases resulted in guilty pleas.
In the letter, Gowdy and Graham said that if the problem is that the DOJ does not have adequate resources to prosecute these criminals, Congress could assist in identifying funding in the current budget.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/284407-sc-lawmakers-tell-doj-to-prosecute-felons-fugitives-trying-to-buy-guns?tmpl=component
Side note to Pie:
Were you at LLL back in the 1980s? Did you work with large slabs of salt cut to various thicknesses to test the Russian’s underground nuclear bomb tests?
If you did, my company cut those slabs of salt.
Re Peggy’s Query: “Were you at LLL back in the 1980s? Did you work with large slabs of salt cut to various thicknesses to test the Russian’s underground nuclear bomb tests?”
Yes, I was working at LLNL (nee LLL) for most of the 80’s. Nope, never even heard of salt slab diagnostic. ICLF target diagnostics (for the most part) and LIS power supplies (for about a year) were the only areas I worked in.
I would be interested to learn how a slab of salt works as a diagnostic element to detect Russian underground nuclear tests.
Re Serial Liar Chris: “The Columbine shooters obtained their weapons through a gun show in which there was no background check.”
No, the guns were obtained through an illegal straw purchase you lying jackass.
The thing for you gun-toting rurals to do is to keep very, very … very quite, and not attract any sort of attention to yourselves … because … us urbans … we is going door-to-door and confiscating.
It’s appalling. Every time you turn around some perfectly respectable college fellow has been gunned down by some gang-banger and/or neighbor.
We’s done with it.
So you, up in the hinters, you hunker down until we’ve remediated the situation down here.
Federal gun registry has already started, illegally —
Missouri Secretly Shares Entire CCW List With Feds Against State Law
http://tinyurl.com/cmlthph
Re Peggy on salt slabs —
Come to think of it boron salt wafers may have been used to in in detectors to measure neutron yields. But my memory fades. I’ll have to consult my LLNL ICLF yearly report library.
Re Tina: “Pie, the man actually said”
Yep, some progressives are actually honest, unlike our close friend and confidant, Chris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
Pie: “Democrat admits Obama’s agenda is for a total gun ban.”
The article you link to is about an Austin City Council member who says nothing about “Obama’s agenda.” How can he “admit” anything? I doubt this man has ever met President Obama, let alone been told anything about Obama’s secret “agenda.” As usual, Info Wars panders to the most gullible, paranoid extremists out there.
Pie: “I would be interested to learn how a slab of salt works as a diagnostic element to detect Russian underground nuclear tests.”
We were told the Russians were suspected of using their salt mines for nuclear test and the US wanted to be able to detect how big the explosions were with seismographic readings.
The original slab of salt was approximately 12×6 ft. We cut it into various smaller slabs ranging from inches to feet thick. Had to buy a lumber mill saw to handle the job. You can imagine the mess we had cleaning up the corrosive salt after.
I have no idea what or how LLL conducted the tests, but always wondered since seeing the tractor trailer pull away.
My company was a calibration lab. We certified all tools, including LLL’s tools, to the National Bureau of Weights and Measures. Also sold and resurfaced granite surface tables.
Pie Guevara: “No, the guns were obtained through an illegal straw purchase you lying jackass.”
The purchase was made at a gun show with no background check, so my statement was accurate. And Robyn Anderson could not be charged with a straw purchase precisely because of the loophole I describe:
“The investigation revealed that a friend, Robyn Anderson, accompanied Harris and Klebold to a gun show in late 1998 since she was of legal age to buy a firearm. At the gun show, 18-year-old Anderson purchased two shotguns and one rifle for the two killers. Those same guns were later used in the Columbine killings.
Anderson denies any prior knowledge of their plans. No law, state or federal, prohibits the purchase of a long gun (rifle) from a private individual (non-licensed dealer). Because of this, Anderson could not be charged with any crime. If Anderson had purchased the guns from a federally licensed dealer, it would have been considered a “straw purchase” and considered illegal under federal law to make the purchase for Harris and Klebold.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/06/let-s-end-the-straw-purchasing-of-guns.html#blockquote
If we required that gun show dealers be licensed and perform background checks, Anderson would have been prosecuted for her role in the tragedy. It’s also possible that Anderson, upon finding out that she would be subject to a background check, would have decided not to buy guns for minors. Robyn Anderson was not a hardened criminal, but surely she knew what she was doing was wrong. She simply thought that, since she wasn’t subject a background check, she could get away with it, and there wouldn’t be any consequences (she claims she didn’t know of the boys’ intentions).
But even if she still had bought the guns, and the tragedy still occurred, at the very least she could have been prosecuted for what she did.
So, to those who are still saying that no new gun law could possibly stop criminals, or help us prosecute them: here is a very real, high-profile instance that proves that they can.
Pie: “Dear serial liar Chris, clearly further background checks will not solve the problem. I am also not surprised that you would go to bat for the ATF under gun grabber Obama and gun runner in chief, Attorney General Eric Holder.”
Dear Pie Guevara,
The ATF investigation I am referring to was conducted in 2000, long before Obama or Eric Holder had any influence over the ATF.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun%202000.pdf
I would greatly appreciate if you would stop making assumptions before going off half-cocked and engaging in name-calling. You constantly make assumptions about me and my arguments that turn out to be untrue. It would save you a lot of embarassment if you took a few seconds to research what you are talking about first. A quick Google search of the phrases “ATF” and “gun shows” would have immediately informed you that this investigation was done before Obama’s time.
“What serial liar and deceiver Chris fails to mention (by way of twisting the issue to suit the progressive gun grabber agenda) is that the leading source of illegal trafficking in weapons is by straw purchase, the method also deployed by criminals at gun shows to obtain illegal weapons.”
As I just showed, straw purchases are hard to prosecute when there is no background check and the purchase is made from an unlicensed dealer. You are proving my point for me. Closing the gun show loophole would make straw purchases more difficult and easier to prosecute, and would likely deter many people from engaging in them. People are less likely to make a straw purchase if they know that the gun can be traced back to them.
“Again, the criminals commit crime to obtain illegal weapons. So, of course, we should pass laws that punish legitimate gun dealers and law abiding citizens and infringe our second amendment rights while the criminals still merrily break the law any way they can.”
How are legitimate gun dealers and law abiding citizens being “punished” by expanding background checks? How are their second amendment rights being violated? Increasing background checks doesn’t punish anyone or infringe on their rights. Universal background checks protect all of us, which is why 92% of Americans support them, including a vast majority of gun owners and NRA members:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/13/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-overwhelming-majority-/
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/apr/04/lee-leffingwell/lee-leffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/
Even Wayne LaPierre used to support universal background checks. But the primary purpose of the NRA today is to sell as many guns as possible, which is why the leadership now opposes any new gun laws.
Tina, it’s interesting that now you appear to be against government wiretapping, and issue the warning “Watch out who you vote for…”
As I recall, the president you voted for in 2000 and again in 2004 is the one who started the program of government wiretapping. At the time, you defended this practice. Have you changed your mind on this issue? If so, I am glad to hear it, and I agree with your opposition to this practice, no matter who is president.
“How about we enforce the laws we already have before we pass more to ignore.”
Peggy, the Robyn Anderson case shows how some laws can’t be enforced without restructuring them. Straw purchasing is illegal, but in Colorado at the time of the shootings, Anderson could not be prosecuted because she bought the guns from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show.
The gun show loophole also makes it hard to track down and prosecute straw purchasers. If there’s no background check and the dealer doesn’t have to keep any records, then what is keeping a straw purchaser from buying a weapon for someone who can’t legally buy one? There may be no proof that a straw purchase ever occurred. Requiring background checks at gun shows would enable police to be better able to track illegally bought guns, and would help prosecute many offenders. It might also deter straw purchasers, because they would see that there would be a paper trail connecting them to an illegally purchased gun. Robyn Anderson has said that if she had to do a background check, she wouldn’t have bought the guns used in the Columbine shooting.
Chris you said, “the Robyn Anderson case shows how some laws can’t be enforced without restructuring them. Straw purchasing is illegal, but in Colorado at the time of the shootings, Anderson could not be prosecuted because she bought the guns from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show. Robyn Anderson has said that if she had to do a background check, she wouldn’t have bought the guns used in the Columbine shooting.”
According to people who were there…”Robyn Anderson, Dylan Klebold’s girlfriend who purchased three guns used in the Columbine murders, was “well-rehearsed and manipulated” in her public testimony today, according to Rocky Mountain Gun Owner’s Executive Director Dudley Brown, who attended the House Judiciary hearing at which Anderson spoke.
The statement attributed to Anderson says, “I wish a law requiring background checks had been in effect at the time… I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn’t have helped [Harris and Klebold] buy the guns if I had faced a background check.” The letter closes, “Signed Robyn Anderson.” No doubt she signed her name to the statement, but who wrote it? The most likely candidate is her lawyer, in collaboration with Gordon (Assemblyman) who wrote a bill to force background checks at gun shows.”
CA has a background requirement and a gun transfer requirement…hasn’t helped reduce homicides at all. But, so what? It has helped to step on gun owners, and anything that makes life difficult for gun owners is good, right? Owning guns is like a social disease, something that needs to be stomped out, even the guy who wrote Colorados gun law alluded to that when he worked with SAFE. They called gunownership an epidemic. “Certainly both Anderson and her lawyer have been anxious to blunt public criticism. Gordon has been working closely with the disarmament group called S.A.F.E., or “Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic,” the name of which likens gun ownership to a disease. Tom Mauser, head of S.A.F.E., lost a son to the Columbine killers. Anderson still faces the possibility of civil action by the families of the victims.”
Anderson got off because she was forced to provide evidence for Gordon’s bill. Another person who provided a pistol went to prison. And by the way, the cops had no trouble in locating who purchases the guns used. With or without the background check law I believe Columbine would have happened. Then again, I’m a retired cop and probably know more about such things than a college student, no offense meant, just stating my foundation for an opinion.
-Jack
Here is another example out of Colorado showing the relative ease of straw purchasing:
“On Thursday, the Denver Post reported how Evan Ebel, the accused killer of Colorado prisons chief Tom Clements, used a straw purchaser to acquire the 9mm semiautomatic handgun used in the shooting.
Ebel, a white supremacist gang member, was a felon and thereby was barred under federal law from possessing a gun. Had he tried to go into a gun store a buy a gun, he would have failed the background check. So instead Ebel used the most common method criminals use to acquire firearms: a straw purchaser. In this case it is alleged that Stevie Marie Vigil, a 22-year-old woman, went in to High Plains Arms to buy a gun on Ebel’s behalf.
The pattern is remarkably similar to the Christmas Eve ambush-murder of two firefighters in Webster, NY. In that case, a 62-year-old felon named William H. Spengler allegedly relied on a neighbor, Dawn Nguyen, to buy the Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle he would use.
In 2009, I led a New York City undercover investigation of illegal gun sales at out-of-state gun shows than showed how easy it is to get away with even a blatant straw purchase – and how some licensed gun dealers are complicit in the practice. The following video, from a gun show in Tennessee, shows a gun dealer enabling an obvious straw purchase where the buyer gets “my friend over here to do some paperwork for me.”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has reported that straw purchasing is the single most common method by which guns get diverted from the legal market to the illegal market. An ATF study showed that fully 46% of guns related to illegal trafficking involved straw purchasers.
Criminals rely on straw purchases because it’s easy, it’s hard to get caught, and the penalties are light even when cases are brought.
It’s hard to get caught because under federal law, there are no background checks or record-keeping on gun transfers by unlicensed private sellers. That means it’s legal in most states to buy one gun or 10 and later sell them to someone else. It’s illegal to buy a gun with the intent of transferring immediately to someone else – but with no background checks, straw purchasers know they are very unlikely to be caught.
And, even if the straw purchaser is caught – which usually happens as in Colorado and Webster, NY after the gun was used in a prominent murder – the penalties are weak.
As Brad Beyersdorf, spokesman for the ATF Denver field division said speaking of the Ebel case, “There’s little-to-no punishment for being a straw purchaser. Gang members know it, drug trafficking organizations know it.”
What’s the solution? Simple: pass the gun bill that that is coming up for a vote in the Senate next month, which would require universal background checks and substantially raise the penalties for straw purchasers and gun traffickers.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/29/1794321/how-a-straw-purchaser-allegedly-enabled-the-colorado-prison-chiefs-murder/
Chris: “Robyn Anderson was not a hardened criminal, but surely she knew what she was doing was wrong.”
Why would “what she was doing” be something she considered to be wrong? Unless she had precognition or was sure these kids were up to something more that shooting at squirrels she would have no reason to think she was doing something wrong. I understand she didn’t want her name or ID associated with the purchase but that could have been for any number of reasons.
“…to those who are still saying that no new gun law could possibly stop criminals, or help us prosecute them: here is a very real, high-profile instance that proves that they can.”
What it proves is that people will always find ways around gun laws and nothing more. so you make this law and they will find another way. ITS THE PERSON NOT THE WEAPON!
These boys would have found a way to obtain guns or they would have tried to make bombs, or they would have gone on a stabbing rampage like the kid in Texas a couple of days ago.
Gun grabbers just want to “feel better” but closing the loophole will not stop evil thoughts, plotting and planning, or the execution of the final plans. It will not stop the crime from being committed…period.
This is the sad ugly truth of life that you just will not admit.
Gun laws don’t do any good anyway if the government refuses to prosecute. william Bigelow at Breitbart reports that gun law prosecutions under Holder/Obama are down 40%:
Regarding your charge, “it is the second leading source of illegally trafficked guns.”
I asked what you meant by that because there is a difference between a mentally disturbed human being obtaining guns, legally or illegally, and people who traffic in guns.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal:
Like I said passing this legislation might make you feel better but it won’t stop another Sandy Hook, unfortunately.
A strong dose of moral authority liberally applied over an extended period of time would do more to stop these crimes. Finding guilt in the criminal rather than his weapon or his method of acquiring the weapon might make more difference too but that is not something for which the left wants any part. In fact the left loves the phrase, “you can’t legislate morality” when it suits them and yet that is exactly what they think they will have accomplished by passing another gun law…by magic it will stop a murderer from committing murder!
“it’s interesting that now you appear to be against government wiretapping, and issue the warning “Watch out who you vote for…”
What did I write that gave you this impression? The warning had to do with people we cannot trust in leadership positions. A president that requests the ability to track phone calls, with specific restrictions, between suspected terrorists and/or terrorist supporters as a means of defending the country from a known enemy is a lot different from giving an unelected bureaucrat the ability to determine regulations to track citizens for any purpose…are you denying this difference?
Reply to Chris —
I am fully aware of when those studies were conducted. I have read them. I am also aware of who you are and who you support.
Chris: Obama’s and the progressive gun agenda is no secret. It is out there, every day. Volunteer propagandists like you do not change that fact. Democrats and progressives at all levels make their position quite clear.
Why are you so afraid of the positions you hold? Do you really think denial is working for you?
Libby: Just exactly what are “gun-toting rurals”?
Silly, bigoted idiot.
Re Chris: “How are legitimate gun dealers and law abiding citizens being punished by expanding background checks?”
They are being punished because government is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms (firearms) which creates a registry of gun owners.
It is not the government’s business to track and record what citizens own firearms. It is the government’s business to prosecute crime. In any case, 41 laws were violated by the Newtown mass murderer, including background check laws, and not one of them prevented that horrific tragedy.
So yes, as usual, dimwitted knee-jerk progressive fascism is not only poised to punish not only legitimate dealers and buyers, but to increase the power of the state over the citizens.
But not to worry, you fascist dope. Your side is going to “win” one this one. Republicans have already sold out. Heck, I sold out just by purchasing several handguns in the Marxist Berkeley Bastard run California. This state has and keeps a record that infringes on the second amendment. I am now a willing part of that abuse. Silly me.
Schumer-Toomey gun bill on the fast track.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/11/schumer-toomey-gun-bill-deserves-a-committee-hearing/
Re Serial Liar Chris: “I would greatly appreciate if you would stop making assumptions before going off half-cocked and engaging in name-calling”
You have called me and others a liar on a number of occasions, hence this is how I shall address you, jerk. Funny that you whine about being treated as you treat others, you hypocritical, insignificant little fascist turd.
Yes, you are a liar, by default, when you left out that the guns were actually purchased by a straw buyer.
Tina: “Why would “what she was doing” be something she considered to be wrong? Unless she had precognition or was sure these kids were up to something more that shooting at squirrels she would have no reason to think she was doing something wrong.”
Tina, she knew that she was buying guns for minors because they were legally unable to buy guns themselves. Perhaps she didn’t know what she was doing was “wrong,” but she did know that it was illegal.
“What it proves is that people will always find ways around gun laws and nothing more.”
So we should make it easier for them to do so? Is that really your argument? That’s absurd. You don’t think people who buy guns from minors should be prosecuted just because they bought the guns from an unlicensed dealer? Even when those minors end up killing people? You don’t think we should make it easier for law enforcement to track guns that are used at crime scenes?
“These boys would have found a way to obtain guns or they would have tried to make bombs,”
Possibly, but given more time, someone could have messed up or come forward. We don’t know for sure. We do know that requiring a background check could have eliminated at least ONE potential route for these boys to get their weapons. It’s insane to say that isn’t worth it.
“or they would have gone on a stabbing rampage like the kid in Texas a couple of days ago.”
Tina, how many people were killed in that knife attack?
If you’re too lazy to Google, the answer is zero.
“It will not stop the crime from being committed…period.”
You say this with such certainty, but you literally have no way of knowing this.
“Gun laws don’t do any good anyway if the government refuses to prosecute.”
Can you read? I just showed you that the government *couldn’t* prosecute Robyn Anderson because of the gun show loophole!
“What did I write that gave you this impression? The warning had to do with people we cannot trust in leadership positions. A president that requests the ability to track phone calls, with specific restrictions, between suspected terrorists and/or terrorist supporters as a means of defending the country from a known enemy is a lot different from giving an unelected bureaucrat the ability to determine regulations to track citizens for any purpose…are you denying this difference?”
Yes, because that difference simply didn’t exist during the Bush years. You just invented it.
Some of you might be interested in an article by Andrew McCarthy, National Review who asks, “Why are the feds trying to identify all gun owners in Missouri?
Chris, try reading yourself!
While you’re at it you might want to get down off that high horse. I pointed out that the federal government hasn’t been bothering to investigate or prosecute illegal gun buys.
Since you decided to call me lazy….
“According to people who were there…”Robyn Anderson, Dylan Klebold’s girlfriend who purchased three guns used in the Columbine murders, was “well-rehearsed and manipulated” in her public testimony today, according to Rocky Mountain Gun Owner’s Executive Director Dudley Brown, who attended the House Judiciary hearing at which Anderson spoke.”
Fer heaven’s sake, Jack.
Translation: “No matter what she says, it’s wrong, I won’t believe it, I won’t, I won’t, I won’t!”
Reprinting such things does not strengthen your position.
And this, this really kills me, so to speak:
“Anderson got off because …”
Got off!?! She “got off” because she didn’t do anything illegal. Geez Jack. It all worked just the way you seem to think it should have. She showed up and the gun show with cash and dubious intentions and made her purchases. She should have been arrested for this? Make up your mind how you want it to be, will you?
As to any civil action against the girl, I suppose I have to remind you, again, that you can sue anybody for anything … and that you can’t get blood out of a stone.
And then … why do you have to be so bloody savage in the first place? That girl has got a lot on her conscience, and she is going what she can to make it right.
Pie Guevara:
“I am fully aware of when those studies were conducted. I have read them.”
So then, you are admitting that your remarks about Eric Holder and Fast and Furious were a complete non-sequiter, designed to link my sources with corruption, even though you knew that they were done years before Obama was in office?
If you knew what studies I was talking about and had read them, then why didn’t you address the content of the studies? That was an extremely dishonest move, Pie.
“They are being punished because government is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms (firearms)”
No, they are not. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that says you have the right to not have a background check, or that you have the right to not have to wait to get a gun.
“It is not the government’s business to track and record what citizens own firearms. It is the government’s business to prosecute crime.”
And it is much harder to prosecute gun-related crime when the government can’t find out who a gun is registered to. That’s why it is the government’s business to know what guns belong to whom.
“In any case, 41 laws were violated by the Newtown mass murderer, including background check laws, and not one of them prevented that horrific tragedy.
I Googled this claim and I can’t find where you are getting this number. One source claims that there were over 500 violations at the gun store where the guns were purchased (but doesn’t link any of them to guns sold to Nanzy Lanza):
http://www.lohud.com/article/20130411/NEWS02/304110048/Newtown-massacre-ATF-found-500-violations-gun-store
“But not to worry, you fascist dope. Your side is going to “win” one this one. Republicans have already sold out.”
The Republicans behind the new bill have previously had “A” ratings from the NRA. You may want to consider that what you view as “selling out” is actually a fairly common sense, rational position.
Pie Guevara: “You have called me and others a liar on a number of occasions, hence this is how I shall address you, jerk. Funny that you whine about being treated as you treat others, you hypocritical, insignificant little fascist turd.
Yes, you are a liar, by default, when you left out that the guns were actually purchased by a straw buyer.”
I did not mean to leave that out. Why would I intentionally leave out a point that helps my case? The fact that they were bought by a straw buyer supports the idea that we need stricter background check laws. Straw buyers are a HUGE problem at gun shows because they know they can get away with it. If they knew they were going to have their names on paper they would be deterred from making a purchase for someone else. They don’t want their ass on the line for someone else’s crime.
Jack:
“CA has a background requirement and a gun transfer requirement…hasn’t helped reduce homicides at all.”
There is evidence that it has reduced gun crimes:
-In 2011, California’s rates of killings, robberies and assaults involving firearms were all higher than the national rates. But California had lower rates of armed robberies and armed assaults that year than Arizona or Nevada, which conduct less stringent background checks for gun store sales and no checks at all for gun show or private, person-to-person sales.
-The Golden State definitely has a lower rate of gun deaths — including accidents, suicides and homicides — compared with the nation and many other states, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. California had 8.9 such deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2010, ranking 33rd among states and the District of Columbia and falling under the 10.2 national rate. Nevada’s gun death rate ranked sixth, at 15.9; Arizona’s ranked seventh, at 15.3.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22483537/californias-gun-background-check-system-could-be-national
I still haven’t heard one compelling reason why anyone should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check. Where in the second amendment does it give you that right?
Chris: “I still haven’t heard one compelling reason why anyone should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check. Where in the second amendment does it give you that right?”
I guess one could argue “shall not be infringed” is a pretty strong statement. If the people have a right to keep and bear arms it follows they also have a right to purchase arms. Shall not be infringed is an admonish that government should remain hands off. The Constitution was designed to protect us and our freedoms from an overbearing and overreaching government.
Gun owners support reasonable gun laws.
They are mighty tired of progressives in government using every murderous act (except muders committed against black children in Chicago, Oakland, LA…) as an excuse to further the goal of removing guns and eliminating gun rights.
The leadership in your party has expressed the desire to take guns out of the hands of free citizens.
I think these things are at the heart of the resistance to new gun laws.
Unconscious Californians sign away gun rights…hilarious video.
As of March 12 of this year, Cal DOJ has a new policy in effect as regards background checks for firearms purchase. However, DOJ has been quite mum as to just what the details of this new policy are. The result of the policy has been a huge jump in the number and duration of background checks in a “delay” status, in some cases longer than 90 days. In effect, people finding themselves in this situation are having to prove their innocence.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-calguns-foundation-7-californians-sue-attorney-general-kamala-harris-doj-over-gun-delays-2013-04-12
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=573028
Tina: “Gun owners support reasonable gun laws.”
Yes, like universal background checks.
One poll shows 90% of gun owners support this reasonable gun law:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/updates-on-the-gun-violence-debate-6/?smid=tw-share#poll-widespread-support-for-background-checks
This would include my father, who goes to the gun club at least every other week.
Background checks do not infringe on second amendment rights any more than laws against yelling fire in a crowded theatre infringe on first amendment rights.
Well now Chris, it really depends on what they put in that bill, doesn’t it?
You asked a question, “Where in the second amendment does it give you that right?”
I answered the question. I did not express an opinion, one way or the other, about new gun legislation.
“One poll shows 90% of gun owners support this reasonable gun law”
We’ll never know if a portion of the 90% is as clueless about current events as the unconscious Californians featured in the video’s (link) in my comment above!
I imagine most of those concerned about gun show legislation are worried about giving the government too much power. Laws can easily be misused and manipulated. (Like the EPA is currently misusing environmental law)
And the bottom line…new laws that close the gun show loophole will not prevent another tragedy.
“You asked a question, “Where in the second amendment does it give you that right?”
I answered the question.”
No, you didn’t. You quoted the Second Amendment. Nowhere in there does it say anything about background checks.
“We’ll never know if a portion of the 90% is as clueless about current events as the unconscious Californians featured in the video’s (link) in my comment above!”
Absurd. One second you’re claiming to stand up for the rights of “responsible, law-abiding gun owners,” and then the second you find out that most of them disagree with you, you imply that they are “clueless.”
“And the bottom line…new laws that close the gun show loophole will not prevent another tragedy.”
Oh, I forgot. You’re a psychic.
Chris “No, you didn’t. You quoted the Second Amendment.”
I believe the Second Amendment, with the portion that reads, “…shall not be infringed” was appropriate to your question. But that’s just me.
How much “infringement” are you willing to tolerate? What would be the last straw for you on this issue?
“Nowhere in there does it say anything about background checks.”
EXACTLY!!! If recollection serves the country was satisfied for over 100 years with zero gun laws and it took quite awhile before the country saw a need to make them:
The people relied on their values, common sense and laws against murder to address horrendous criminal acts. Guns were widely acknowledged as inanimate objects that were only deadly in the hands of murderers.
This is simple fact, that it isn’t gun purchases or background check “loopholes” that cause Sandy Hook tragedies. It is the mental state of the criminal shooter.
“One second you’re claiming to stand up for the rights of “responsible, law-abiding gun owners,” and then the second you find out that most of them disagree with you…”
The sudden call for new legislation is political, Chris. Support for this legislation could suggest that many Americans have lost the ability to place blame where it belongs, with the criminal! That is, sadly one possibility. Another is that the 90% answer is more reflective of support for the background check laws already on the books than any new legislation being considered. Low information voters would not necessarily be aware of current proposals when asked the question.
This type of legislation only surfaces after events such as Sandy Hook. Curiously, it does not surface after months and years of gun related violence in Chicago, the Presidents mainland hometown. Does it occur to you to ask, why now…why only after very emotionally charged, high profile, predominantly white, cases involving school children?
Not only are the gun issue motives for this legislation under question but the race implications are in question to for legislators, Eric Holder, and President Obama who fail to highlight and respond to violent activity in Chicago, for instance, as a reason for new gun legislation. If murdered children is the high priority why not black children murdered in the streets of Chicago outside their own homes?
Just how important is this legislation, really, for these legislators and leaders?
“…you imply that they are “clueless.”
I have argued that this law will not stop future criminals from murderous acts. I have argued the Constitution cautions against infringement. I have suggested that we are failing as a nation to adequately hold people accountable and we have failed to adequately teach morality and respect for life. I have posted a number of interesting related articles.I have engaged in conversation on the issue. What exactly is your problem?
This is the heart of my argument in this post:
I think I have made my point quite well. Why the contentious, nasty remarks, Chris?
Tina: “How much “infringement” are you willing to tolerate? What would be the last straw for you on this issue?”
I believe that law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, to a reasonable extent. The Chicago handgun ban, for instance, was too big of an infringement, and the SC was right to rule it unconstitutional.
(On a related note, I am not certain why you keep saying that nobody is using gun violence in Chicago as a reason to increase gun laws. You have argued at other times that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country. Those two arguments are completely antithetical.)
“EXACTLY!!! If recollection serves the country was satisfied for over 100 years with zero gun laws and it took quite awhile before the country saw a need to make them:”
Sorry, but that isn’t even remotely true. The Founding Fathers implemented gun control laws far more restrictive than anything being proposed by Obama:
“The founders barred large portions of the population from possessing guns, including slaves and free blacks, who might revolt if armed. The founders also restricted gun ownership by law-abiding white people, such as those who refused to swear allegiance to the Revolution. Those weren’t traitors fighting for the British. They were among the approximately 40 percent of the citizenry who, in exercise of their freedom of conscience, thought 13 disorganized colonies taking on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea…
The founders also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws. Men over the age of 18 were expected to serve in the citizen militia, armed and ready to defend the nation. They would be forced to appear, with guns in hand, at public musters where they and their guns would be inspected. The founders had an early form of gun registration: States conducted door-to-door surveys to identify where the guns were in case the government had need of them.
The founders even had their own version of an “individual mandate.” In 1792, Congress required all free men of age to outfit themselves with a military-style firearm.”
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/country-s-founders-balanced-gun-237079.aspx
“This is simple fact, that it isn’t gun purchases or background check “loopholes” that cause Sandy Hook tragedies. It is the mental state of the criminal shooter.”
But Tina, common sense tells us that we should make it more difficult for criminals in a poor mental state to get guns. Requiring gun sellers to conduct background checks before selling a gun does this.
Do you believe that existing background check laws are an infringment on the right to bear arms? Do you believe they should be repealed? Or do you think they serve a good purpose?
If you agree that people buying guns at a store should be subject to a background check, then why not people at a gun show? Why is one a violation and not the other?
“Another is that the 90% answer is more reflective of support for the background check laws already on the books than any new legislation being considered. Low information voters would not necessarily be aware of current proposals when asked the question.”
The problem with this argument is that if you look at the poll questions, they are specific about asking about sales at gun shows. And there are multiple polls, not just one, showing numbers close to 90%. How often do 90% of Americans agree on anything? How often do we get bipartisan agreement? The opposition to expanding background checks comes from a fringe minority backed by a powerful lobbying firm interested in making more money. The NRA is simply trying to scare people into buying more guns; it’s good for business. I don’t think their interests should come in front of the interests of 90% of Americans. Not when so much is at stake.
Chris: “I am not certain why you keep saying that nobody is using gun violence in Chicago as a reason to increase gun laws. You have argued at other times that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country. Those two arguments are completely antithetical.”
I’m saying that the left worry warts are not worried to the same degree about violent murders of children in Chicago as they are about the Sandy Hook Murders. The fact that Chicago has stricter gun laws is a fact and its a fact that these laws have not stopped Chicago children from murdering others with guns. I don’t see the conflict. In fact what I see is that Chicago murders are not used by the left to push gun legislation because they would call up issues that are inconvenient to the Democrat platform. Democrat policies and attitudes have not worked to better educate and uplift black children but have instead created conditions of hopelessness, dependency, criminality and gang related racism.
“The Founding Fathers implemented gun control laws far more restrictive than anything being proposed by Obama”
So now those old white guys are smart? I notice you had to go back to times predating the constitution to find an example.
I have in my experience a time when American teens could take their weapons with them to school so they could go hunting when the 3:00 bell rang and when young kids carried their guns through town on their way to the open fields in summer. Amazingly nothing horrible happened! This suggests that something terribly damaging has happened in our society that has nothing to do with gun laws and everything to do with values and useless feel good legislation that doesn’t address the root problem behind these shootings.
“…common sense tells us that we should make it more difficult for criminals in a poor mental state to get guns. Requiring gun sellers to conduct background checks before selling a gun does this.”
Like I said previously…whether or not I would support it depends on what they put in the legislation. I think we should KNOW WHAT”S IN IT first! And, I am very suspicious of the intentions of gun grabbing leftist that are out in front pushing for legislation using Sandy Hook as a prop.
“…they are specific about asking about sales at gun shows…”
Low information voters may still not be aware of what they are being asked. The poll doesn’t impress me.
“The opposition to expanding background checks comes from a fringe minority backed by a powerful lobbying firm interested in making more money. The NRA is simply trying to scare people…”
And there you have it. The NRA is as skeptical about what might be in a bill pushed by avowed gun grabbers using the emotional Sandy Hook as a prop. There is NOTHING radical or scary about that. In fact it is not only sensible to be skeptical about what legislators are up to, it is also every citizens duty to be vigilant concerning our Constitutional rights.
” I don’t think their interests should come in front of the interests of 90% of Americans.”
Their interests are the interests of all of the American people. People buy guns for personal protection, hunting, the smart tradition of defending against tyranny, and as collectors. The NRA is a support organization that educates about guns and gun safety. There is nothing scary about the mission of the NRA. There is something scary about extreme leftists that demonize the NRA because it serves their ultimate goal of confiscation.
Tina: “I’m saying that the left worry warts are not worried to the same degree about violent murders of children in Chicago as they are about the Sandy Hook Murders.”
But that doesn’t make sense. The tightening of gun laws in Chicago was a reaction by the “left worry warts” to the violent murders of children in Chicago, was it not?
“In fact what I see is that Chicago murders are not used by the left to push gun legislation”
But…they were.
“So now those old white guys are smart?”
Huh? I never said I agreed with the Founders’ tight regulation of gun control. Do you think I want black people barred from owning guns, or an individual mandate requiring all white male land owners to own guns??
I have praised the Founders’ wisdom here too many times to count, so I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that I see them as just a dumb bunch of “old white guys.” But it is simply a fact that many of the laws of their time did not match their own lofty principles. They were men of contradictions, forward thinkers who were still bound by the social mores of their day.
“I notice you had to go back to times predating the constitution to find an example.”
Please read more carefully. My source said this:
“In 1792, Congress required all free men of age to outfit themselves with a military-style firearm.”
1792 does not “predate the Constitution.” Other gun laws were passed before the Constitution was ratified, but most of them stayed in place even after the Bill of Rights, such as the ban on blacks owning guns.
“I have in my experience a time when American teens could take their weapons with them to school so they could go hunting when the 3:00 bell rang and when young kids carried their guns through town on their way to the open fields in summer. Amazingly nothing horrible happened! This suggests that something terribly damaging has happened in our society that has nothing to do with gun laws and everything to do with values”
Tina, I agree that we need to change the culture and do a better job of instilling morals, but that doesn’t mean we sit on our hands in the meantime when there are practical things we can do.
If you oppose expanding background checks, you’re saying that you believe a mentally ill person or a criminal should be allowed to buy a gun at a gun show or online without the seller having any responsibility to verify who the customer is or what they are capable of. And if the weapon is used in a crime, the seller should face no repurcussions. That is your position.
“Like I said previously…whether or not I would support it depends on what they put in the legislation.”
I don’t remember you saying this. Your argument all along has been that you don’t support the idea of expanding background checks at all. If you’re now changing your position to something more realistic, I am glad, but it would be nice if you could acknowledge that they are two different positions.
“I think we should KNOW WHAT”S IN IT first!”
Well, of course. We should be skeptical of any bill and look into it before it passes. But you weren’t talking about a specific bill before, you were talking about the idea of background checks at gun shows in principal.
There are actually many concessions to gun rights in the Manchin-Toomey bill. The bill contains “provisions that would prohibit a government registry of gun ownership and make it easier to transport and market weapons across state lines.” That’s why the nation’s second-largest gun rights organization has broke with the NRA and come out in support of the bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-rights-group-endorses-manchin-toomey-background-check-bill/2013/04/14/f4ae8ae8-a51e-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html
Of course we should keep an eye out and see what else our representatives try and stuff in there before it passes. Failing to do this is how crap like the Monsanto Protection Act gets passed.
“Low information voters may still not be aware of what they are being asked.”
Why do you keep calling gun owners “low information voters,” Tina?
“The poll doesn’t impress me.”
Again, it’s not “the poll,” it’s multiple polls, all showing a huge majority of Americans favoring background checks at gun shows.
“And there you have it. The NRA is as skeptical about what might be in a bill pushed by avowed gun grabbers using the emotional Sandy Hook as a prop. There is NOTHING radical or scary about that.”
Tina, the NRA is the opposite of “skeptical.” They don’t show any skepticism when it comes to promoting wild-eyed conspiracy theories. This is a group that claimed that Fast and Furious was done intentionally in order to confiscate guns from Americans. They falsely claimed that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty would force the U.S. to create a national gun registry, even though the treaty expliticly upholds “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system.” The NRA opposed this treaty, which was signed by every nation except Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Good company!
The NRA used to be a sane voice for responsible gun owners. Wayne LaPierre himself used to advocate for expanding background checks. But they have become ever more radical and opposed to all new gun laws, no matter how reasonable. LaPierre isn’t an idiot; surely he knows that Obama has actually expanded gun rights since he took office, signing laws allowing citizens to carry guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains. But telling people that the president is going to take their guns away has been a great marketing strategy for the gun business. Sales are through the roof.
Chris: “But that doesn’t make sense. The tightening of gun laws in Chicago was a reaction by the “left worry warts” to the violent murders of children in Chicago, was it not?”
It’s accurate to say that a progressive majority in Illinois passed stricter gun laws. It is accurate to say that stricter gun laws in Illinois have not prevented murder in Chicago neighborhoods. It is not accurate to say that murders committed with guns in Chicago have been exploited by the media and progressives to call for stricter national gun laws as have progressives exploited Sandy Hook.
The current call for stricter gun laws is an example of “never letting a crisis go to waste”, a political tactic used by the very extreme left Democrat politicians now in power. They are hoping to be able to double down on the crisis by suggesting that a right-wingers or Christians are responsible for the attack yesterday in Boston.
“…it is simply a fact that many of the laws of their time did not match their own lofty principles.”
First of all, calling them “lofty” principles is disrespectful unless you think that the principle behind, “thou shalt not kill”, for instance, is so lofty that none of us should pay attention to it. The point being that principles are sometimes compromised in difficult situations by human beings and by governments or groups of people that believe the need is worthy. God and history will be the final judge. Without going back to check all of your examples, you still had to go back to our early history or the time before the Constitution was ratified for these examples. The example you made issue with in 1792 supports gun rights more than restrictive gun laws: ““In 1792, Congress required all free men of age to outfit themselves with a military-style firearm.” It doesn’t help your position to site this example.
“If you oppose expanding background checks, you’re saying that you believe a mentally ill person or a criminal should be allowed to buy a gun at a gun show or online without the seller having any responsibility to verify who the customer is or what they are capable of.”
Think about what you just wrote. Think about it in terms of the power your thinking transfers from criminals to people who might sell a gun to a neighbor. Even if we implement background checks there is still no way to track all people who are mentally imbalanced and might commit a crime. Changing the law will open individuals that sell a gun to prosecution. This nation has been attempting to avoid holding criminals responsible for their own acts. We don’t enforce the laws we have now. I have no confidence that another law will change that.
“I don’t remember you saying this.”
Perhaps I didn’t put it in words. I have engaged in defending the positions that this law won’t stop these things from happening, that another law will not be enforced any better than the current laws, that the root cause of the problem is not being addressed and in fact is being avoided, and that progressive politicians exploit events like Sandy Hook.
“But you weren’t talking about a specific bill before, you were talking about the idea of background checks at gun shows in principal.”
Actually I was initially saying that new gun laws may gratify emotionally but will not stop these events. I wrote:
“Of course we should keep an eye out and see what else our representatives try and stuff in there before it passes.”
Amen! I would go so far as to say they should not be allowed to stuff legislation with “other stuff”!
“Why do you keep calling gun owners “low information voters,” Tina?”
Because some of them are…duh! I suppose you think that low information voters is a designation used as a slam to the left. It covers anyone that pays little attention to current events having to do with the nation’s economy and politics. They plug in to sports or who’s hot in the music/film industry but are politically clueless.
“This is a group that claimed that Fast and Furious was done intentionally in order to confiscate guns from Americans.”
A theory that is not without merit given the stated intentions of those that make up the current administration. Eric Holder once suggested citizens should be brainwashed so they would have an aversion to guns. Speeches that were made prior to F&F indicate the desire to exploit news items to pass gun laws. The suspicions are, IMHO, well founded. You’ll know about sixty years from now when they open the files on this bunch.
“They falsely claimed that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty would force the U.S. to create a national gun registry, even though the treaty expliticly upholds “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system.”
And you are a naive young man if you don’t think that the radicals that have taken over the Democrat party don’t want the sovereignty of the US destroyed so that we can eventually establish a global government. These are socialists who arrogantly believe they can handle the worlds problems by grabbing power and centralizing decision making. Their discussion are not overt; they speak about wonderful goals to save humanity but to accomplish their goals they have to restrict and/or replace freedom. Anyone that objects will be labeled extreme…of lesser intelligence and sophistication. Gun rights are important which is why the person at Tienanmen Square warned the Americans not to give up their guns.
” But they have become ever more radical and opposed to all new gun laws, no matter how reasonable.”
They are “radical” only in response to radicals on the left that blame murders on guns, or the selling of guns rather than the murders who plot and break the law to commit their evil crimes. I applaud that kind of radicalism because it is based on very sound principles!
“…Obama has actually expanded gun rights since he took office, signing laws allowing citizens to carry guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains.”
Sly isn’t he? Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing!
“But telling people that the president is going to take their guns away has been a great marketing strategy for the gun business. Sales are through the roof.”
Sales are going through the roof because the people do not trust this president and his administration. This bunch will not name terrorists (Fort Hood) and refuses to follow through on black voter obstruction crime (Black Panthers). They pit citizens against each other by race and class. There are many reasons, including living in more dangerous times, to distrust this administration on gun control.
Tina: “First of all, calling them “lofty” principles is disrespectful unless you think that the principle behind, “thou shalt not kill”, for instance, is so lofty that none of us should pay attention to it.”
No, it’s not disrespectful, it’s a complement. The first definition of “lofty” in this dictionary is “noble.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lofty
The term is sometimes used to mean supercilious or haughty, but that is not how I meant it.
“Without going back to check all of your examples, you still had to go back to our early history or the time before the Constitution was ratified for these examples.”
Yes, because you claimed that our country “was satisfied for over 100 years with zero gun laws and it took quite awhile before the country saw a need to make them.” I went back to the founding because doing so proves your claims false. While many of the gun laws I mentioned were passed before the Constitution was ratified, they stayed in place after ratification, and even after the Second Amendment was in place, making them perfectly relevant to my point.
“The example you made issue with in 1792 supports gun rights more than restrictive gun laws: ““In 1792, Congress required all free men of age to outfit themselves with a military-style firearm.” It doesn’t help your position to site this example.”
So requiring people to purchase guns “supports gun rights,” does it? Interesting. Because you’ve spent the last four years here arguing that requiring people to purchase health insurance is a *violation* of rights. So, according to you, an individual mandate for guns = supporting people’s rights, but an individual mandate for health insurance = taking rights away.
If you’re as tired of me pointing out the glaring contradictions in your arguments as I am, then the solution is to think through your arguments better before you type them out. You look like a giant hypocrite, because you keep making hypocritical arguments that depend more on partisanship than principle.
“Even if we implement background checks there is still no way to track all people who are mentally imbalanced and might commit a crime.”
No law can track ALL criminals. You’re applying an impossible standard, one that you would never apply to laws which you favor. The point is that expanding background checks will allow us to track MORE people who use guns to commit crimes, as well as preventing and deterring others. No one said this will stop all gun crime; that is a strawman.
“Changing the law will open individuals that sell a gun to prosecution.”
That’s a feature, not a bug. Investigations at gun shows have revealed a shocking number of sellers willing to sell guns to people even after they admit that they probably could not pass a background check.
http://www.gunshowundercover2009.org/
Selling guns to people without a background check is irresponsible and reckless. In the Columbine case, it led to a massacre. And yet, in that case, neither the straw buyer nor the seller could be prosecuted! How is that right?
“We don’t enforce the laws we have now.”
That’s because Republicans, at the behest of the NRA, have worked to weaken enforcement of existing gun laws.
“A review of congressional legislative records, federal lobbying disclosure forms, as well as interviews with former ATF agents, shows how the NRA has repeatedly supported legislation to weaken several of the nation’s gun laws and opposed any attempt to boost the ability of the Bureau of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce current laws, including:
The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. This law mandated that the ATF could only inspect firearms dealers once a year. It reduced record-keeping penalties from felonies to misdemeanors, prohibited the ATF from computerizing purchase records for firearms and required the government to prove that a gun dealer was “willful” if they sold a firearm to a prohibited person.
The Tiahrt amendments. Beginning in 2003, the amendments by then-representative Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., to the Justice Department’s appropriation bill included requirements such as the same-day destruction of FBI background check documents and limits on the sharing of data from traces.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act. Most recently introduced in 2011, the bill proposed changing several regulations, including redefining the burden of proof for agents investigating firearms dealers accused of selling to prohibited individuals and capping fines for other violations.
The NRA didn’t do anything to weaken the ATF, which is responsible for its inability to enforce the laws, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.
“The thing that weakens the ATF is when they engage in deadly and criminal enterprises such as Fast and Furious,” he said.
Operation Fast and Furious was a 2010 ATF operation in Arizona. Two guns linked to the botched investigation were found at the scene where a U.S. Border Patrol agent was shot and killed. The gun used to kill the agent has not been identified..
The ATF also has opposed the public sharing of data from traces, Arulanandam said, just as the NRA does.
Several former ATF agents say the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act has hampered the agency’s ability to enforce gun laws, because it limits their resources.
“For all practical purposes, (the act) made it not impossible but very, very difficult to police both licensed and unlicensed dealers both from a regulatory point of view and a criminal prosecution point of view,” said William Vizzard, a professor of criminal justice at California State University-Sacramento and a former ATF agent.
One provision in the law Vizzard cited as particularly vexing to the ATF was that false record keeping for dealers was reduced to a misdemeanor, meaning if an ATF agent audited a gun dealer missing 1,200 guns, the dealer could not be charged with a federal offense.
“You just don’t get many U.S. attorneys filing misdemeanors in federal court,” he said.
Joseph Vince, a retired ATF agent, also mentioned the 1986 act, but added the agency was woefully underfunded because of NRA pressure in Congress.
“What they do, they will make it so that any gun-control measures that are passed are going to be failures,” Vince said. “They set it up that way because if there’s no resources granted, then how is it going to work? You look at ATF, they haven’t had any more special agents than they did in 1976.”
ATF records show the agency had 1,622 agents and 826 industry investigators in 1973 compared with 2,574 agents and 833 investigators in 2012.
Meanwhile the number of firearms owned in the United States has only grown.
In 1994, 44 million people in the United States owned 192 million firearms, according to a November 2012 Congressional Research Service report. By 2009, the estimated number of guns available to Americans had risen to 310 million.
Another issue frequently mentioned by gun-control advocates is the lack of continuity at the top of the ATF.
The agency has not had a permanent director since 2006, the same year the Congress passed a bill to require the head of the ATF to be confirmed by the Senate like their counterparts in the FBI – a bill supported by the NRA.
Over the years some candidates have been blocked by Republican senators or opposed by the NRA and other gun advocacy groups or simply languished in committee.
President Obama recently nominated B. Todd Jones, the ATF’s current acting director, to fill the leadership void permanently. While the NRA has yet to weigh in on his nomination, key senators, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have already called for a thorough investigation of his record.
Ronald Carter, who served as acting director in 2009, said the blame for the ATF’s troubles ultimately lies with Congress and said it was time for the bureau to have a permanent head.
“ATF is not exactly loved,” Carter said. “They passed the Brady Bill, but they never gave it any teeth. There are no penalties.”
“You can’t enforce the law, if you can’t do anything,” he said. “You are stuck out there, and it’s a tough situation.””
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/
More proof:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/25/how-the-national-rifle-association-frustrates-e/193233
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-nra-atf-gun-control-obama-2013-1
“A theory that is not without merit…”
*sigh*
“And you are a naive young man if you don’t think that the radicals that have taken over the Democrat party don’t want the sovereignty of the US destroyed so that we can eventually establish a global government.”
Even if you’re right, what does that have to do with what we’re talking about? Again: the U.N. treaty *specifically asserted each nation’s sovereignty regarding gun rights.* What more do you want? Do you really think it would have been good if we had joined North Korea, Iran, and Syria in refusing to sign the treaty?
We can’t deal with the real problems in this country because you’re too busy defending against Imaginary Hitler.
“Sly isn’t he? Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing!”
I see. So anything Obama does to support gun rights…is more proof that he is against gun rights!
And you complain when people say you are paranoid? Stop acting like it!
“This bunch will not name terrorists (Fort Hood)”
And yet they did name the Boston bombing an act of terrorism the day that it happened.
“and refuses to follow through on black voter obstruction crime (Black Panthers).”
False. They “followed through” more than the Bush administration did.
“ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, together with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, bore primary responsibility for the conduct of Operations Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. While we found no evidence that the agents responsible for the cases had improper motives or were trying to accomplish anything other than dismantling a dangerous firearms trafficking organization, we concluded that the conduct and supervision of the investigations was significantly flawed.”
http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-49_Mar13.pdf#page=12
Chris: “Interesting. Because you’ve spent the last four years here arguing that requiring people to purchase health insurance is a *violation* of rights. So, according to you, an individual mandate for guns = supporting people’s rights, but an individual mandate for health insurance = taking rights away.”
Where in the Constitution/Bill of rights do you find healthcare, health insurance, or even the right to health?
NOWHERE!
This argument/comparison is irrelevant.
“You’re applying an impossible standard”
No, your side is implying an impossible standard can be met when they know it can’t. This is called getting your way by misleading the public. It fits in nicely with “never letting a crisis go to waste”.
“hat’s because Republicans, at the behest of the NRA, have worked to weaken enforcement of existing gun laws.”
“Responsibility!” Isn’t that what you just yapped at me? Blaming Republicans for lack of enforcement after nearly 41/2 years of authority under Obama/Holder is joke:
Note: The Senate under Harry Reid hasn’t passed a budget until this year so we’ve been operating under continuing resolutions of the same budget.
I’m done with this. It’s late and my own position, as defined by the title of this post has been made. You are free to continue screaming at the rafters as if someone had abused you…when all is said and done until we know what’s in it…
As for your Fast and Furious comments you are doing exactly what the left always does. The Bush plan was not the same…it was not executed in the same way and it involved the Mexican authorities. The guns were never lost into Mexico and did not result in mass numbers of murders of both Mexicans and Americans. Additionally, the plug was pulled because it was determined that the guns could not be tracked sufficiently.
IBD:
Quick clips:
Barack Obama´s administration has cut the budget nearly in half for preventing domestic bombings, MailOnline can reveal. Under President George W. Bush, the Department of Homeland Security had $20 million allocated for preventing the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by terrorists working inside the United States. The current White House has cut that funding down to $11 million. – Daily Mail
Overreach: The gun control bill lets doctors put your name in the national criminal background check system without telling you. Can the government say you´re crazy and take your guns? – IBD
And with that good night!
Gallup Poll
Only 4% mentioned guns/gun control was a high priority.
The vote today was 4 short in the Senate of the sixty required to pass the proposed gun legislation.
Show how out of touch our lawmakers are with public opinion.
Jack: “Show how out of touch our lawmakers are with public opinion.”
The Republicans in Congress showed how out of touch they were with public opinion yesterday, when they passed on a bill that was supported by 90% of Americans, a majority of Republicans, a majority of gun owners, and a majority of NRA members, all because the leaders of the NRA will lobby aggressively against anything that might have even a minor negative impact on gun sales.
How often do 90% of Americans agree on ANYTHING?
I was glad Obama kept repeating this statistic in his speech. He sounded angrier than I’ve ever heard him before, and for damned good reason. Republicans in Congress were not representing the people yesterday, they were representing a loud, paranoid minority backed by moneyed interests.
Chris you just backed into a good point, how often do 90% of us ever agree on anything? That extraordinary high number does call into question the validity of the polling. I don’t think it is right, do you?
Sorry, the above should say “when they failed to pass a bill.”
No need to apologize Chris. Proposed gun legislation failed to pass; why the nit picking?
“The Republicans in Congress showed how out of touch they were with public opinion yesterday, when they passed on a bill that was supported by 90% of Americans…”
But they showed how IN TOUCH they are with most Americans, 96%, who think this is a low priority issue. Republicans have passed budgets in the House containing proposals that would address entitlement spending, make reforms that would help to sustain those programs, and actually spark some growth and jobs.
Reids Senate has failed until this year to even pass a budget much less begin to address Jobs and the economy. The Presidents budget proposal summaries have been roundly rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.
How often do 90% of Americans agree on ANYTHING?
JOBS and a more vibrant economy is what is more important to the majority of Americans.
Leave it to Democrats to fail to meet the most basic needs of the citizenry while exploiting a tragedy to push for more government control or a social issue they believe will get them more power and control. Democrats don’t legislate for the citizens of America; they legislate for votes.
Demonizing and complaining about the NRA for the failure of this legislation is rich from the community organizer President that has used ACORN and acorn remakes for power over his entire political life! The radical extremists of the Democrat Party hyped the organizational lobby monster; now they can live with it.
According to Business Insider four Democrats voted no on the gun legislation. Four Republicans voted for it. Had Harry Reid managed to get his Democrats to vote yes the bill would have passed.
Blaming Republicans for the failure of this legislation is typical for the party that never takes responsibility for anything and never fails to play the blame game. The Democrat Party has no moral compass.
I think the bill would have passed if it had contained something useful to curtail criminals using firearms, but there wasn’t anything!!! If it had said anyone using a firearm in the commission of a part 1 felony (violent crimes) will receive a minimum sentence of 15 years… that would have been a winner, but instead it was a do nothing, worthless bill that added more beaurocracy and cost without any rational benefit to society.
Tina: “But they showed how IN TOUCH they are with most Americans, 96%, who think this is a low priority issue.”
Ridiculous. Whether it was a low priority issue or not, what is truly relevant is that the people supported it. It was a “yes” or “no” vote, and Republicans voted “no” even though a majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans and a majority of gun owners, supported it. If anything, voting “no” ensures that this will remain an issue for Congress, since now nothing has gotten done.
You have a strange habit of relying on polls with more generalized questions rather than more specific ones. For instance, in the past when I have cited polls showing that a majority favors a certain policy, you have responded with a poll showing that more Americans identify as conservative than liberal. Certainly whether Americans support specific policies is more relevant than how they label themselves. By the same token, a poll asking whether Americans support a specific policy is more relevant than whether they view something as a high priority. Just because Americans see other issues as being more important doesn’t mean they don’t care about this one.
You have also dismissed the polls I have brought up out of hand by speculating that too many respondents may be “low-information voters.” But how do you know the same isn’t true of the polls you cite? Are only polls which support your point of view reliable?
Your statistical analysis is terrible, because it’s based on partisanship. You are trying so hard to get to the conclusions you want, it prevents you from rationally considering the evidence in front of you.
Jack: “Chris you just backed into a good point, how often do 90% of us ever agree on anything? That extraordinary high number does call into question the validity of the polling. I don’t think it is right, do you?”
Jack, multiple polls have been done from multiple agencies across the ideological spectrum, and all of them have resulted in comparable numbers.
There’s this one:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us03222013x.pdf/
And this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/04/16/National-Politics/Polling/release_226.xml
And this one:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/cnn-poll-popular-background-checks-also-cause-worry/
And this one:
http://blog.timesunion.com/guns/new-poll-shows-that-a-vast-majority-of-americans-favor-stricter-gun-laws/1070/
And this one:
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/02-21-13%20Political%20Release.pdf
And even this one from FOX News, which shows 91% in favor of background checks at gun shows:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/01/18/fox-news-poll-gun-rights-and-gun-control/
That’s six different polls, from non-partisan, left-leaning and right-leaning organizations, all showing the same results, Jack. That seems pretty legit to me.
If you still question the validity of all of these polls, then you need to do some actual statistical analysis and explain why. “It sounds fishy to me” is not statistical analysis.
Jack: “I think the bill would have passed if it had contained something useful to curtail criminals using firearms, but there wasn’t anything!!! If it had said anyone using a firearm in the commission of a part 1 felony (violent crimes) will receive a minimum sentence of 15 years… that would have been a winner, but instead it was a do nothing, worthless bill that added more beaurocracy and cost without any rational benefit to society.”
This is simply not true. Preventing criminals from buying guns at gun shows and over the Internet is a rational benefit to society. Right now there is nothing stopping a criminal from buying a gun at a gun show or over the Internet. That’s why criminals buy guns at gun shows all the time, and terrorists have instructed their disciples to buy guns from gun shows. A background check is an extra obstacle in their path. This will not deter all criminals, but it will deter some of them.
Sources for the above claims:
http://www.gunshowundercover2009.org/
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-06/opinions/35233616_1_gun-show-terror-gap-easily-obtainable-firearms
“Fascism by the Numbers,” by James Toranto, Best of the Web, WSJ covers the left’s knee jerk propensity to place blame on the right wing whenever “gun violence” or something equally horrendous happens. He concludes:
This gun legislation was not about violent crime. It was a political gambit through and through and it blew up in the progressives face.
Toranto goes on to cite the President’s angry “outburst” following defeat of gun legislation in the Senate and makes reference to the poll that found “90% of Americans support background checks”, that has been cited ad nauseum on this blog:
I absolutely agree. Enough with the distractions and power grabs.
Tina,
Please stop lying.
You have now implied several times that there was only one poll showing 90% of Americans favoring an expansion of background checks, even though you know that it was a lot more than one poll.
Even in your last comment, you write, “Toranto goes on to cite the President’s angry “outburst” following defeat of gun legislation in the Senate and makes reference to the poll that found “90% of Americans support background checks”, that has been cited ad nauseum on this blog:”
You then quote your source as saying the following:
“We’ll take as given that Obama’s assertion has some factual basis–that one poll found 90% support for “expanding background checks.”
And
“It’s silly to conclude that because one poll found 90% support for “background checks,” that translates into a like level of support for this particular piece of legislation.”
As you have been informed now NUMEROUS times, it was not “one poll.” In my last comment, I linked to SIX DIFFERENT POLLS showing numbers close to 90%. The poll showing the highest number of support–91%–was conducted by FOX News.
I can only assume the reason you keep trying to pretend we are talking about “one poll” is because that makes it easier to dismiss. You know you are being dishonest. You are doing it intentionally, because it makes your argument easier. You don’t care whether it’s true or not; you care about not having to deal with any cognitive dissonance. You dismiss all facts and evidence that don’t suit your agenda.
I don’t know why you continue to pull this obviously deceitful shit when you know I am going to call you out on it. I always have in the past, and I always will. The only solution to this problem is for you to stop lying.
Taranto goes on to quote Scott Rasmussen, who is lying about Obama’s stance on a national gun registry. He writes:
“Third, just 40% want to see a national database of gun owners created.”
Rasmussen doesn’t intend this to be a point in the bill’s favor, but it really is. The bill that Republicans just rejected explicitly bans a national gun registry. Let me repeat: Republicans just voted against a bill that bans what they claim is their greatest fear. Obama made that clear in the very speech Taranto criticizes.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/
Yet Rasmussen is then quoted as saying:
“This last point really frustrates some advocates of gun control, including President Obama.”
Rasmussen has no evidence for this claim, and a lot of evidence against it. As TIME points out:
“There is no record that Obama ever proposed such a registry on the federal level. In fact, during his first national campaign in January of 2008, Obama was asked about a federal firearm registry during a debate, and he basically ruled it out.”
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/24/fact-check-the-gun-registry-red-herring/#ixzz2R1jZa09j
As TIME makes clear, Wayne LaPierre was lying when he claimed that Obama “wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry.”
And Scott Rasmuseen is lying when he says this is what Obama wants as well. And so are Tantaro and you for passing it on without checking the facts.
Obama has been clear that he does not support a national gun registry:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576198/wh-says-it-doesnt-support-national-gun-registry/
As Obama pointed out in his speech, the NRA and congressional Republicans “willfully lied” about the bill by claiming that it would lead to a national gun registry. How can a bill that explicitly bans X lead to X being instituted? It can’t, that’s how.
And why would Republicans vote against a bill that bans their greatest fear, then falsely claim it will bring that fear to life? They’re manipulating you, Tina! They’re keeping the fear alive. They don’t want Democrats or Obama attached to a bill that bans a national gun registry; that hurts their “us vs. them” strategy. If this bill had become law, Republicans would no longer get away with stoking fears about a national gun registry. That’s their bread and butter.
I can already hear your response: “Sure, Obama says he doesn’t want a national gun registry, but I know what he REALLY thinks!” But since you are not a mind reader, that is not a valid argument. Contrary to your beliefs, and your angry, faux-offended whining every time I correct your lies, facts matter. Evidence matters. You don’t get to play the victim when you are caught in a lie. You don’t get to call me an authoritarian, a bully, PC, or any other uncreative, reductive name simply because you are backed into a logical corner and can’t find your way out with a flashlight.
But you probably will anyway. The chances of you admitting that you have been dishonest, or even mistaken, are nil. All that matters to you is that you “win” in this “war.” “All’s fair.” Screw the facts.