Four days after a gunman opened fire on a crowd of Las Vegas concertgoers, the congressional delegation representing Galveston County was advocating waiting before any discussion about tightening gun-control laws.

Like most other Republicans in Washington, Texas’ two senators said the days immediately after one of the deadliest mass shootings in the United States is not the time to talk about legislation. At least 58 people were killed, and more than 500 people were injured.

Sen. Ted Cruz told TIME magazine Tuesday the Las Vegas shooting was “not an excuse for Democrats to try and strip away Second Amendment rights from law-abiding citizens.”

On Monday, Sen. John Cornyn said talking about new regulations immediately after the shooting was “beyond disgusting.”

“We ought to wait a respectful period of time, out of respect for people who lost their lives or were injured before we get into the push and shove of politics around here,” Cornyn said.

On Wednesday afternoon, Cornyn said he might be willing to discuss legislation on “bump stocks,” devices that allow gun owners to modify semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly.

Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, 64, apparently used at least one weapon outfitted with a bump stock to achieve a rate of fire near that of a fully automatic rifle, according to reports.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Randy Weber said Wednesday he would consider proposals to reduce shooting deaths “holistically.”

“He is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and he will not curtail the rights of citizens to legally own a weapon,” Emma Polefko said. “We cannot write enough laws to prevent criminal activity from happening; by the very nature of crime, laws are being broken.”

There’s little indication that any new gun legislation will be passed after Las Vegas, although President Donald Trump said Tuesday his administration would talk about gun laws “as time goes by.”

Congress hasn’t approved any new federal gun control rules since 2007, when it approved a regulation to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Both Cruz and Cornyn voted against bills in 2013 that are often pointed to as the closest Congress has come to passing new rules. The bills, proposed after the Sandy Hook shootings, would have expanded background checks for gun buyers, banned the sale of assault weapons and banned the sale of ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. They all failed to reach a 60-vote majority in the Senate, and were never voted on in the House of Representatives.

ON THE OTHER SIDE

The Texas delegation has proposed rules that would loosen gun laws in different ways.

A Cornyn-introduced bill, called the “Constitutional Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act,” would require authorities to recognize gun permits across state lines. That bill, which was introduced in February and was nearing a vote in the Senate, could now be delayed, according to Politico.

That bill was one of two criticized by former NASA astronaut and one-time Galveston County resident Mark Kelly during a news conference Monday.

“Incredibly, Congress is currently working on legislation that would weaken our gun laws,” Kelly said. “Imagine the confusion for first responders if they arrived on the scene to a bunch of civilians wielding their own guns, attempting to return fire.”

Kelly is married to former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt in 2011. They are major advocates for new gun laws.

ABORTION VOTE

A bill that would outlaw abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday in a 237-189 vote.

U.S. Rep. Randy Weber voted for the bill.

“This bill protects the fundamental American belief that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Weber said. “As endowed by our creator, this right starts at the moment of conception, and absolutely exists at 20 weeks.”

In a statement, Weber said the “science is clear” that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, though studies cited by the bill’s critics say otherwise.

A 2005 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association said: “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”

The bill is supported by anti-abortion groups, and President Donald Trump has promised to sign it if it reaches his desk.

However, the bill has almost no chance of passing the Senate, where it would require 60 votes to be approved. Republicans control 54 seats in the Senate.

HARVEY HEARINGS

The Texas House of Representatives has held multiple committee meetings in Houston this week to discuss actions the state might have to take to help with Hurricane Harvey recovery.

The hearings have included testimony from officials from Harris, Jefferson, Orange, Jasper, Newton and Fort Bend counties — but not, so far, from Galveston County.

Galveston County Judge Mark Henry said on Monday he had not been aware about a meeting of the House Appropriations committee on Monday at the University of Houston until about 20 minutes before it was set to start.

Dickinson Mayor Julie Masters did attend a meeting of the House Urban Affairs committee on Monday, but told The Daily News her testimony was a “last-minute thing”.

The inclusion of Galveston County officials will be something to watch as recovery continues and money begins to be distributed to around Texas.

John Wayne Ferguson: 409-683-5226; john.ferguson@galvnews.com or on Twitter @johnwferguson.

(75) comments

Steve Fouga

As expected on gun laws, as usual.

Come on Congress, be honest. There are a few commonsense, legislatable measures that could limit mass murder without limiting a person's ability to defend himself, compete in matches, or hunt.

On the other hand, I doubt much can be done via gun legislation to limit suicides (by far the most gun deaths) and domestic-violence-related murders. For that, we need psychological care as a right rather than a privilege, and family situations in which young males are educated to respect females.

I'm so tired of Republicans basically saying do nothing, and Dems taking every opportunity to say "Ban, ban, ban." Let's get practical, Congress. Do something.

Carlos Ponce

What do you recommend Steve? There is a measure before Congress that would ban "bump stocks" but there are other marketed devices and some home made ones that accomplish the same.
You are correct when you post, "I doubt much can be done via gun legislation to limit suicides". In areas of the world where there is no access to firearms a person troubled enough to kill himself will find a way. In Japan they prefer to jump off buildings or run into traffic. Hanging and taking poisons is preferred in Great Britain.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "There is a measure before Congress that would ban "bump stocks" but there are other marketed devices and some home made ones that accomplish the same."

There is no measure currently before Congress to ban bump stocks, Carlos. The GOP has only said it is open to that discussion. Without question all bump stocks should immediately be banned, so should any other device which can turn semi automatics into effectively machine guns. It is insane not to want that after seeing the price paid in Las Vegas.

George Croix

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office.
"Feinstein, a prominent advocate for gun control, already has legislation to ban bump stocks."
'Has' is present tense, and a distinction without a difference to differentiate it between proposed already and actually up for a vote before Congress now, although useful as a deflection....
The same type legislation as she backed back in 2010 when the Administration at that time OK'd the sale and purchase of the devices.
One other device that can transform some weapons into a full automatic firing one is a common hand file....usually mill, and about 4 to 6" long...like Lowes and Sears and Home Depot sells....should we ban mill files....?
As always, it's not the device, it's the illegitimate user of it that's the problem....
I personally do not want,one, and do not see much practical use for a bump stock except to repel a mass attack when more suitable weaponry is unavailable, ....but they require the human element to commit, mayhem, just as all devices used for destruction do.....or, PERSONAL responsibility, that thing that is so hard for so many of all stripes to grasp the concept of
'Ban them'....if they were banned in 2010, does anyone figure this would not have happened last week.......??

Mark Aaron

George: ""Feinstein, a prominent advocate for gun control, already has legislation to ban bump stocks.""

I stand corrected, A bill was introduced yesterday, by a Democrat.

Mark Aaron

George: "One other device that can transform some weapons into a full automatic firing one is a common hand file....usually mill, and about 4 to 6" long...like Lowes and Sears and Home Depot sells....should we ban mill files....?"

Always looking for excuses aren't you George? Filing down the sear pin only works on some semi-automatic weapons and it is unreliable. You'll likely only get two consecutive rounds to fire or it will empty the magazine uncontrollably. Anvils and safes dropped from desert escarpments can also kill. Will you suggest banning them next George?

George Croix

You still can't get that difference between a statement and an excuse down, Aaron. I said a file CAN be used, as it most definitely can. And, the sear pin is not filed down, the sear surface itself is...that's the contact surface that when released by trigger movement or weapon design causes the firearm firing pin/striker to be released and contact the cartridge primer and ultimately fire the weapon...filing it down on some weapons, as I said, can result in the weapon firing with a single pull of the trigger until it's magazine is empty..or 'automatic' fire as it's sometimes called. I don't know where you got such 'facts' as you posted as " You'll likely only get two consecutive rounds to fire or it will empty the magazine uncontrollably" but they are totally different from all my decades of firearms use and association with various actual gunsmiths and not internet links has proven to show and be...BUT , anyone is free to suppose whatever they want. The sear contact design and angle IS the critical point, but not out of the skills range to modify by anyone intent on doing so and moderately capable. I per
Another deflection to anvils and safes, although Las Vegas is in a desert, so no deflection there. I didn't suggest banning anvils, safes, or deserts, so can only wonder why you'd ask that, Aaron, except you have no actual response to the subject of any consequence. Besides, it's YOU, not me, that said banning was an immediate solution in an earlier post of yours. Did you forget that already?
Of COURSE I don't advocate banning anvils and safes.....use d properly and responsibly, they are legal and useful tools...just like firearms...if anyone drops one on another person's head and kills them I support banning THAT person's freedom, or possibly even their life....PERSONAL responsibility...without deflection....

Mark Aaron

George: " I didn't suggest banning anvils, safes, or deserts, so can only wonder why you'd ask that, Aaron, except you have no actual response to the subject of any consequence."

I was illustrating the absurdity of your attempted red herring where you said: "should we ban mill files....?" as you tried to ridicule the sensible assertion that we should ban bump stocks.

==> "Of COURSE I don't advocate banning anvils and safes.....use d properly and responsibly, they are legal and useful tools...just like firearms..."

Again you try to minimize and excuse the role of deadly firearms. Files, anvils, and safes are not designed to kill, guns are. They are not equivalent.

Mark Aaron

Steve: "Dems taking every opportunity to say "Ban, ban, ban.""

Except Democrats rarely ever call for banning all firearms. The overwhelming majority just want sensible gun regulation. No one wants to take away hunting rifles and only a few ever call for banning handguns. Banning high capacity magazines and assault rifles however is what I would call reasonable gun regulation. There is no good argument for civilians to have that kind of reckless firepower unless you are a government hating nihilist, which I don't take you to be.

PD Hyatt

If the progressive left gets their way and destroys our 2nd Amendment rights all of our other rights shall soon go away, for it is the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the rest of our rights! More people are killed with hammers and baseball bats than these bump stock weapons.... If the fool had known how to shoot he could have killed far more than he did.... A populace that is willing to give up their rights for a perceived increase of safety is not worthy of any rights....

Mark Aaron

Paul: "If the progressive left gets their way and destroys our 2nd Amendment rights all of our other rights shall soon go away, for it is the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the rest of our rights!"

Poor Paul, thoroughly duped as usual. The 2nd Amendment was written primarily to protect slave posses from being disarmed by the federal government. It was never intended to arm the citizenry against their own government. Nor was it ever intended as a suicide pact that allows one person to mow down 500 people.

PD Hyatt

Really.... You Sir have no clue about our history and or why the Constitution was written the way that it was.... It is funny and sad to see how many of your type who spew forth garbage like you know something when in actuality you don't have a clue about what is real and what is false.... One day you might dig your head out of the sand, but from reading your posts I seriously doubt it.....

Mark Aaron

Paul: "Really.... You Sir have no clue about our history and or why the Constitution was written the way that it was..."

_Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby’s favorite amendment. “That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false,” he said. Instead, the “well-regulated militias” cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery._

_This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification._

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment/

Carlos Ponce

Held:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Held:
c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
The Second Amendment precursors, by contrast, referred to the indi­vidual English right already codified in two (and probably four) State constitutions.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Second Amendment was based on the right to keep and bear arms found in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
-Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England-Book the First - Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "Held: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

There is quite a bit you either don't know about the Heller decision, or you likely choose to ignore it. That very partisan decision was written by the uber-rightwing Justice Scalia. The Decision was a 4 to 5 vote with a stinging dissent from the opposition who rightfully noted that the decision went against over 200 years of judicial precedence. In that 200 years the court consistently found that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right of the states inextricably tied to membership in a well regulated militia and not a personal right as Scalia claimed.

If you actually want to learn the truth about that faulty decision you can read these helpful articles:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/how_the_nra_perverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

George Croix

What we need is a law against murder if we really want to prevent it....
Oh, wait.......
So far, only one proposal offered up as 'controls' would have had any effect on the Las Vegas shootings, and that's a proposal to 'ban' the so-called 'bump stocks'...., which, while seemingly a good idea, does nothing to remove them from the hands of crazy people or criminals who already have them.
The NRA, which is bipartisan in it's support of the 2nd Amendment that protects all the other Amendments and is the reason Americans have that free speach thingy to date, except on college campuses (!!??), didn't shoot anybody, nor did it's good citizens millions of members, and is no more to blame than the AAA is for automobile deaths. And supressors (or 'silencers', as they are wrongly called...) were not even used, and are not 'silent' anyway, despite Hillary's ignorant, it's-all-about-me comments about both. The guy had a clean record so far as is evident to date, so wasn't picked up on a background check. Same goes for National Concealed Carry Reciprocity...a good thing, imo, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Las vegas, but which was piled onto the Left's post-shooting bandwagon.
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste." It's very 'progressive'.....
Why not get the funerals over with, THEN make your case for 'controls' that might at least bear some semblance of cause and effect and make some effort to show what you think would be accomlished by them.
What the Left is advocating via political hyperbole is essentially banning stearing wheels to prevent vehicular homicide.
As expected.....

Mark Aaron

George: "while seemingly a good idea, does nothing to remove them from the hands of crazy people or criminals who already have them."

Yes, let's also remove the laws against murder and arson since only crazy people or criminals commit such crimes.

==> "the 2nd Amendment that protects all the other Amendments and is the reason Americans have that free speach thingy to date"

Yet another dupe of the NRA who has no idea what the 2nd Amendment was intended for.

==> " it's good citizens millions of members, and is no more to blame than the AAA is for automobile deaths ~ What the Left is advocating via political hyperbole is essentially banning stearing wheels to prevent vehicular homicide.."

Still proving you are a dupe. Why don't you tell us when all firearms were required to be registered, licensed, inspected, and had to have insurance for any damage they might cause, George.

==> ""You never let a serious crisis go to waste.""

You mean like the GOP did with 9-11 George?

George Croix

There you go again with that deflection and internet safe place stuff, Aaron:
"Yes, let's also remove the laws against murder and arson since only crazy people or criminals commit such crimes."
I said no such thing. You changed what was said so you could make a snide and wrong comment that avoids actually responding to the actual wording.
"Yet another dupe of the NRA who has no idea what the 2nd Amendment was intended for."
More deflection and more snide, childishness rather than actually comment on what was said. The 2nd Amendment exists, thankfully, to protect all the other Amendments, a fact you may or may not agree with, but which remains, as it was considered by the Founders to be second only to free speach in the freedom heirarchy, and as they correctly recognized, was needed to insure that free speach, as we know from history, is often lost when the people have no means to fight for it nonetheless. The NRA is more likely to undertsand the 2nd Amendment than you, as is most anyone else not you...imo.
"Still proving you are a dupe. Why don't you tell us when all firearms were required to be registered, licensed, inspected, and had to have insurance for any damage they might cause, George.?"
More deflection and childish name calling, Aaron, as you predictably avoid a response to a subject directly...We have never required the same thing of firearms as automobiles because there is no Constitutional right to drive a car, and because no matter how hard anyone tries to avoid it, the manipulation of a 2000 to 6000 pound or more chunk of steel moving at speed in close proximity to others and also pedestrians has a far more deadly potential that use of firearms does, as any simple study of annual or collective deaths and their causes will show. For that matter, firearms are 'registered' every time you fill out the form to buy one, many of us are 'licensed' to carry them, and I have no idea what 'Inspection' would be required of a firearm...perhaps you'd tell us if you can stop deflecting and making those kiddy word comments?
Insurance for the damage that guns might cause? Maybe that's worth discussing...but it's not worth engaging with childishness....
Perhaps we should also talk about requiring insurance for the possible misuse of all our rights, as we have seen that misleading and even outright dishonest talk and reporting have cuased a great deal of trouble and even damage in this country.....
":You mean like the GOP did with 9-11 George?
Yet another deflection from the subject at hand, but at least somewhat close....WHAT are you referring to that the GOP did post 9/11, Aaron? I mean without support from Democrats, too, as for a while there the whole nation was just American, and not Party?
You must have something in mind, perhapos even a legitimate something, or else that's just another gratuitous, meaningless diversion....so, tell us...

Mark Aaron

George: "There you go again with that deflection and internet safe place stuff, Aaron"

Poor George, ever the victim. Now it is the internet and its forums picking on you. If you can't keep up, George, find another hobby or quit whining.

==> "I said no such thing. You changed what was said so you could make a snide and wrong comment that avoids actually responding to the actual wording."

I merely phrased it to show how absurd your point is. Your argument was that we shouldn't have any new legislation because the crazies and criminals would ignore it. I simply pointed out the obvious: you could say the same thing about most laws. Your point, to put it bluntly, was stupid and deserving of ridicule.

==> " The 2nd Amendment exists, thankfully, to protect all the other Amendments, a fact you may or may not agree with, but which remains, as it was considered by the Founders to be second only to free speach in the freedom heirarchy, and as they correctly recognized, was needed to insure that free speach, as we know from history, is often lost when the people have no means to fight for it nonetheless."

You just prove that you have no idea what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, nor do you even appear to have ever read the first half of the 2nd Amendment. Which is exactly as the NRA intended you to do. And it is spelled 'speech' George. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

==> "The NRA is more likely to undertsand the 2nd Amendment than you, as is most anyone else not you...imo."

That's because you are their dupe, their patsy, their gull. Before the late 1970's no one ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment as conveying an individual right. It was always, from the day it was ratified, tied inextricably to service in a well regulated militia, exactly as it notes in the first part of the 2nd Amendment.

==> "has a far more deadly potential that use of firearms does, as any simple study of annual or collective deaths and their causes will show."

When is the last time a single car killed 58 people and injured 500 more, George?

==> "Insurance for the damage that guns might cause? Maybe that's worth discussing...but it's not worth engaging with childishness...."

You are still whining George.

==> "Perhaps we should also talk about requiring insurance for the possible misuse of all our rights"

We have courts for that.

==> "Yet another deflection from the subject at hand, but at least somewhat close....WHAT are you referring to that the GOP did post 9/11, Aaron?"

Still whining George. The GOP demanding that we pass the horrible Patriot Act was bad enough, but the GOP was also demanding that we pass huge tax cuts because 9-11. Or maybe you remember Rudy 9-11 Giuliani who tied his every utterance to 9-11. Then their was the idiotic AUMF based on a raft of Republican Administration lies about WMD and 9-11. The list goes on.

George Croix

"Poor George, ever the victim. Now it is the internet and its forums picking on you. If you can't keep up, George, find another hobby or quit whining."
Now even your deflections are being re-deflected, Aaron. Nobody is picking on me, Aaron, because nobody can with impunity, at least not for the last 66 years. Maybe some time in the future....maybe.....I'm not a victim of your deflections, I'm a witness to and noter of them......they don't. You have no credible response, so you go with 'whining' which was predictable. Keeping up with you is eas, as all i have to do is deflect and avoid direct responses to what's actually said, and toos in some snide comments and phony accusation s time to time, but, I don't keep up with that, becaue I'm a way better person than that, and would encourage you to be one, too......less time snarking and diveryting and you might actually have something useful and realistic and maybe even important to offer.
"You just prove that you have no idea what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, nor do you even appear to have ever read the first half of the 2nd Amendment. Which is exactly as the NRA intended you to do. And it is spelled 'speech' George. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The NRA doesn't tell me what to read, Aaron. I'm a free man blessed with God's gift of the power to reason for myself...I recommend that to all. Exactly what do you think a militia is, Aaron, especially in the context of the 2nd Amendment's time and place? It was and is the armed citizenry collectively engaged in a common purpose made possible by the individual ownership of firearms that could be brought to bear with others for a collective purpose...ya gotta have arms to be an armed citizenry...
And 'shall not be infringed'...do you not know that means? It means that the right to keep and bear arms, to protect oneself and others, is NOT a given by man right, it's the right of self preservation natural to all men, and as such it cannot be infringed, which means taken away...the right exists OUTSIDE the 2nd Amendment, and 'shall not be infringed' in the 2nd means that right cannot be taken away from the People, not that it was given to them by the Amendment. The 2nd re-affirmed our right to protect ourselves, and protects that right.... But, opponents are free to create their own belief system, as they have done.

"When is the last time a single car killed 58 people and injured 500 more, George?" A single car? Never, that I know of. But, when was the last time a single firearm did the same, Aaron? And, it's another deflection, as the issue raised post shooting is not about a single firearm, and ignores the COLLECTIVE deaths far greater than the single incident i Las vegas, but, that, too, is predictably the course taken by the left..
"You are still whining George."
More deflection, Aaron, as I said insurance might be worth discussing, but not childishly...you can't respond so you divert and resort to predictable snark. You evidently can't even take a potential yes for an answer you.....

"We have courts for that."
So, make up your mind, if we have courts for that, then why did you call for insurance? Isn't one Constitutional right as precious as another?

"Still whining George. The GOP demanding that we pass the horrible Patriot Act was bad enough, but the GOP was also demanding that we pass huge tax cuts because 9-11. Or maybe you remember Rudy 9-11 Giuliani who tied his every utterance to 9-11. Then their was the idiotic AUMF based on a raft of Republican Administration lies about WMD and 9-11. The list goes on'
More 'whining' deflection, Aaron. And evidently you don't know, or choose to ignore, that the Patriot Act was passed bipartisan, and that in 2010 it was renewed In FULL by a Democrat controlled Congress and signed into re-authorization by then Pres. Obama....you also don't mention that the cuts were not along Party lines, and that the economy was severely effected by 9/11, and needed stimulus to recover. Rudy's comments and personal positions have nothing to do with the subject at hand here, and he's no different than you offering yours, or anyone else. You also fail to note the prominent DEMOCRATS who believed the CIA info and authorized the action in Iraq...among them Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, to name but two.....the list goes on....You might want to get some better sources for your 'facts' or at least stop being selective about participants...

Mark Aaron

George: "Nobody is picking on me, Aaron, because nobody can with impunity, at least not for the last 66 years. Maybe some time in the future....maybe....."

You can dish it out but you sure can't take it, can you? In nearly every one of your posts you take cheap dishonest swipes at anything and anyone Liberal or make your dog whistle racist comments. But when someone gives it back to you you whine and cry like a toddler. Man up, George. Stop being such a whiny snowflake.

==> "becaue I'm a way better person than that, and would encourage you to be one, too......less time snarking and diveryting and you might actually have something useful and realistic and maybe even important to offer."

I offer clear credible well sourced facts every day in this forum. You offer little more than misinformed opinion, hateful dishonesty, and/or ignorance.

==> "The NRA doesn't tell me what to read, Aaron.

Yes, George, they do. And you parrot it like a good little gull. You show zero comprehension of the 200 plus years of judicial precedence which found that the right to bear arms was inextricably tied to membership in a well regulated militia. Or that bear arms was a term of art meaning to serve in the military.

==> "Exactly what do you think a militia is, Aaron, especially in the context of the 2nd Amendment's time and place?"

In the case of the 2nd Amendment it was primarily authored to protect the South's slave posses from being disarmed by Northern abolitionists. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution had already provided for the raising and keeping of militias and described how they should be controlled and used to to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

==> "And 'shall not be infringed'...do you not know that means?"

I do, though I suspect you don't. First you have to understand that the Bill of Rights was penned by anti-Federalists who were most interested in limiting the power of the Federal government over the states. 'Infringement' in this case was a restriction on that same federal government and meant to insure that the state's well regulated militias, especially the slave states, could not be disarmed. They could still be called up and federalized, but only the states could control (infringe) whether or not they were disarmed.

==> "It means that the right to keep and bear arms, to protect oneself and others, is NOT a given by man right, it's the right of self preservation natural to all men"

Hardly. So-called "natural rights" is an arbitrary social construct that apply only to societies that choose to adopt them. They were invented by man during the Enlightenment and have no force in law unless codified by those societies.

==> "The 2nd re-affirmed our right to protect ourselves, and protects that right...."

Nope. The 2nd Amendment only serves to limit the Federal government. It confers or affirms no individual right.

==> "A single car? Never, that I know of. But, when was the last time a single firearm did the same, Aaron?"

Fine. When was the last time a single driver killed 58 people and injured over 500 George? A driver only drives one car at a time and a shooter normally only fires one gun at a time, two at most.

George Croix

"You can dish it out but you sure can't take it, can you? In nearly every one of your posts you take cheap dishonest swipes at anything and anyone Liberal or make your dog whistle racist comments. But when someone gives it back to you you whine and cry like a toddler. Man up, George. Stop being such a whiny snowflake.'

Yet another Aaron deflection, as it has nothing to do with my words, and is in fact the complete opposite of what I actually said. You need to work on your comprehension, or perhaps spend more time on your demonstrated dishonest deflections and replies than my accused ones...accused by a dishonest deflector.....then you follow it up with more internet safe place snark . Expected. Then, deflection on top of diversion, as you get whine and cry out of "Nobody is picking on me, Aaron, because nobody can with impunity, at least not for the last 66 years. Maybe some time in the future....maybe.....". Don't project,, Aaron....there's no whining there. That's a flat out statement of fact that I'd be happy to demonstrate in person. Just say when. Just Diet Coke...no Fritos....

"I offer clear credible well sourced facts every day in this forum. You offer little more than misinformed opinion, hateful dishonesty, and/or ignorance."

Well goody for you and your imagination, Aaron, but your 'facts' are often wanting, and routinely ideologically sourced, except for the fact that you deflect and divert and avoid direct replies to what's actually said, then add some snark....those are signs of insecurity, Aaron.... As a subject matter expert on misinformation, hate, dishonesty, and ignorant use of diversion tactics and snark, I'd say you're projecting again. Projecting: "Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting."
I think that nails you down quite well, Aaron..you fit to a 'T'....

"Yes, George, they do. And you parrot it like a good little gull. You show zero comprehension of the 200 plus years of judicial precedence which found that the right to bear arms was inextricably tied to membership in a well regulated militia. Or that bear arms was a term of art meaning to serve in the military."

Aaron, you're deflecting again, and making a dishonest assertion based on an assumption that you cannot possibly know the reality of, except as a supposition...that's not how you dispense 'fact'.....And, then, yet again, you do some of that safe place infantile add-ons...Why? Does it make you feel superior? Must do something for you, as you seem incapable of even posting without doing it. Posting? Oh, that's it....you can do in a safe place what you'd never do in public...I get it.....yet, you accuse others of 'fear'....that's that projection thingy again....

"In the case of the 2nd Amendment it was primarily authored to protect the South's slave posses from being disarmed by Northern abolitionists. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution had already provided for the raising and keeping of militias and described how they should be controlled and used to to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

That's certainly an interesting take on the reason for the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791. It certainly helps explain some of your other 'facts' and conclusions. A place called 'Truthout' uses your same words....that's enough said, for me, right there about the veracity of it......


"I do, though I suspect you don't. First you have to understand that the Bill of Rights was penned by anti-Federalists who were most interested in limiting the power of the Federal government over the states. 'Infringement' in this case was a restriction on that same federal government and meant to insure that the state's well regulated militias, especially the slave states, could not be disarmed. They could still be called up and federalized, but only the states could control (infringe) whether or not they were disarmed."

That's an even more interesting take on history than the one about the 2nd.....same 'source'?? You got the part about wanting to limit federal power, but you neglected to mention the wording applies to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that's OK, a lot of other people besides you attach their own opinions to what they think a militia is....

"Hardly. So-called "natural rights" is an arbitrary social construct that apply only to societies that choose to adopt them. They were invented by man during the Enlightenment and have no force in law unless codified by those societies.'

Hmmm.....Does that rather interesting take on the subject mean you don't believe a human being has the right to defend themselves...that it's just an arbitrary social construct...and said right should not be upheld and protected? Is it possible to believe that? I must have that wrong. Tell us, to clarify. You do realize we're dealing with the 2nd Amendment, in the United States, that most definitely does have the force of law...??

" Nope. The 2nd Amendment only serves to limit the Federal government. It confers or affirms no individual right.'

Tell that to the Supreme Court. I bet they'll alter their 2010 position building on and extending 2008's Heller decision based on your 'factual' claim. That's an easy 'fact' to find that even the WAPO couldn't dismiss.....

"Fine. When was the last time a single driver killed 58 people and injured over 500 George? A driver only drives one car at a time and a shooter normally only fires one gun at a time, two at most."

I already answered that question, saying 'Never' Aaron, and you even replied 'Fine'. Did you forget that fast? Then you deflect to how many firearms are fired at 'one time' by a shooter, which has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion which is the Las Vegas shooter , who had 23, I believe, firearms in that hotel room with him, and it certainly seems that he undoubtedly used more than one of them to commit his carnage and murder. I suppose it's possible that the killer made at least 20 plus mag changes on a single weapon and just had the others there for company, but it would seem unlikely...perhaps we'll find that out later in detail......

It's a bit awkward and bothersome actually typing the corrections of you on this cell phone, but at least easy to compile. Glassing/shooting and typing are dissimilar skill sets. So if you post more deflections and snark I'll get back as soon as I can...don't worry, you won't be ignored again....

George Croix

ps:
I'm all for common sense, but it varies among individuals, to the point of non-existent in way too many.
And, please, 'gun control' is a meaningless political buzz term, not a solution...
So, I'd simply ask, WHAT, in anyone's opinion, ARE some of the 'common sense' things that could be done to ACTUALLY effect what a crazy person bent on murder does? I mean things that are NOT already in effect, whether you know it or not, and which WOULD amount to more than political grandstanding.
Inquiring minds want to know......

Steve Fouga

"I'd simply ask, WHAT, in anyone's opinion, ARE some of the 'common sense' things that could be done to ACTUALLY effect what a crazy person bent on murder does?"

That's a good question, George. Probably nothing, in many cases, once the person has the guns/accessories/ammo. Legislation should be aimed at limiting his ability to get the stuff to begin with, and perhaps limiting his ability to transport it. And some limits on certain devices, like bump stocks, cranks, and high-capacity mags.

I've long felt like the San Bernardino-Orlando-Las Vegas cases are exactly the type of gun violence most difficult to prevent because, as you say, it's a nut hell-bent on murder. Still, if Mr. Paddock had not had access to bump stocks, high-capacity mags, and large numbers of guns in a hotel room, fewer people would be casualties right now.

I'm also more questioning of 2nd Amendment intent than many gun owners. See, I don't want to restrict YOUR rights, and certainly not MINE, but I do want to restrict those of nuts, criminals, and would-be criminals. If it were up to me, I would institute more thorough background checks, and make them universal. Sorry, but you asked. I'm familiar with several types of background checks, ranging from those required to purchase a gun, to those required for our highest security clearances. The check for gun purchases is lip-service; it accomplishes very little. I would design a more thorough background check aimed at ferreting out nuts and criminals.

I might also institute a federal sales tax on certain firearms, accessories, and ammo. All of this would make guns cost more, which would diminish the number of new ones coming into circulation.

Would any of this prevented Las Vegas? I doubt it. More likely, it would have been a "smaller" tragedy. I haven't seen any truly good ideas for eliminating gun violence while retaining what has become the full scope of 2nd Amendment rights. But I bet there are some compromises that, if instituted, would at least reduce gun violence and not feel too restrictive to most gun owners.

George Croix

"Sorry, but you asked."
Well, Steve, that's why I DID ask...a desire for input

I've been background checked at every firearm purchase for years now, Steve, and my current CHL bypasses that, but to get it I had to be background checked to the Nines, so that covers that quite well. I actually am less opposed to checks than you might think, but the last Administration's retaing the data, illegally, shows me what a government intent on establishing a register of owners might resort to doing.....there may be some mid-point worth exploring...

" aimed at ferreting out nuts and criminals.": All for it, but the guy who just killed nealy 60 people and wounded ten times that would, it seems so far, have escaped detection.....

"I might also institute a federal sales tax on certain firearms, accessories, and ammo. All of this would make guns cost more, which would diminish the number of new ones coming into circulation."
Problem with that Steve is we don't have to pay a tax or penalty for our other Constitutional rights, and poor people in crime ridden areas would likely find it even harder to protect themselves, if they choose to do so. Paying a sales tax on cars and tires and stereos and GPS and gasoline hasn't cut the number of auto accidents...it's the drivers that cause that....

At least we can discuss as grown men.....maybe that will catch on....[beam][beam]

Mark Aaron

George: "And, please, 'gun control' is a meaningless political buzz term, not a solution..."

Tell that to the Australians who solved their mass murder problem and their gun homicide problem.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

==> " I mean things that are NOT already in effect,"

The answer is blindingly obvious. Ban assault style firearms, high capacity magazines, and devices like the bump stock.

George Croix

"Tell that to the Australians who solved their mass murder problem and their gun homicide problem."
Have you actually TALKED with an Australian, rather than just post another link among many available.?
I have. A bakers dozen, which is a small sampling, but human feedback rather than internet cherries, and they say, to a man and woman, that what has been 'solved' is that honest people are unarmed and dishonest ones are armed.
It's also a diversion to only focus on mass killings,and ignore that places like, say, Chicago, with VERY strict 'gun control' have more people killed in a year than in all mass killing events put together.
"The answer is blindingly obvious. Ban assault style firearms, high capacity magazines, and devices like the bump stock."
It's blindingly something, for sure, to think that banning anything WILL prevent bad actors from acting....eliminating the supply does not eliminate the inventory, unless we go with house to house searches, a situation not even the most ardent opponenet would go for, imo....
Are you not aware that Congress once included the Remington 870 pump shotgun and the Ruger 10/22 rifle on the list of 'assault weapons' some mem bers of it would like to see 'banned', never minding they are not even close...of course, neither is an AR15, but that doesn't stop the pretense that it is. My 30 round magazines for my AR's are what my local Police use, too, and I figure anything good enough for them to protect their lives and others with is good enough for me and my family. "Bump stocks'.....as already stated, i don't want one, but I suspect there are thousands in possession of NON mass killers...and will remian there, ban or no ban....

Mark Aaron

"Tell that to the Australians who solved their mass murder problem and their gun homicide problem."

George: "Have you actually TALKED with an Australian, rather than just post another link among many available.? I have. A bakers dozen, which is a small sampling, but human feedback rather than internet cherries, and they say, to a man and woman, that what has been 'solved' is that honest people are unarmed and dishonest ones are armed. "

LOL! So now you think some alleged anecdotal evidence proves your point, but facts, evidence, and statistics don't. Okay, I have credible anecdotal evidence that says the exact opposite:

_Do many Australians feel the Gun Control Laws in Australia are excessive? Those who do certainly appear to be in the minority. Current level of gun control laws enjoy the support of all the major mainstream media, as well as bipartisan support from the two largest political parties. In all my years living in Australia, all in the metropolitan centers on the east coast, I cannot recall meeting a single person who was in favour of introducing more relaxed gun laws in Australia._
https://www.quora.com/Do-any-many-Australians-feel-the-Gun-Control-Laws-in-Australia-are-excessive

==> "It's blindingly something, for sure, to think that banning anything WILL prevent bad actors from acting....

Yet it worked in Australia, and it worked exceedingly well. Just because something may not stop every instance of a crime doesn't mean it isn't highly effective and worth doing.

==> "neither is an AR15, but that doesn't stop the pretense that it is. "

Oh please, that tired old trope of pretending an AR15 is not an assault weapon is pure bullsnot. I carried one in war. I know what they are capable of even in semi-automatic mode. No hunter or sportsman needs that kind of capacity or rapid fire capability.

==> "My 30 round magazines for my AR's are what my local Police use, too, and I figure anything good enough for them to protect their lives and others with is good enough for me and my family."

You are not a law enforcement officer. There is no reasonable need for you to have that kind of capacity. None. If you claim you need it for hunting you are no hunter either. I downed plenty of deer with a 4 round magazine. I never once emptied that magazine. The odds that you would ever need that capacity for self defense is probably a million to one. What are you so terrified of George that you think you would ever need that capacity?

==> "but I suspect there are thousands in possession of NON mass killers...and will remian there, ban or no ban...."

Now we are back to your absurd premise where we don't need laws because the criminals won't obey them. Oh please. You are embarrassing yourself George.

George Croix

"LOL! So now you think some alleged anecdotal evidence proves your point, but facts, evidence, and statistics don't. Okay, I have credible anecdotal evidence that says the exact opposite:"
No. Not alleged. I KNOW I have the direct comments of 13 people and believe their comments, which is my point. Your usual 'facts, evidence , and statistics' are nothing better, and if you wish to conclude they are accurate to support your beliefs, you are free to do so, as am I.
" Do many Australians feel the Gun Control Laws in Australia are excessive? Those who do certainly appear to be in the minority. Current level of gun control laws enjoy the support of all the major mainstream media, as well as bipartisan support from the two largest political parties. In all my years living in Australia, all in the metropolitan centers on the east coast, I cannot recall meeting a single person who was in favour of introducing more relaxed gun laws in Australia."
The metropolitan centers along the coast bear a striking resemblance to those here, too, politically.....not totally reflective of the whole nation....here, in this country, to the point of losing a Presidential election because of disconnect with the rest of the country. Somehow your anecdotal 'not meeting a single person in favor of introducing more relaxed gun laws..." is a more reliable indicator than my 13 that say different...? Well, that's a predictable 'fact' you're fon d of, too....and more deflection.....
"Yet it worked in Australia, and it worked exceedingly well. Just because something may not stop every instance of a crime doesn't mean it isn't highly effective and worth doing."
Yet more deflection...you have a lot of trouble staying focused. I never said every crime had to be stopped, I said banning won't prevent bad people from being bad. That is a fact, a real one, so why do you try to avoid it by trying to twist the subject?
"Oh please, that tired old trope of pretending an AR15 is not an assault weapon is pure bullsnot. I carried one in war. I know what they are capable of even in semi-automatic mode. No hunter or sportsman needs that kind of capacity or rapid fire capability.
No, it's pure fact, and since you claim to be factual, then you must know that an assault weapon is one that can fire in full auto mode....and must know that the available AR15 models have no such capability. This is 40 years after Vietnam....the two weapons are not the same....except to TV and internet talking heads. You don't get to decide what a 'hunter or sportsman needs, Aaron, we have courts and legislators for that...remember?
"You are not a law enforcement officer. There is no reasonable need for you to have that kind of capacity. None. If you claim you need it for hunting you are no hunter either. I downed plenty of deer with a 4 round magazine. I never once emptied that magazine. The odds that you would ever need that capacity for self defense is probably a million to one. What are you so terrified of George that you think you would ever need that capacity?"
You are not a judge or a legislator, or even up to date on weapons knowledge, by what you've been posting, so I think the Police make good choices on their weaponry, and prefer their conclusions and my own about weapons and magazines, to yours, Aaron, but that's America...right to think what we want. The subject is not hunters and sportsmen, Aaron, it's the 2nd Amendment. I made NO claim to what I need for hunting, as we are not discussing hunting, we are discussing gun laws and the 2nd Amendment, yet you deflect again. What do you suppose the odds are that ANYONE would ever need to protect their own life? Uh huh.....well, you don't get to decide for someone else that you can play the odds better than they can, as it's not your hide or life, but, as predictable, you deflect into a red herring about 'odds'. I'm not terrified of anything, Aaron, I ran towards the fires and explosions for over 30 years, not away from them. I'm prepared, as I see fit, for me and my family, and if I was scared of my own shadow, it has nothing to do with anyone's fear, it's a legal and legislative issue, and, yet again, you don't get to decide 'need', so again yet again, another Aaron deflection to avoid any substantial comments, as well as interject a bit of snark...as usual.
"Now we are back to your absurd premise where we don't need laws because the criminals won't obey them. Oh please. You are embarrassing yourself George."
No, predictably you divert and deflect again, Aaron...you have a lot of trouble staying focused. I have not offered any 'premise' that we don't need laws because criminals won't obey them. That's your non-answer because you can't refute what I actually said, which was " but I suspect there are thousands in possession of NON mass killers...and will remian there, ban or no ban...." You even copied it in your predictably snarky responses, yet you deflect from your deflections rather than just address what was said. It's a fact that existing possession would not be affected by a ban or no ban, and to say that is somehow saying we don't need laws is not only absurd, but dishonest...yet, a predictable Aaron diversion.
Embarrasing myself? Is that all you have? Yet ANOTHER Aaron deflection away from the subject, and attempt to build yourself up by putting another down under false pretenses.
Then again, as a subject matter expert on acting childish and playing behind-Momma's- skirt wannbe bully, you are certainly an authority on embarrasing behavior...just transposed onto someone else rather than where it came from.....why not man up and join the discussion as an adult? I bet you could do it if you'd try...

Mark Aaron

George: " Somehow your anecdotal 'not meeting a single person in favor of introducing more relaxed gun laws..." is a more reliable indicator than my 13 that say different...? Well, that's a predictable 'fact' you're fon d of, too....and more deflection....."

Deflection, deflection, deflection. Is that the only argument you can muster George? If I don't buy into your obviously duped interpretations then I am deflecting. Hardly. I meet your arguments head on, you just don't like the answer, so you whine about deflection. The point I made, had you been able to comprehend it amid all of the whining, is that anecdotal evidence is of little value. I have no way of judging how true your allegations are or the manner in which you acquired them. As far as I know you met these alleged Australians on a gun range or at a gun store. Even if conceded that your claims are true, as you note about location, all of these Aussies may have been from rural areas rather than from a representative mix. If all of Australia wants to rescind their stringent gun laws they would have done so, but they haven't. Your anecdotal evidence, like mine, is as worthless as a warm bucket of spit.

What is most telling is that Australia has few gun related homicides or suicides and has had less mass killings in two decades than the US has in a week. That is fact.

==> " I never said every crime had to be stopped, I said banning won't prevent bad people from being bad. That is a fact, a real one, so why do you try to avoid it by trying to twist the subject?"

You are the one attempting to distort the truth George. Australia's ban on assault style weapons, semi-automatics, and pump shotguns has been extraordinarily effective. Period. Full stop.

==> "you must know that an assault weapon is one that can fire in full auto mode....and must know that the available AR15 models have no such capability."

I know they can and are converted quite often. When they are converted they are unquestionably assault weapons. Yet they are still dangerously deadly without modification because of their high rate of fire and magazine capacities. Add a bump stock and they are just as deadly as an M-16. You can pretend otherwise, George, but you just prove yourself a liar if you do.

==> "I think the Police make good choices on their weaponry, and prefer their conclusions and my own about weapons and magazines, to yours, Aaron, but that's America...right to think what we want."

I think you are an NRA dupe who helps to endanger America because of your arrogance and ignorance.

==> "we are discussing gun laws and the 2nd Amendment, yet you deflect again.

No George, you deflect. Rather than addressing what is best for America you want to hide behind an extremist and illogical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

==>"....well, you don't get to decide for someone else that you can play the odds better than they can, as it's not your hide or life, but, as predictable, you deflect into a red herring about 'odds'."

You sound like that nutcase Dick Cheney and his 1% doctrine where anything is allowable if there is even a 1% chance something bad might happen. Well there is a 100% chance that mass killings will continue unless the US government steps up and does something about it.

==> "I'm not terrified of anything, Aaron"

Then why do you think you need such excessive firepower? I keep a single shot shotgun in my house and I know I can easily stop any intruders I'll ever need to with it. But then I'm not the fearful type, nor the type that hopes for an opportunity to shoot someone so I can prove myself.

==> "yet again, you don't get to decide 'need', so again yet again, another Aaron deflection to avoid any substantial comments, as well as interject a bit of snark...as usual."

I certainly have the liberty to point out who is making America more dangerous.

==> "No, predictably you divert and deflect again, Aaron...you have a lot of trouble staying focused. I have not offered any 'premise' that we don't need laws because criminals won't obey them. "

Whine, whine, whine. You have repeatedly made the argument that bad guys won't obey the law, which begs the question: then why have laws in the first place? It is a lame 'deflection' that refuses to address the reality that laws are a necessary and important step in dealing with problems like out of control mass shootings in America. Your answer appears to be to do nothing, or just buy more guns.

==> "I suspect there are thousands in possession of NON mass killers...and will remian there, ban or no ban...."

So you would just give up and do nothing apparently.

==> "you deflect from your deflections rather than just address what was said. ~ Embarrasing myself? Is that all you have? Yet ANOTHER Aaron deflection away from the subject Then again, as a subject matter expert on acting childish and playing behind-Momma's- skirt wannbe bully, you are certainly an authority on embarrasing behavior...just transposed onto someone else rather than where it came from..."

Whine, whine, whine. Jesus, grow a pair George.

George Croix


"Deflection, deflection, deflection. Is that the only argument you can muster George? If I don't buy into your obviously duped interpretations then I am deflecting. Hardly. I meet your arguments head on, you just don't like the answer, so you whine about deflection. The point I made, had you been able to comprehend it amid all of the whining, is that anecdotal evidence is of little value. I have no way of judging how true your allegations are or the manner in which you acquired them. As far as I know you met these alleged Australians on a gun range or at a gun store. Even if conceded that your claims are true, as you note about location, all of these Aussies may have been from rural areas rather than from a representative mix. If all of Australia wants to rescind their stringent gun laws they would have done so, but they haven't. Your anecdotal evidence, like mine, is as worthless as a warm bucket of spit."

That'sabout all I need with you, Aaron. It pretty well covers every post you make. I have other arguments, but you when you deflect to another subject, that's why you miss them....The only thing you meet head on is the fantasy 'facts' world you live in and the inability to rebutt withpout diversion and snark....that's a sign of insecurity. It doesn't matter where I met the men and women, and it sure doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. I wouldn;t expect anyone unable to follow simple sentences without deflecting and diverting to believe anything except their own realities...the Constitution protects that behavior, so you're safe there, too....
I never claimed my people were worth more than yours, but I also place more faith in personal contact than internet 'links' ...that's my choice....to connect, not deflect....


"What is most telling is that Australia has few gun related homicides or suicides and has had less mass killings in two decades than the US has in a week. That is fact."

I'm watching a herd of hogs drift closer, so no time to look that up, so I will accept it as is, allowing that it would be for an average week, because last week would, of course, skew the numbers. The population there is roughly 36 million as of last year, or about 9.5 or 10% of ours, so a direct comparison is not possible without allowing for the difference in population, and of course the historical cultural differences, and the fact that their government places more trust in itself than in it's people, and has disarmed them, would, naturally, make it harder for a person with no gun to shoot someone, or himself. So, even as 'fact' it's a distinction with a big difference. In this country we don't have to wait minutes for the police to arrive when a danger is seconds away, unless we choose to do so....the 14 of us think that's a good thing....

"You are the one attempting to distort the truth George. Australia's ban on assault style weapons, semi-automatics, and pump shotguns has been extraordinarily effective. Period. Full stop."

There you go diverting again, Aaron, as my original wording was about banning bump stocks, but why let fact get in your way. The dead in Sydney 2014 might argue about 'effective', as would any victims of armed robbery, or other gun related crime since the confiscations. But, there's no denying the bottom line numbers, and all they had to do was let their government decide for them what they 'need'...if one is predisposed to letting others decide for them on such serious issues, then they got what enough of them voted for.....I suspect the people killed weekly in South Chicago with it's very rigid gun control might offer an interesting take on the debate, if they could...but, Chi town is not Downunder..... See, that's how one acknowledges differences....no deflection, and no name calling.....try it......
Period? Someone else said that a few years ago as an end to a discussion, he supposed...I forget his name...no longer of any importance......


"I know they can and are converted quite often. When they are converted they are unquestionably assault weapons. Yet they are still dangerously deadly without modification because of their high rate of fire and magazine capacities. Add a bump stock and they are just as deadly as an M-16. You can pretend otherwise, George, but you just prove yourself a liar if you do."

How often, Aaron? Got a link and a 'fact' on that? Maybe the Police stats on use of such converted weapons in crime, because any other info would be 'anecdotal', and you don't like that stuff...of course, you'd be disappointed in the numbers..I think, but not sure of my recall, it might be, oh, 2, in a couple decades...
OF COURSE firearms are dangerous and deadly on the front end...what did you suppose? That's why the important end is the BACK end, and the person wielding it.....thgere are no, to my knowledge, civilian available self-aiming and shooting firearms generally available.....Are you aware that at one time the world's record grizzly bear was shot by an Alaskan woman who killed it with a single round of .22LR from and old single shot rifle as it got stuck in her cabin window trying to get in? Deadly is a term with many possible meanings and sources.....You're diverting again, Aaron, as I'm not pretending anything, yet you say I am, so that would make you the liar on that, Aaron....more of that projecting again.....

"I think you are an NRA dupe who helps to endanger America because of your arrogance and ignorance."
You really like that safe place, Aaron. Does it make you feel special to hide and insult? And, more of that projecting again there, Aaron on your last words......

"I certainly have the liberty to point out who is making America more dangerous."

True. And I support your right to draw your own conclusions, and in your case, you even get to draw your own facts...repeatedly.
But, you failed to mention how my following the laws of our land makes the country more dangerous? Do you know, or just more safe place Aaron talk?

"Whine, whine, whine. You have repeatedly made the argument that bad guys won't obey the law, which begs the question: then why have laws in the first place? It is a lame 'deflection' that refuses to address the reality that laws are a necessary and important step in dealing with problems like out of control mass shootings in America. Your answer appears to be to do nothing, or just buy more guns."

You don't seem to understand what whining is, Aaron...more of that projecting.....do you also misname other things? Could be a problem there......
Maybe it begs that question of YOU, with your inability to reason beyond what someone tells you to think in a 'link, but I have never, ever said we should not have laws.
Find that, if you can....take all the decades you need to do so..... or however long it takes you to tell another lie about it......
If you'd pay attention, you'd know what posters think, and make fewer mistakes, but that would require using their words as posted, not your deflections and snark back....

"So you would just give up and do nothing apparently."
No. And apparent to whom, Aaron? Not to anybody who actually read what I wrote. Try it again, and maybe you'll get it....

"Whine, whine, whine. Jesus, grow a pair George."

There you go projecting again, Aaron. I'm not the one trolling the net making alligator comments from a jaybird but_ ...from a safe place. I'm in the book. You?


My grandkids are here to visit ....no more time for trolls.....enjoy you weekend from your safe place......

Diane Turski

The "progressive left" does not want to destroy the 2nd Amendment! That claim is nothing but propaganda! Stop believing the propaganda!

Carlos Ponce

"Stop believing the propaganda!"
Hillary jumped all over Bernie for his support of the 2nd Amendment.
Q: Is Bernie Sanders tough enough on guns?
CLINTON: No, not at all. .
2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas , Oct 13, 2015
"I’m going to continue to speak out for .... reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers."
"the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get."
"Guns, in and of themselves, will not make Americans safer."
Is Hillary spreading the "propaganda"? Hillary isn't armed - but her Secret Service is.

Mark Aaron

"Stop believing the propaganda!"

Carlos: "Hillary jumped all over Bernie for his support of the 2nd Amendment."

But, but, but Hillary!! Poor Carlos. No credible comebacks, so like George the whiner likes to whine, you 'deflect' with a ridiculous red herring.

George Croix

That's like a wolf saying that wolves don't want to eat sheep, isn't it??[smile][beam]

Mark Aaron

George: "That's like a wolf saying that wolves don't want to eat sheep, isn't it??"

Ever the willing NRA dupe, aren't you George?

George Croix

Ms. Turski said nothing about the NRA, and neither did I in response, Aaron.
She referenced progressives, as did I.
Do you have anything to say about the actual subject of our interchange?
Changing the subject is just another of your predictable deflections, and 'dupe' is just another snarky, safe place internet troll indicator of no viable argument that you make because you are you...it's a term you can use from a keyboard with alacrity, but not with impunity....

Mark Aaron

George: "Ms. Turski said nothing about the NRA, and neither did I in response, Aaron. She referenced progressives, as did I.

She pointed out that you are being duped by propaganda, you proved her point by blaming progressives for something the NRA has duped you into believing.

==> "Changing the subject is just another of your predictable deflections,

If you actually knew anything about the history of the 2nd Amendment and the NRA's role in distorting it you would recognize that it has everything to do with your misguided comment.

==> "and 'dupe' is just another snarky, safe place internet troll indicator of no viable argument that you make"

Unlike you, George, my arguments are based on hard facts, not just what feels right. I note that you have yet to back up any of your arguments with sources or links. I know far more than you might guess about the 2nd Amendment and I know how you were duped and by whom. So my use of that word is quite accurate. You might want to take some time to research the 1977 NRA Revolt at Cincinnati.

George Croix

"She pointed out that you are being duped by propaganda, you proved her point by blaming progressives for something the NRA has duped you into believing."
Again with the childish 'dupe' stuff, Aaron? Are you incapable of an adult level exchange?
Ms. Turski is free to give her opinion, and I to respond. Again, she said nothing about the NRA in that post...that's another Aaron deflection...for someone who claims to only post facts, where's your facts that I've been 'duped' by anybody? You wouldn't know me if I walked onto your porch and knocked on your door, and you've already nixed a face to face, so you may ASSUME whatever you want, but you can't possible know the 'facts' of what I believe or am influenced by unless I say so, and, having not done that, you are not stating facts, but supposition, ergo, you are not telling the truth about that 'facts' thingy.
":If you actually knew anything about the history of the 2nd Amendment and the NRA's role in distorting it you would recognize that it has everything to do with your misguided comment.


I know a lot about the history of both the 2nd Amendment and the NRA, Aaron, and while you are free to establish your own beliefs, they, like all of us who have beliefs, may or may not conform to facts....anyway, what part of my statement was misguided as you claim....can you say, or simply deflect again? And, misguided how, if at all?

"Unlike you, George, my arguments are based on hard facts, not just what feels right. I note that you have yet to back up any of your arguments with sources or links. I know far more than you might guess about the 2nd Amendment and I know how you were duped and by whom. So my use of that word is quite accurate. You might want to take some time to research the 1977 NRA Revolt at Cincinnati."
First, you're only kidding yourself, Aaron, and maybe any like-minded folks. Your 'hard facts' include links mostly if not wholly from left wing websites or 'fact checkers', evidently, as if that's all there are. When you accuse me off getting my opinions from Fox or the NRA, where is the FACT in that? Can you provide even one of your predictably left 'links', or even a right or middle one, to that? How about when you accuse others of being told what to think by Pat Robertson...? You got a 'link' proving that 'fact'.....ETC......
I post what feels right because it DOES feel right because I'm comfortable with my analysis otf the usually multiple sources of information, right left and middle, that got me feeling that way in the first place. I watch and read ALL I can....then decide......If nobody agrees, it's OK with me...the internet as a sole source of 'fact' is a bit wanting in, well, factual application......
As for " I know far more than you might guess about the 2nd Amendment and I know how you were duped and by whom."...I have no idea how much you know about it because you're too busy deflecting and being a snark to actually say anything of substance, and you certainly have no idea about 'duping' except as a childish device to claim of others try to make yourself feel superior, imo...gotta tell ya, it ain't working to convince me......
I'm an Endowment Member of the NRA, Aaron, and having been an Annual (or Life or Endowment) member since my 11th birthday, and Dad signed me up as a birthday present, which happened to be the day before he died of a heart attack, I just may know a thing or two about the '77 Convention, and, personally, am happy to note that had it not occurred, such 'reliable sources ' as those I'll list below claiming to be 'authorities' on the subject would not be held in check:
Washington Post
Commongunsense
Alternet
Daily Kos
Huffington Post
Mother Jones
And So On.......
Can't fix those........

Mark Aaron

George: " Again, she said nothing about the NRA in that post...that's another Aaron deflection...for someone who claims to only post facts, where's your facts that I've been 'duped' by anybody?"

Your comments leave little doubt that you have been duped George. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to equate the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives position to that of wolves wanting to eat sheep. Most Liberals have a quite reasonable position on gun control, but you show you have been duped, that is the correct term, into believing Liberals want to take away all of your guns/eat all of your sheep. If you would give us a little credit and stop demagoguing us at every turn I would be more inclined to treat you better.

==> "I know a lot about the history of both the 2nd Amendment and the NRA, Aaron, and while you are free to establish your own beliefs, they, like all of us who have beliefs, may or may not conform to facts....anyway, what part of my statement was misguided as you claim....can you say, or simply deflect again?

Your misrepresentation of the liberal position on gun control for a start. Follow that with your refusal to acknowledge over 200 years of judicial precedence while you act as though the NRA interpretation is carved in stone.

==> "First, you're only kidding yourself, Aaron, and maybe any like-minded folks. Your 'hard facts' include links mostly if not wholly from left wing websites or 'fact checkers', evidently, as if that's all there are. When you accuse me off getting my opinions from Fox or the NRA, where is the FACT in that? Can you provide even one of your predictably left 'links', or even a right or middle one, to that? "

Again, your comments leave little doubt that you live in a rightwing fact-free echo chamber George. My facts are quite consistently from credible objective sources. I make it a point to primarily cite only those kind of sources, which you refuse to give me credit for. My fact checkers are not liberal sources. They are mainstream objective sources. I provide facts you find inconvenient because they don't follow the RNC/Fox News propaganda points you are accustomed to. So you dishonestly/erroneously dismiss or demagogue them rather than consider them. I have been discussing politics online for as long as there has been an online. I go back to the days of Fidonet before the internet existed. I long ago learned to distinguish between propaganda and fact. I love to debate facts. I have little patience or respect for propagandists.

==> "the internet as a sole source of 'fact' is a bit wanting in, well, factual application......"

Only if you don't know how to use it effectively, George. I get my information on the 2nd Amendment directly from the case law. I have read countless decisions on the subject and I am familiar with most any case you can cite, from the seminal Ayette decision which influenced the MIller decision which influenced every other case since. Cruikshank, Presser, McDonald, Heller. I know from reading those cases, and from critiques of those cases that the NRA interpretation is a johnny-come-lately interpretation which the Nixon appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Berger described as the biggest fraud of his lifetime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo

==> "am happy to note that had it not occurred, such 'reliable sources ' as those I'll list below claiming to be 'authorities' on the subject would not be held in check: Washington Post"

You are just showing your ignorance again George. The Washington Post is one of the most respected news organizations on the planet. They don't always get it right, notably in their opinion columns, but their news department is second to no one, save maybe the New York Times. Who duped you into believing otherwise?

George Croix

The WAPO is one of the most left wing leaning news organizations in the nation, Aaron, one of those 'facts' you choose to overlook. Well, it's your right to do so, and it fits so well with you. Good job for consistency.
You do know, though, that Warren Burger is dead, don't you? His opinion doesn't count for anything.....the current Supreme Court rulings do.
That's a neat deflection, though, to quote a dead guy's opinion that never made it to force of law rather than deal with and discuss contemporary reality.
And you say I'M in an echo chamber?? There's that projection of yours again, Aaron.....
I sure WAS wrong, though, suggesting you could reply without deflection and snark if you tried. You really can't.....it's the alligator and jaybird parts rather than adult level discussion.....OK...I bet somebody somewhere is impressed...maybe that 'deputy' .....

Mark Aaron

George: "The WAPO is one of the most left wing leaning news organizations in the nation, Aaron"

If there was ever a doubt that you are completely and thoroughly duped you just removed all doubt. Poor George, ever the willing gull. So sad. Pathetic actually.

==> "You do know, though, that Warren Burger is dead, don't you? His opinion doesn't count for anything.....the current Supreme Court rulings do."

Poor George the dupe, reduced to childish pretense.

==> "That's a neat deflection, though, to quote a dead guy's opinion that never made it to force of law rather than deal with and discuss contemporary reality. "

Poor George the Fox News patsy forced to pretend a conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court's opinion is not relevant. Such a willing chump.

==> "And you say I'M in an echo chamber?? There's that projection of yours again, Aaron..... "

Says George the dupe who has no facts, no sources, no links. Just bluster and arrogance.

==> "I sure WAS wrong, though, suggesting you could reply without deflection and snark if you tried. You really can't.....it's the alligator and jaybird parts rather than adult level discussion.....OK...I bet somebody somewhere is impressed...maybe that 'deputy' ....."

You debate like a 13 year old George. Did you even finish Junior High? Your spelling suggests you didn't. Your arguments suggest that is a generous estimate. Poor George. No wonder you are so defensive.

George Croix

'Common sense measures' for 'gun control' are the first words out of the Left's collective mouths after some psycho event, well, second, anyway, as first is always blame the Right for the act(s) of all the psychos....usually followed by a string of items or claims that are not only not common sense, but so often totally unrelated to what happened.
The left wing base is, imo, already convinced that wordsmithing and deflecting to unrelated things is the way to 'solve' problems, so play to the undecided's and SAY what you mean when you call for 'common sense' gun controls...you might be correct and actually convince people that you are, rather than just getting head nods and clenched fists from kindred spirits....
No?
How about the topic of amonium nitrate, then...the shooter had that, too.
Should that be banned for use as anything other than fertilizer or as cheap explosives for legitimate low yield needs? How would you enforce such a ban?
Could a ban on illegal use of the fertilizer be circumvented by those bent on illegal use, no matter the threatened penalties?
Would anyone who's already decided to committ murder ever care about a law against what tool of murder has been selected?
The Left always wants to 'have a conversation'. Well, have one.....
Who knows...maybe it will lead to an actual sollution, rather than just talk....
Maybe try this, then.....explain why firearms ownership in America is at an all time high, and will continue to grow, while at the same time the rate of crime involving use of firearms has plummeted? The 'common sense' reaction to THAT fact would be to EXPAND, not limit, gun ownership.....in a non-political world......would it not.....
I mean, more bandaids, more first aid available...
More Diet Coke, more satisfying thirst quenching....
More fire extinguishers, less fire damage....
More rejection of unrelated excuse making, more actual problems solved.....
Maybe....
If you fear firearms, I say that's your right, and I support your right to fear whatever you want, but it's not your right to project your fear onto me or anyone else who understands that you don't beat evil with fear, or useless actions.
You beat it by a combination of simple good luck to discover it and stop it before it happens, and/or by actually BEATING it when confronted with it.....

Mark Aaron

George: "'Common sense measures' for 'gun control' are the first words out of the Left's collective mouths after some psycho event"

That what intelligent non-duped people do, unlike you who whines that it isn't the time and it couldn't possibly work.

==> "Could a ban on illegal use of the fertilizer be circumvented by those bent on illegal use, no matter the threatened penalties?"

More absurd excuses from George the dupe. Making people who buy ammonium nitrate provide ID and sign for it would make it easier to catch bombers and serve as a deterent.

==> "Would anyone who's already decided to committ murder ever care about a law against what tool of murder has been selected?"

So George would have us do away with laws pertaining to murder because they probably wouldn't work. Is that about right George?

==> "....explain why firearms ownership in America is at an all time high, and will continue to grow, while at the same time the rate of crime involving use of firearms has plummeted?"

Because all violent crime in America has plummeted. Meanwhile Australia now sees almost no gun violence or mass shootings. Why is that George?

==> " The 'common sense' reaction to THAT fact would be to EXPAND, not limit, gun ownership.....in a non-political world......would it not....."

Only if you are an NRA dupe.

George Croix

"That what intelligent non-duped people do, unlike you who whines that it isn't the time and it couldn't possibly work."
How would you know what such people say, Aaron?
Anyway, I wasn't whining, an action impossible to physically convey over the internet, but possible for the dishonest snarks to assume or claim with alctrity, but, yet again, not with impunity. And, there you go with that childish 'dupe' again, Aaron, something you can claim because you can do it safely from a distance, but have no facts to back up...you are free to believe it, but others are free to decide whther you are right, or, just being you.
"More absurd excuses from George the dupe. Making people who buy ammonium nitrate provide ID and sign for it would make it easier to catch bombers and serve as a deterent."
Perhaps as one other person so ably mentioned previously you should learn what that symbol at the end of a sentence is, Aaron...that was a question, not an excuse. And another deflection on your part, as I simply asked for feedback on another aspect of the Las Vegas unfolding information.
You actually gave an opinion in response, then couldn't resist following it up with more childish 'dupe' stuff...is that how you talk to people in person??
" So George would have us do away with laws pertaining to murder because they probably wouldn't work. Is that about right George?"
Aaron, you show a great deal of trouble understanding the difference between a question and a statement. You deflect, again, as I said no such thing. I asked whether anyone who's decided to commit murder cares about laws....and rather than respond to that, you deflect and go with snark again....do YOU think otherwise from what I actually said?
" Because all violent crime in America has plummeted. Meanwhile Australia now sees almost no gun violence or mass shootings. Why is that George?"
Another deflection, Aaron...I already stated it has dropped, and gave one possible reason, yet you offer nothing except 'because'....is that your reason....because? First, we are not Australia, as they are culturally closer to Britain, than we are....the British, those folks who are called subjects. The Aussies are somewhere in between them and us, according to my Bakers Dozen, they HAVE had one mass killing since confiscation, so an exception does exist, and they say that 'gun violence' exists aplenty Outback if robbery and assault with illegal use of firearms involved is any indicator, as the good guys are unarmed....perhaps their personal experience is less accurate than our links say? Maybe......
They also do not have a 2nd Amendment, a situation that, to those 13 people, at least, is not to be applauded...according to them...
"Only if you are an NRA dupe."
More deflection and snark, predictably, form you, Aaron. Have you nothing of substance to contribute? I ask again, do you call people names to their faces, or only from your safe place hidden behind your keyboard? Typecasting is a bad thing to become, but you evidently enjoy it...is that a fact??

Mark Aaron

Quotes from George Croix:
"then you follow it up with more internet safe place snark . "
"That's a flat out statement of fact that I'd be happy to demonstrate in person. Just say when."
"And, then, yet again, you do some of that safe place"
" Oh, that's it....you can do in a safe place what you'd never do in public..."
"You really like that safe place, Aaron. Does it make you feel special to hide and insult?"
"making alligator comments from a jaybird but_ ...from a safe place. I'm in the book. You?"

What are you trying to intimate, George? That you are such an intellectual lightweight that you have to resort to physical violence? You're going to beat up a sick old man to prove how tough/smart/right you are? Could you be more pathetic George? If you can't keep up intellectually in a news forum go find a knitting forum or something. You are out of your league here.

Mark Aaron

Some more George Croix quotes:

"Yet another Aaron deflection, as it has nothing to do with my words, and is in fact the complete opposite of what I actually said. You need to work on your comprehension, or perhaps spend more time on your demonstrated dishonest deflections and replies than my accused ones...accused by a dishonest deflector.....then you follow it up with more internet safe place snark . Expected. Then, deflection on top of diversion, as you get whine and cry out of "Nobody is picking on me, Aaron, because nobody can with impunity, at least not for the last 66 years. Maybe some time in the future....maybe.....". Don't project,, Aaron....there's no whining there. That's a flat out statement of fact that I'd be happy to demonstrate in person. Just say when. Just Diet Coke...no Fritos...."

"Well goody for you and your imagination, Aaron, but your 'facts' are often wanting, and routinely ideologically sourced, except for the fact that you deflect and divert and avoid direct replies to what's actually said, then add some snark....those are signs of insecurity, Aaron.... As a subject matter expert on misinformation, hate, dishonesty, and ignorant use of diversion tactics and snark, I'd say you're projecting again. Projecting: "Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting." I think that nails you down quite well, Aaron..you fit to a 'T'...."

"Aaron, you're deflecting again, and making a dishonest assertion based on an assumption that you cannot possibly know the reality of, except as a supposition...that's not how you dispense 'fact'.....And, then, yet again, you do some of that safe place infantile add-ons...Why? Does it make you feel superior? Must do something for you, as you seem incapable of even posting without doing it. Posting? Oh, that's it....you can do in a safe place what you'd never do in public...I get it.....yet, you accuse others of 'fear'....that's that projection thingy again...."

"That'sabout all I need with you, Aaron. It pretty well covers every post you make. I have other arguments, but you when you deflect to another subject, that's why you miss them....The only thing you meet head on is the fantasy 'facts' world you live in and the inability to rebutt withpout diversion and snark....that's a sign of insecurity. It doesn't matter where I met the men and women, and it sure doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. I wouldn;t expect anyone unable to follow simple sentences without deflecting and diverting to believe anything except their own realities...the Constitution protects that behavior, so you're safe there, too...."

"You're diverting again, Aaron, as I'm not pretending anything, yet you say I am, so that would make you the liar on that, Aaron....more of that projecting again....."

"You really like that safe place, Aaron. Does it make you feel special to hide and insult? And, more of that projecting again there, Aaron on your last words......"

"You don't seem to understand what whining is, Aaron...more of that projecting.....do you also misname other things? Could be a problem there......
Maybe it begs that question of YOU, with your inability to reason beyond what someone tells you to think in a 'link, but I have never, ever said we should not have laws.
Find that, if you can....take all the decades you need to do so..... or however long it takes you to tell another lie about it......If you'd pay attention, you'd know what posters think, and make fewer mistakes, but that would require using their words as posted, not your deflections and snark back.... "

" And apparent to whom, Aaron? Not to anybody who actually read what I wrote. Try it again, and maybe you'll get it...."

"There you go projecting again, Aaron. I'm not the one trolling the net making alligator comments from a jaybird but_ ...from a safe place. I'm in the book. You?"

~~

Just bluster, bombast, and whining. That's all you have George. Like another frequent poster here you are nothing but a wingnut propagandist and a dupe. You pollute the discourse. Get a clue.

Kelly Naschke

The Obama administration approved bump stocks in 2010.

Mark Aaron

Leroy: "The Obama administration approved bump stocks in 2010."

So that makes it right?

Jim Forsythe

It's time to look at what would makes us safer . George, and other know what is needed for hunting and self defense , and which types of weapons , clips, so on,  have no place or reason to be in the general public .If there is no reason for anyone to have it, make the penalties so stiff that no one would want it.
As far as limiting the sale of guns, it's  to  late. In the USA each Man ,Woman and Child on average, have 3 guns.
My Nephew  was a hunting  guide, said when some people came to hunt deer, they were unsafe, because it was the first time they had even held a rifle, let alone shot one . 

One example below.
Does any one need this?
An Australian inventor has created the world's most devastating gun, which can fire more than 1.5 million bullets a minute - 250 times faster than the fastest conventional gun. But Mike O'Dwyer insists that his killing machine is mainly a defensive weapon and its unique design will eventually lead to greater control over the use of handguns.
Metal Storm, which has taken Mr O'Dwyer eight years to develop, has none of the mechanical parts of a conventional gun. There is no chamber, no hammer, no trigger. Just a barrel loaded with specially developed bullets which are connected to an electric contact.

George Croix

The military does, Jim......makes a great anti-missile defense...even better, at least theoretically, than the Vulcan......I doubt we'll ever see any of either mounted on the F350 Super Duty.....[beam].
C'mon...tossing that in to a debate over 'gun control' is like arguing against the 'need' for a fireworks stand to sell a Saturn 5 rocket.....
Gotta be careful with that 'need' stuff....need is dependent on who's deciding 'need', itself a very personal thing. As we've seen so often, 'need' is too often an OK for thee but not for me thing. A good example would be when Dianne Feinstein decided years ago that the average Joe didn't 'need' to concealed carry, yet, she had one of the few CHL's issued by San Francisco ...talked it, but didn't walk it, and, imo, my family and my life is just as important as hers, so take exception to her, and a host of others, who decide what I 'need', while excluding themselves.....
Besides, it's not the Hunting Amendment, it's the 2nd Amendment, and it doesn't grant a right to bear arms, it affirms and protectcs that right, hence the use of 'shall not be INFRINGED', meaning can't take the existing Giod given right to protect oneself away.......

Jim Forsythe

I'm sure you are in favor of owning hunting guns. 
If a system like the Vulcan...... was used in Las Vegas, how bad would that have been. That's why we need to look at , is it  needed in the public domain.

George Croix

'Needed' ?
Metal Storm? For civilians? Not in my opinion.
Jim, I'm in favor of owning self-protection and collectible and just plain for fun guns, too..... I'm in favor of most responsible uses of our Constitutional rights.
Right now, imo, we are in more danger from the trllions of unused brain cells in the possession of ideologues and zealots and dishinest trolls of all stripes and politics than we are by my or anyone else's ammo count......but, that's just me.....

Mark Aaron

George: "Right now, imo, we are in more danger from the trllions of unused brain cells in the possession of ideologues and zealots and dishinest trolls"

You must be looking in a mirror, George. I see you still haven't learned to spell.

Randy Chapman

Markey, what is your purpose in life? Is it merely to be a left winged troll with no sense of balance to center yourself, even when presented with undeniable facts? Not only in this thread, but just in general.

In regard to the comment you made above, you know George knows how to spell. To that end and to solidify your image as the little wimp you claim to be, you attack George on spelling. Is that the best you've got? You truly haven't contributed anything worthwhile since your debut a month or two ago.

Mark Aaron

Randy: "Is that the best you've got? You truly haven't contributed anything worthwhile since your debut a month or two ago."

If you weren't such a blind ideologue you would have seen that I consistently post relevant well sourced facts, Randy. The fact that you can't admit that says much more about you than it does me. And George still spells like a 6th grader, much like his whiny snowflake arguments. I tried to debate intelligently with him, but he proved repeatedly he doesn't have that capacity.

George Croix

Jim, I got distracted laughing at some other 'facts', so apologize for not answering fully....I'm actually FOR very, VERY, harsh penalties for criminal misuse of firearms, the problem being separating the substance from the hyperbole. I also don't propose repealing the Firearms Act of 1938, but DO enjoy a legally owned suppressor as it's a tiny bit kinder to my poor ears....still real big bang, just not as big....as one example...despite the assertions of those firearms experts Hillary Clinton and Tim Kane......doofusses with a capital D...imo......
If the Las Vegas shooter hadn't weaseled out and shot himself, I'd say death penalty, no option. QUICKLY. Armed robbery....20 years in prison. Atempted murder 50 years. NO PAROLE. Etc.
BUT, we have the usual suspects making laws who simply cannot use common sense, and I despair over any...any....mutual agreement on terms of 'misuse' and 'penalty'.
Ya got one side that figures I'm a potential mass murderer beacuse I own lots of guns and ammo, and another that doesn't want any restrictions at all.
The answer is in there somewhere, but this country is so polarized we'll never get at a good one. We can't even show the decency to wait a day before the ususal hacks are out demanding 'solutions' to 'problems' that are not even related to an incident.
Can't fix that....

Mark Aaron

George: " I also don't propose repealing the Firearms Act of 1938"

Do try to keep up George, The FFA was repealed by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_Act_of_1938

Carlos Ponce

The pseudo intellectual has posted there is no Bill before Congress to ban :bump stocks".
Here is the proposed legislation:
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/7/a7493ca2-0cd7-416a-8d1f-929d89e71572/0141802AFBB99AC5EA299D5B71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf
"Sen. Feinstein introducing bill to ban bump stocks after Vegas shooting"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-feinstein-introducing-bill-ban-bump-stocks-vegas/story?id=50276506

Carlos Ponce

The Bill is S. 1916: A bill to prohibit the possession or transfer of certain firearm accessories, and for other purposes. Introduced on Oct 4, 2017
This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on October 4, 2017. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1916
Text link is provided on my previous post.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "The pseudo intellectual has posted there is no Bill before Congress to ban :bump stocks"."

George-the-easily-duped didn't post that Carlos. FYI.

Carlos Ponce

" Mark Aaron Oct 5, 2017 11:47am
"There is no measure currently before Congress to ban bump stocks, Carlos. The GOP has only said it is open to that discussion."
George didn't post it, I never said he did. YOU did. Check your meds, you're losing it. Now let me go back to ignoring pseudo -intellectual Mark.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: You hide because you can't back up your easily refuted wingnut propaganda Carlos.

Carlos Ponce

Interesting, to purchase a firearm and get a background check requires a a photo ID.
"An identification document must contain the name, residence address, date of birth and photograph of the holder."
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/social-security-card-proper-means-identification-purchasing-firearm-licensee
on the form itself (ATF Form 4473) it is question 20:
"The buyer must provide a valid government-issued photo identification to the seller that contains the buyer's name, residence address and date of birth."
https://atf-form-4473.pdffiller.com/
Interesting the Democrats are not protesting the need for a photo ID since they claim minorities and the poor can't obtain a one. [whistling]
And the right to possess a firearm is a Constitutional Right. VERY interesting.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "Interesting the Democrats are not protesting the need for a photo ID since they claim minorities and the poor can't obtain a one. "

Ballots aren't designed to kill Carlos. Nor is voter impersonation a problem anywhere in America. Do try to keep up.

George Croix

In closing, this latest coming in:
"The National Rifle Association, in its first statement on the Las Vegas shooting and in a rare break from its traditional opposition to gun-related regulations, called Thursday for a federal review of so-called bump stocks and suggested new rules might be needed for the device apparently used by the shooter in Sunday’s massacre.
“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” the NRA said in a written statement."
[beam][beam]

"It's not that out liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Ronald Reagan......or, pretty close to it......[wink]

Mark Aaron

George: ""It's not that out liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan"

I see you still haven't learned to spell George. 6th grade must have been a tough 4 years for you.

You know Ronald Reagan likely said that while he was in the throes of acute Alzheimers, right George? So you might not want to put too much stock in it.

George Croix

Well, hunting trip time again.
At least it will be something actually challenging to spend time on...
Perhaps we'll all have more information next week to add to the back-and-forthing about the LV catastrophe and it's offshoot subjects...information, not speculation or diversion.
For sure by then the politics of it all will be in even higher swing than now...
It's certain too many will continue the odd escape from reality whereby when a drunk causes a wreck they blame the drunk, and when a bomber bloes up people they blame the bomber, but when a psycho shoots people, they blame the gun......
That, too, is totally predictable.....

Mark Aaron

George: " but when a psycho shoots people, they blame the gun...... "

Typical George childish dishonesty. Pathetic.

George Croix

HOW is it dishonest, Aaron? Rather than pontificate, try to elucidate for a change. of course,
The current, and past, immediate post-shooting calls are for gun control, not psycho control. You must know that's fact...dozens of left wing sites and channels are ablaze with it. Don't you believe them? Knowing, you deny?
Childish dishonesty is what that type of denial behavior is, so, there you go projecting...again....
I don't think that's pathetic, though...just predictable.....

Mark Aaron

George: "HOW is it dishonest, Aaron?"

Your childish pretense/inference that liberals would ignore mental health issues and only concentrate on the weapon used. Unlike you, apparently, liberals are able to address more than one issue at a time.

==> "Rather than pontificate, try to elucidate"

I do. I even tried to do so with you George, but you proved yourself too much of a Fox News dupe to ever get through to. So sad. Poor George, condemned to spend your life as a chump, a gull, a patsy.

Carlos Ponce

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun."- Politico
Were these words EVER used in a Supreme Court Case???? No. So it carries all the judicial weight of a hydrogen atom (if that much).
What did Chief Justice Warren Burger write in an actual case? In Bowers v Hardwick (1986) he wrote, “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”
The short concurring opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger emphasized historical negative attitudes toward homosexual sex, quoting Sir William Blackstone’s characterization of sodomy as “a crime not fit to be named”.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court decision, that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. It was overturned in 2003. Warren Burger voted for upholding the Georgia Sodomy Law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/186#writing-USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZC
Interesting that he voted to uphold the sodomy law based on Sir William Blackstone's writing but ignored Blackstone's writings when it came to individual rights to keep and bear arms from which our Second Amendment is derived.
Also interesting that Liberals consider him a hero in a PBS interview but as a pariah in an actual Supreme Court Case.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: “A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun."- Politico - "Were these words EVER used in a Supreme Court Case???? No."

Typical Carlos wingnut propaganda. Now you want to pretend that the very forceful words of a conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are irrelevant to the discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo

==> "Interesting that he voted to uphold the sodomy law based on Sir William Blackstone's writing but ignored Blackstone's writings when it came to individual rights to keep and bear arms from which our Second Amendment is derived."

No he didn't ignore them Carlos. Burger and Blackstone were in agreement. Blackstone never supported an absolute individual right to own a firearm. Blackstone believed in "natural rights" (a man made construct) to life, liberty, and property which arose -outside- of society. Within society he believed even those rights were subject to regulation to protect others and the common good. He saw the right to self preservation as an auxiliary right stemming from the "natural rights," and within society likewise subject to significant regulation and based on ones position in society.

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3292&context=cklawreview

Carlos Ponce

Blackstone The Rights of Persons
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp
"IN thefe feveral articles confift the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englifhmen : liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly underftood ; and yet highly neceffary to be perfectly known and confidered by every man of rank or property, left his ignorance of the points whereon it is founded fhould hurry him into faction and licentioufnefs on the one hand, or a pufillanimous indifference and criminal fubmiffion on the other. And we have feen that thefe rights confift, primarily, in the free enjoyment of perfonal fecurity, of perfonal liberty, and of private property. So long as thefe remain inviolate, the fubject is perfectly free ; for every fpecies of compulfive tyranny and oppreffion muft act in oppofition to one or other of thefe rights, having no other object upon which it can poffibly be employed. To preferve thefe from violation, it is neceffary that the conftitution of parliaments be fupported in it's full vigor ; and limits certainly known, be fet to the royal prerogative. And, laftly, to vindicate thefe rights, when actually violated or attacked, the fubjects of England are entitled, in the firft place, to the regular adminiftration and free courfe of juftice in the courts of law ; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redrefs of grievances ; and laftly to the right of having and ufing arms for felf-prefervation and defence. And all thefe rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire."
Substitute "s" for "f" in this transcript

Mark Aaron

Blackstone: "and limits certainly known, be fet to the royal prerogative. "

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.