[URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0326/BYO-handgun-GOP-convention-could-be-the-next-gun-rights-battleground"]BYO handgun? GOP convention could be the next gun rights battleground[/URL]
[QUOTE]More than 20,000 people have signed a petition to allow the open carry of firearms at the Republican National Convention this July.

The convention site, the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, does not currently allow "firearms and other weapons of any kind ... including pepper spray, pocket knives and/or blades of any kind" on the premises, though Ohio is one of 31 states that allows the open carry of firearms without a permit or license.

The petition declares that such a policy is "a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;430134][URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0326/BYO-handgun-GOP-convention-could-be-the-next-gun-rights-battleground"]BYO handgun? GOP convention could be the next gun rights battleground[/URL][/QUOTE]
This might be a self-correcting "problem". Maybe the crazies could vote by way of a shootout. May the surviving candidate win! :smile:

[URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/company-invents-gun-folds-look-cellphone-n547221"]Company Invents Gun That Folds Up to Look Like a Cellphone[/URL]

[URL="https://www.wbez.org/shows/npr/brazil-has-nearly-60000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-laws/3e331f32-89c5-4ef5-873c-f0a5469a68d6"]Brazil Has Nearly 60,000 Murders, And It May Relax Gun Laws[/URL][QUOTE]Almost 60,000 people were murdered in Brazil in 2014, most with guns. While some Latin American countries have higher per capita murder rates, in absolute numbers, Brazil is the deadliest place in the world outside Syria.

Brazilians are far more likely to be shot to death than Americans, a more populous country where there are about 8,000 to 9,000 gun homicides each year.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]A new study shows that 10 percent of all the murders worldwide now happen in Brazil.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;430374][URL="https://www.wbez.org/shows/npr/brazil-has-nearly-60000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-laws/3e331f32-89c5-4ef5-873c-f0a5469a68d6"]Brazil Has Nearly 60,000 Murders, And It May Relax Gun Laws[/URL][/QUOTE]
Brazil has so many problems bearing down on it. I don't see how they can hold the Triathlon, at least, this summer. The bay is just too polluted.

It's hard to think of places where guns are an even worse hazard than in the States, outside of Somalia, etc. Brazil is teetering on the edge of complete chaos.

Almost, but not quite, [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36152462"]a case of autoDarwination[/URL].

If the sprog could be persuaded to turn the gun on himself, closure would be achieved.

[QUOTE=xilman;432669]Almost, but not quite, [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36152462"]a case of autoDarwination[/URL].

If the sprog could be persuaded to turn the gun on himself, closure would be achieved.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/"]Toddlers have shot at least 23 people this year[/URL]
[QUOTE]Last year, a Washington Post analysis found that toddlers were finding guns and shooting people at a rate of about one a week. This year, that pace has accelerated. There have been at least 23 toddler-involved shootings since Jan. 1, compared with 18 over the same period last year.

In the vast majority of cases, the children accidentally shoot themselves. That's happened 18 times this year, and in nine of those cases the children died of their wounds.[/QUOTE]

WTF?!?
 

Whatever the hell she's smoking, I think I'd like some...

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore: it's OK to point your gun at law enforcement if they point theirs at you first, [and I quote] "once you point your firearm at me, I’m sorry, then it becomes self-defense. Whether you’re a stranger, a bad guy, or an officer, and you point your gun at me and you’re gonna shoot me and I have to decide whether it’s my life or your life, I choose my life."

[YOUTUBE]fw_HUHOtGM4[/YOUTUBE]

I wonder if that holds true for young men of color or are they not allowed to exercise their right to self defense?

[SIZE="1"]I wonder what color the sky is in her world?[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=schickel;432992][...]Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore: it's OK to point your gun at law enforcement if they point theirs at you first, [and I quote] "once you point your firearm at me, I’m sorry, then it becomes self-defense. Whether you’re a stranger, a bad guy, or an officer, and you point your gun at me and you’re gonna shoot me and I have to decide whether it’s my life or your life, I choose my life."[...][/QUOTE]
To me, with this quotation the Republican politician is inadvertently providing the reason why arming the general public with guns protects no-one and puts everyone in grave danger. No doubt she did not mean to say this, but it is what it comes down to.

[QUOTE=schickel;432992]Whatever the hell she's smoking, I think I'd like some...

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore: it's OK to point your gun at law enforcement if they point theirs at you first, [and I quote] "once you point your firearm at me, I’m sorry, then it becomes self-defense.[/quote]
No, this is an example of a self-serving lie by pro-gun folks.
When one points a firearm at someone else, that is an attack (or threat of attack), not a defense. If the other person pointed a gun at you first, then your pointing a gun at them is counterattack, not defense.
The only way to use a firearm in [I]defense[/I] is to turn it sideways in front of oneself, to act as a (pitifully inadequate) shield to deflect an incoming bullet. The pro-gun deceptive substitution of "defense" for "counterattack" in a gun-pointing situation is simply a self-serving lie.

[QUOTE=ch4;433114]No, this is an example of a self-serving lie by pro-gun folks.
When one points a firearm at someone else, that is an attack (or threat of attack), not a defense. If the other person pointed a gun at you first, then your pointing a gun at them is counterattack, not defense.
The only way to use a firearm in [I]defense[/I] is to turn it sideways in front of oneself, to act as a (pitifully inadequate) shield to deflect an incoming bullet. The pro-gun deceptive substitution of "defense" for "counterattack" in a gun-pointing situation is simply a self-serving lie.[/QUOTE]
Excellent point on the nature of "defense."

Yes.

And, on a much much larger scale, the same argument applies to nuclear weapons when they are erroneously described as a means of defense.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;433140]Yes.

And, on a much much larger scale, the same argument applies to nuclear weapons when they are erroneously described as a means of defense.[/QUOTE]

In the beginning, the US was far more honest: calling a certain cabinet official the "Secretary of War," instead of "Defense."

[QUOTE=Brian-E;433140]Yes.

And, on a much much larger scale, the same argument applies to nuclear weapons when they are erroneously described as a means of defense.[/QUOTE]

But in discussions of nuclear weapons the term "deterrence" is far more common than it is in gun discussions.

- -

Hmm... perhaps I could be persuaded that the proper label to use in gun control discussions when referring to the carrying of a gun is "deterrence". That might be more acceptable to the pro-gun folks than "counterattack".

It could be properly said that, before the weapon is fired, the pointing of ones gun at another person, in the "self-defense" scenarios, is "deterrence". Only upon firing would that change to "counterattack".

[QUOTE=ch4;433327]But in discussions of nuclear weapons the term "deterrence" is far more common than it is in gun discussions.

- -

Hmm... perhaps I could be persuaded that the proper label to use in gun control discussions when referring to the carrying of a gun is "deterrence". That might be more acceptable to the pro-gun folks than "counterattack".

It could be properly said that, before the weapon is fired, the pointing of ones gun at another person, in the "self-defense" scenarios, is "deterrence". Only upon firing would that change to "counterattack".[/QUOTE]
Your posting is strangely reminiscent of Aron Nimzowitsch's famous pronouncement: "The threat is stronger than the execution." (I think you're very familiar with that.:smile:)

Of course, his statement concerned the highly refined and orderly context of a game of chess. Real life doesn't necessarily follow such neat rules, and concepts like "escalation", and "panic reaction", result in far worse than merely loss of a game.

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-auction-gun-killed-trayvon-martin-article-1.2634153[/url]

[QUOTE]“I am honored and humbled to announce the sale of an American Firearm Icon,” Zimmerman wrote in his online description of the weapon.[/QUOTE]

yep mike, I have put a link to this sad story into the wtf thread

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;433741][URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-auction-gun-killed-trayvon-martin-article-1.2634153[/URL][/QUOTE]
What a revolting creep, as if we didn't already know! :yucky:

Mass Murder in Orlando Gay Bar
 

[URL]http://fox40.com/2016/06/12/police-50-feared-dead-after-florida-nightclub-shooting/[/URL]

[QUOTE]Approximately 50 people were killed inside Pulse, a gay nightclub, Orlando Police Chief John Mina and other officials said Sunday morning, just hours after a shooter opened fire in what appears to be the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. At least 53 more people were injured, he said. Police have shot and killed the gunman, Mina told reporters.

“It’s appears he was organized and well-prepared,” the chief said, adding that the shooter had an assault-type weapon, a handgun and “some type of (other) device on him.”
[/QUOTE]
Of course, it would be cynically politicizing a tragedy to talk about gun control at such a time.

[QUOTE=kladner;436093][URL]http://fox40.com/2016/06/12/police-50-feared-dead-after-florida-nightclub-shooting/[/URL]


Of course, it would be cynically politicizing a tragedy to talk about gun control at such a time.[/QUOTE]
From The Guardian:
[QUOTE]
The two presumptive nominees for president have each responded to the mass shooting. The Democrat expressed solidarity with the victims and the Republican thanked his followers for “the congrats” for talking about his fears of terrorism.
[/QUOTE]

There has been a NRA lobbied ban on the CDC researching gun violence since 1996. It's hard to form coherent policies when people don't want to know the answers. This policy rider has been on every budget since then. There was a move to remove the ban in 2015 but I think it got quashed. So mostly we just talk about statistics painfully amassed by newspapers.

Three years ago, [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/"]'President Obama ordered the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to get back to studying “the causes of gun violence.”[/URL]' I don't think anything happened from that and I'm not sure how that holds up against congress anyway.

This is from January: [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senators-gun-research_us_568f2cfee4b0a2b6fb6f8d41"]Senators Take A Small Stab At Ending The Ban On Gun Violence Research[/URL]. As we know this is an election year so that has and will have its own influence on actions. Since we didn't do anything after Sandy Hook though, I don't think we will do anything now either.

[URL="http://fusion.net/story/313013/obama-gun-control-perfect-response/"]11 days before the Orlando shooting, President Obama was asked about gun control. His response was perfect[/URL].
[QUOTE]The questioner, a gun shop owner named Doug Rhude, asked President Obama:

[QUOTE]Knowing that we apply common sense to other issues in our society, specifically like holding irresponsible people accountable for their actions when they drink and drive and kill somebody, or when they text on a cellphone and drive and kill somebody…[B]why then do you and Hillary want to control and restrict and limit gun manufacturers, gun owners, and responsible use of guns and ammunition to the rest of us, the good guys, instead of holding the bad guys accountable for their actions?[/B][/QUOTE]

President Obama paused for a second, then responded (emphasis mine):

[QUOTE]First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats, or whoever you want to choose, are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true — and I don’t care how many times the NRA says it. [B]I’m about to leave office. There have been more guns sold since I’ve been President than just about any time in U.S. history. There are enough guns for every man, woman and child in this country. And at no point have I ever proposed confiscating guns from responsible gun owners.[/B] So it’s just not true.

What I have said is precisely what you suggested, which is why don’t we treat this like every other thing that we use? [B]We used to have really bad auto fatality rates. The auto fatality rate has actually dropped precipitously, drastically, since I was a kid. Why is that? We decided we had seatbelt laws. We decided to have manufacturers put airbags in place. We decided to crack down on drunk driving and texting. We decided to redesign roads so that they were less likely to have a car bank.[/B] We studied what is causing these fatalities using science and data and evidence, and then we slowly treated it like the public health problem it was, and it got reduced.

We are not allowed to do any of that when it comes to guns because people — if you propose anything, it is suggested that we’re trying to wipe away gun rights and impose tyranny and martial law. [B]Do you know that Congress will not allow the Centers for Disease Control to study gun violence? They’re not allowed to study it because the notion is, is that by studying it, the same way we do with traffic accidents, somehow that’s going to lead to everybody’s gun being confiscated.[/B]

When we talked about background checks — if you buy a car, if you want to get a license, first of all, you got to get a license. You have to take a test. People have to know that you know how to drive. You don’t have to do any of that with respect to buying a gun. And we talked about doing effective background checks. It was resisted because the notion was we were going to take your guns away.

[B]I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I’ve got people who we know have been on ISIL websites, living here in the United States, U.S. citizens, and we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun.[/B] This is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer. And if he wants to walk into a gun store or a gun show right now and buy as many weapons and ammo as he can, nothing is prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is.

So, sir, I just have to say respectfully that there is a way for us to have common-sense gun laws. [B]There is a way for us to make sure that lawful, responsible gun owners like yourself are able to use it for sporting, hunting, and protecting yourself. But the only way we’re going to do that is if we don’t have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment.[/B] And that’s how the issue too often gets framed.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
The bold emphasis is directly from the quoted article. This is a fairly large quote from an article but other than the bold emphasis and elipses and the first sentence it is entirely a transcription of the YouTube clip below from the PBS NewsHour.
[url]http://youtu.be/6imFvSua3Kg[/url]
[YOUTUBE]6imFvSua3Kg[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=Nick;436097]From The Guardian:
[QUOTE]
The two presumptive nominees for president have each responded to the mass shooting. The Democrat expressed solidarity with the victims and the Republican thanked his followers for “the congrats” for talking about his fears of terrorism.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Strikes me as a rather tendentious take. Here is [url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-focuses-on-need-to-fight-international-terror/article/2593687]Hillary on the terrorism angle[/url] - please tell me how this is materially different than the above description of "what Trump said":
[i]
Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton Sunday termed the Orlando massacre an "act of terror" and called for stronger efforts to defeat international terrorism.
[/i]
So, go blow up a few more ME or predominantly-Muslim countries, then? That would certainly be putting her much-self-touted "experience" to work.

And the following tweet is the first thing I saw attributed to The Donald on reading about the Orlando massacre:
[i]
Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) [url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742019961946791939]June 12, 2016[/url][/i]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;436125]Strikes me as a rather tendentious take. Here is [url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-focuses-on-need-to-fight-international-terror/article/2593687]Hillary on the terrorism angle[/url] - please tell me how this is materially different than the above description of "what Trump said":
[/QUOTE]
The difference is Trump's annoyingly self-congratulatory boosterism.
[URL="http://thehill.com/regulation/283257-trump-fallout-growing-over-orlando-shooting"]Trump gets more heat for self-congratulatory Tweet[/URL]
[QUOTE]As NBC pointed out, Trump offered similar tweets following the shooting at a church in Charleston, S.C., one year ago; the Paris attacks last November; the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting last December; and the Brussels attacks in March.

Thank you @JakeTapper for giving me credit for my vision on bombing the oil fields. Should have been done long ago. #Trump2016

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2015
Thank you CBS & Breitbart-total vindication! Will the mainstream media apologize? Many, many witnesses. #Trump2016 [url]https://t.co/AsxnfFWipJ[/url]

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2015
I have proven to be far more correct about terrorism than anybody- and it’s not even close. Hopefully AZ and UT will be voting for me today!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2016
The tragedy in South Carolina is incomprehensible. My deepest condolences to all.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2015
A few minutes later Trump turned the conversation to himself.

Watch my appearance on @Morning_Joe - great interview! [url]http://t.co/ZVftDka774[/url]

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2015[/QUOTE]
Being perceived as tendentious is ok in the Soapbox. Not only may we have opinions, we get to try promote them.
[QUOTE]ten·den·tious /tenˈdenSHəs/ adjective
expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one.
"a tendentious reading of history"[/QUOTE]

I snarled at the radio all during the NPR afternoon series, which here, is mostly talk, including an hour of BBC World. This leads into All Things Considered, which was MUCH more infuriating. :rant:

That other incident in LA
 

For me,[URL="http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2016/06/13/james-wesley-howells-ex-boyfriend-didnt-surprise-me-all/85836328/"] this story[/URL] was vastly overshadowed by the Orlando massacre. This was the one which really set off my workplace security measures.

The following is a bit I wrote first to a friend outside this group. I have shared it with people here via PM. Having been encouraged to share it more widely, I'll put it up here. My thanks to everyone here for their kindness.
[INDENT]It's been weird, given where I work (large LGBTQ social services agency), since Orlando. I came in to work the afternoon following, and everybody was on high alert, with extra security. I had not thought about the implications of the story until then. I was asked if I wanted to put in a few extra hours for the vigil at the Center, but on a day off, as this was, I try to chart a course of multiple chores, which are hard to disengage from. This includes what I told my superior when he called, "I'm expected to have dinner on the table!" I did walk up there after dinner and listen and watch for a bit. The action was inside the lobby, and there was a speaker by the front doors, bit it wasn't near loud enough. I mainly wanted to check things out, and possibly be seen by other Center people.

Yesterday, our regular security people were granted special dispensation to put on their "gear": Kevlar vest, cuffs, gun, and I'm not sure what else. Pepper spray, for sure. (The agency which provides the Center's, and [redacted] security, is run by a cop, and it seems that all their officers are cops of one description or another.) The ones who are able to adapt to our special demands (dealing calmly with in-your-face youths, checking for too many feet in restroom stalls.....) are pretty nice people. Still, I am watchful: first on myself, but also on the Security who are under my authority when I am on the job. I have resisted certain language in my thoughts and work-related reports, because I saw that I was getting too much into the cop mindset. The word "compliance" carries much of that gestalt.
[/INDENT]An added note regarding security: Normally, they are totally dressed down without the outward trappings mentioned above.

Recently, the governor of Arizona (where I live) signed legislation that eased professional registration of some careers. You still need a degree and a state license to practice law, of course, and medicine. Plus a host of others. But you no longer need a license to be a yoga instructor, a geologist, a citrus fruit packer, or a cremationist. I had no idea you had to have a license to be a citrus fruit packer. And I have no idea whether non-citrus fruit packers are still licensed, or if they never were.

Anyway, one of the things you still need a license for in Arizona is giving massages to dogs. A woman here has been sent a “Cease and Desist” order because she started a doggie massage business. She’s been told she’ll be fined $1000 per Swedish massage, regardless of whether it’s a Chihuahua, dachshund, poodle, or St. Bernard. No massages. She needs years of education, a degree, and a license from the state.

Meanwhile, anyone off the street can, in about 15 minutes or so, buy a semi-automatic weapon, and a few days later, kill 49 innocent people in a nightclub in just a few hours, or 20 little children and a half dozen teachers at an elementary school in a matter of minutes, or a dozen or so in a theater even faster.

That's Arizona- Strict, rigid, state control of those dangerous doggie masseuses. Thoughtfully amend the laws regarding the citrus fruit packers. But modify a 200 year old amendment about guns that is clearly out-of-date in these modern times? Sorry- our legislature is more concerned with curbing rampant doggie massages.

Norm
(Sorry- Arizona is about to be hit with another heat wave, so I'm venting early to relieve some pressure.)

[URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356"]Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians[/URL]

[URL="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2094025-freeze-on-gun-research-thaws-a-little-as-california-opens-center/"]Freeze on gun research thaws a little as California opens center[/URL]

[QUOTE=only_human;436456][URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356"]Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians[/URL][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"What has happened, good or bad, since his patents have expired is a result of our free market system," Stoner's family said. "Currently, a more interesting question is
[U]'Who now is benefiting from the manufacturing and sales of AR-15s, and for what uses?'"[/U]
That's the question for the rest of us.
[/QUOTE]A modern answer to counter the Kalashnikov. Just what ya need when some dude looks at yer wife (or You!) "funny" in a crowded bar.
How many hundred shell casings have been picked up in Pulse? How much killing time would that guy have lost if he had had to reload every twelve rounds?
[SPOILER][URL="https://www.facebook.com/wftv/posts/10153976003968145"]202[/URL][/SPOILER]

Well, lookee here:

[url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print/67756/]Before Omar Mateen Committed Mass Murder, The FBI Tried To ‘Lure’ Him Into A Terror Plot[/url] | Smirking Chimp

Because it's a heck of a lot easier to [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/links-62116.html#comment-2619510]stop terror plots of your own manufacturing[/url] than it is to detect and stop the real ones, obviously.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;436680]Well, lookee here:

[url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print/67756/]Before Omar Mateen Committed Mass Murder, The FBI Tried To ‘Lure’ Him Into A Terror Plot[/url] | Smirking Chimp

Because it's a heck of a lot easier to [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/links-62116.html#comment-2619510]stop terror plots of your own manufacturing[/url] than it is to detect and stop the real ones, obviously.[/QUOTE]

Well this is odd. I've been fairly consistently uncomfortable with the FBI manufactured plots to entice people into acts that get the Fibbies blue ribbons for catching homegrown terrorists of the FBI's own provocation; but -- in this case they could have ensnared someone who did end up being an actual agent of destruction. I may be more tolerant of the FBI's machinations in the future even though I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with choosing possible and unknowable benefits in this way that sacrifices ideals for practicalities and big brother botheration.

[QUOTE=only_human;436743]Well this is odd. I've been fairly consistently uncomfortable with the FBI manufactured plots to entice people into acts that get the Fibbies blue ribbons for catching homegrown terrorists of the FBI's own provocation; but -- in this case they could have ensnared someone who did end up being an actual agent of destruction. I may be more tolerant of the FBI's machinations in the future even though I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with choosing possible and unknowable benefits in this way that sacrifices ideals for practicalities and big brother botheration.[/QUOTE]

Not following your logic ... you had reservations based on FBI's track record of terror-plot entrapment-scammery, but this time they actually had a legitimate person of interest in their sights for a long time and did nothing to prevent him from committing mass murder, so your faith is restored? What am I missing?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;436749]Not following your logic ... you had reservations based on FBI's track record of terror-plot entrapment-scammery, but this time they actually had a legitimate person of interest in their sights for a long time and did nothing to prevent him from committing mass murder, so your faith is restored? What am I missing?[/QUOTE]
I have no faith here to restore. My staring into the abyss is that I am less resistant to the FBI trying their dubious actions if occasionally bad rabbits end up in the cross-hairs. The fact that they blew it is a different matter.

[QUOTE=only_human;436750]I have no faith here to restore. My staring into the abyss is that I am less resistant to the FBI trying their dubious actions if occasionally bad rabbits end up in the cross-hairs. The fact that they blew it is a different matter.[/QUOTE]
For example, today someone was charged with trying to blow up Bureau of Land Management property. "He was caught because the person he assigned to build the remote-detonated bomb was an undercover FBI agent." [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/06/23/feds-utah-militia-leader-tried-to-bomb-blm.html"]Feds: Utah Militia Man Tried to Bomb BLM[/URL]

[QUOTE=only_human;436806]For example, today someone was charged with trying to blow up Bureau of Land Management property. "He was caught because the person he assigned to build the remote-detonated bomb was an undercover FBI agent." [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/06/23/feds-utah-militia-leader-tried-to-bomb-blm.html"]Feds: Utah Militia Man Tried to Bomb BLM[/URL][/QUOTE]This is something that I can't understand : members of "law enforcing" agencies inducing people to break the law in order to be able to catch them. I am sure they push some over the threshold that would never have crossed it, if not for the help offered by those agencies.

In Europe that kind of tactics is prohibited by law even if there is a push from law enforcement to be able to usethem. Sometimes they try it and more often than not it is a fiasco where the people involved "forgot" the purpose of what they were doing.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;436821]This is something that I can't understand : members of "law enforcing" agencies inducing people to break the law in order to be able to catch them. I am sure they push some over the threshold that would never have crossed it, if not for the help offered by those agencies.

In Europe that kind of tactics is prohibited by law even if there is a push from law enforcement to be able to usethem. Sometimes they try it and more often than not it is a fiasco where the people involved "forgot" the purpose of what they were doing.

Jacob[/QUOTE]
There is no question that it is wrong. But then after a while one starts to think: well, they are doing it anyway and maybe it's not so bad. That is why I quoted Nietzsche about staring into the abyss. [url]https://www.quora.com/What-did-Nietzsche-mean-when-he-said-if-you-stare-into-the-abyss-the-abyss-stares-back-at-you[/url]

Frustration and appeasement.

o [url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article85327317.html]Democratic revolt over gun laws brings House to a halt[/url] | McClatchy

NC's Lambert Strether comments: [i]"Billed in the press as a “sit-in.” Oh? Where are the cops in flak jackets? The tear-gas? The armored personnel vehicles? The LRADs? Wake me when some pols are kettled. This spectacle from the same party that orchestrated a 17-city paramilitary crackdown of Occupy! It pains me to agree with Paul Ryan, but when he calls this a “stunt,” he’s right. I think the Democrat Establishment has lost its mind."[/i]

And reader "RabidGandhi" adds: [i]"The Team Blue sit in reminded me of HRC’s sundry attacks on Sanders voting record: first mischaracterise the legislation, then blow dogwhistles. After this stunt, they will now be able to accuse their future opponents of having “voted to give guns to terrorists”– of course ignoring the fact that the bill had nothing to do with terrorists, and everything to do with further expanding the Bush era policy of secret blacklists of people (mostly muslim) whose constitutional rights can be denied.

Then of course you have to be daft not to ask: how come they can stage a sit down for muslim bashing but not for jailing hedgie fraudsters, torturers, closing Guantánamo….

It’s the party of pathetic."[/i]

o [url=http://gawker.com/the-democrats-are-boldly-fighting-for-a-bad-stupid-bil-1782449026]The Democrats Are Boldly Fighting For a Bad, Stupid Bill[/url] | Gawker

While in the Senate, the Red Team pursues its own bad, stupid bill:

o [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-fbi-emails-idUSKCN0Z8160]Senate votes down proposal to expand FBI surveillance powers[/url] | Reuters

Could come up for another vote within days - and even if it fails again, no worries, they'll find a way to get it passed soon enough, even if it takes another FBI-sponsored 'homegrown terror plot' to tip the voting balance over the needed threshold. Maybe have a radicalized islamist attack a Christian group ... yeah, that could work, no gay stigma attendant to that, and maximizes the 'religious terror' angle.

.

In March a Texan woman on Facebook:
[QUOTE]It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns.[/QUOTE]
Now three months later during a family dispute she shot her two daughters, killing them, and then was killed in turn by police when she wouldn't drop the gun.
[URL="http://jezebel.com/texas-woman-killed-by-police-after-fatally-shooting-her-1782611754"]Texas Woman Killed By Police After Fatally Shooting Her Two Daughters[/URL]
This might not be enough a self-inflicted death of a Darwin Awards nature because of the suicide by cop aspects but surely extra credit may be awarded for taking out consanguineous relatives.

[url]http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Protests-in-Dallas-Over-Alton-Sterling-Death-385784431.html[/url]

At least 4 officers are dead after two snipers shot at them from parking garages at the end of a protest/support march related to the two shooting deaths of black men by police officers caught on video.

Will be interesting to see if this shapes the gun debate at all.

[QUOTE=only_human;437051][QUOTE]It would be horribly tragic if my ability to [strike]protect[/strike] [b][color=red]kill[/color][/b] myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns. [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Fixed that for her.

[QUOTE=wombatman;437752][url]http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Protests-in-Dallas-Over-Alton-Sterling-Death-385784431.html[/url]

At least 4 officers are dead after two snipers shot at them from parking garages at the end of a protest/support march related to the two shooting deaths of black men by police officers caught on video.

Will be interesting to see if this shapes the gun debate at all.[/QUOTE]

Push people past the breaking point – which it appears the latest spate of summary executions of “living while black” unfortunates by cops have done – bad things are gonna happen. Reap the whirlwind.

Haven’t seen anything more than basic description of the alleged suspect(s) yet, but would not surprise me if he/they were ex-military, based on the tactics used and the casualty counts. Which would be a kind a fitting irony, as militarization of PDs nationwide (a side effect of our elites’ Imperial Adventures around the world – mustn’t let those surplus MRAPs and grenade launchers languish!) appears to be highly correlated with the epidemic of jackbooted-thuggery incidents by cops.

Ugly, sad night in Dallas. In my neck of the woods protestors have shut down the I-880 freeway in Oakland, though peacefully so far.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;437755]Push people past the breaking point – which it appears the latest spate of summary executions of “living while black” unfortunates by cops have done – bad things are gonna happen. Reap the whirlwind.

Haven’t seen anything more than basic description of the alleged suspect(s) yet, but would not surprise me if he/they were ex-military, based on the tactics used and the casualty counts. Which would be a kind a fitting irony, as militarization of PDs nationwide (a side effect of our elites’ Imperial Adventures around the world – mustn’t let those surplus MRAPs and grenade launchers languish!) appears to be highly correlated with the epidemic of jackbooted-thuggery incidents by cops.

Ugly, sad night in Dallas. In my neck of the woods protestors have shut down the I-880 freeway in Oakland, though peacefully so far.[/QUOTE]

From all accounts, including those of the police chief and mayor, the protest itself was perfectly peaceful. There were even images of police officers posing with members of the protest, all of them smiling.

At least two snipers were set up on parking garages at the end of the march. It was an ambush set up specifically to target officers, but it wasn't members of the march. From what I'm seeing, at least one of the shooters has been apprehended.

[QUOTE=wombatman;437756]From all accounts, including those of the police chief and mayor, the protest itself was perfectly peaceful. There were even images of police officers posing with members of the protest, all of them smiling.

At least two snipers were set up on parking garages at the end of the march. It was an ambush set up specifically to target officers, but it wasn't members of the march. From what I'm seeing, at least one of the shooters has been apprehended.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't blaming members of the march - everyone's breaking point is different.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;437758]I wasn't blaming members of the march - everyone's breaking point is different.[/QUOTE]

Didn't intend to imply you were. Just wanted to provide the information I knew about it. Based on some video of one of the shooters, I think you're right with the military training. The way he moved was tactical and with purpose.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;437755]Push people past the breaking point – which it appears the latest spate of summary executions of “living while black” unfortunates by cops have done – bad things are gonna happen. Reap the whirlwind.
[/QUOTE]
Thuggish cops are the issue here, not race. If the victims were white, behaved the same way, and were stopped by the same cops, the same thing would have happened.

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;437785]Thuggish cops are the issue here, not race. If the victims were white, behaved the same way, and were stopped by the same cops, the same thing would have happened.[/QUOTE]
That's a difficult statement to refute categorically, but I question its credibility. Wouldn't you expect a strong correlation between thuggishness (under any reasonable definition of that word) and racism in cops?

You do, I hope, acknowledge that racism is rampant in human societies, and that police officers are not immune from it?

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;437785]Thuggish cops are the issue here, not race.[B] If the victims were white, behaved the same way, and were stopped by the same cops, the same thing would have happened.[/B][/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that would be the case. Besides, far more African American drivers are stopped, percentage-wise, than Caucasians. This alone suggests the 'possibility' of police prejudice or profiling.

I am a Caucasian male, and have been stopped on a lonely stretch of South Texas highway for having a headlight out on a rainy [U]day[/U]. The state trooper asked a bunch of highly inappropriate questions about where I had been, where I lived, and who I had associated with. I answered blandly. He then left me to sit for about 20 minutes, and came back to give me a Warning ticket for a "headlight out on a rainy day." This was between the Mexican border and the ~75 mile inland ICE stations.

I was well aware of how things [I]could[/I] go, and maintained a quiet manner throughout. It was total bullshit, legally, but it was out on a highway which had very little traffic that morning. The cop could do anything and say anything about what happened. However, I was not aware of him even fondling his gun. I am fairly confident that would not have been the case if I had been black or brown. He would have started with spread-eagled on the car in the rain while he ransacked the car. This is in the border zone, where the rules are scarily different. But I'm white and white-haired, in an area that depends on Winter Texan retirees for income. An older white dude who doesn't give the cop any excuses is in a much better situation than an M-A or A-A guy, regardless of demeanor.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;437793]That's a difficult statement to refute categorically, but I question its credibility. Wouldn't you expect a strong correlation between thuggishness (under any reasonable definition of that word) and racism in cops?
[/QUOTE]
Some stats:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of-blacks-what-the-data-says.html?_r=0[/url]

[quote]
For the entire country, 28.9 percent of arrestees were African-American. This number is not very different from the 31.8 percent of police-shooting victims who were African-Americans. [b]If police discrimination were a big factor in the actual killings, we would have expected a larger gap between the arrest rate and the police-killing rate.

This in turn suggests that removing police racial bias will have little effect on the killing rate.[/b] Suppose each arrest creates an equal risk of shooting for both African-Americans and whites. In that case, with the current arrest rate, 28.9 percent of all those killed by police officers would still be African-American.[/quote]

[QUOTE=kladner;437802]far more African American drivers are stopped, percentage-wise, than Caucasians. This alone suggests the 'possibility' of police prejudice or profiling.
[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't. If you're a cop, it's almost impossible to tell the race of the driver when you're pulling him/her over. Can you tell whether the driver of the white car in the attached picture is black or white?

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;437807]Some stats:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of-blacks-what-the-data-says.html?_r=0[/url]




No, it doesn't. If you're a cop, it's almost impossible to tell the race of the driver when you're pulling him/her over. Can you tell whether the driver of the white car in the attached picture is black or white?[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that a distant peek is all a cop has to go on when pulling someone over?

Sometimes they've come from the other direction and previously looked full-on through the windshield. Sometimes they've run the plates and got a look at the registration names. Sometimes they make a socio-economic guesstimate because it is not a frikkin BMW. Sometimes because it is an [B]old[/B] Cadillac. Just as they are trained to be situationally aware during every incident they have the ability to form an estimate.

[QUOTE=only_human;437808]Do you believe that a distant peek is all a cop has to go on when pulling someone over?[/quote]
The picture I provided is a fairly typical situation that occurs when a cop pulls someone over. Other situations make it even harder to identify the driver. Some examples:
- Nighttime driving
- Cars having tinted windows
- Bad weather conditions (fog, glare, etc.)
- Large vehicles (semi trucks, buses, etc.)

[quote]
[b]Sometimes they've come from the other direction and previously looked full-on through the windshield.[/b] Sometimes they've run the plates and got a look at the registration names. Sometimes they make a socio-economic guesstimate because it is not a frikkin BMW. Sometimes because it is an [B]old[/B] Cadillac. Just as they are trained to be situationally aware during every incident they have the ability to form an estimate.[/QUOTE]
I once drove ~64 mph in a 55 mph zone. It was a two lane highway with no other cars besides me and a cop car coming from the opposite direction. As soon as I noticed him (I'm assuming the cop was a man) I hit the brakes and saw the cop turn on his lights at the same time. I thought he was going to make a U-turn and pull me over since there was no center divider, but he continued on, so I'm assuming that he intended it as a warning to slow down. I have no idea what race the cop was, and I'm pretty sure he didn't know my race either. If I were a passenger and made it my sole purpose to identify the cop, I might be able to make a good guess when the cop car got really close, but there was no way I could ID him from quite far away when he turned his lights on.

At highway speeds, a car can cover the length of a football/soccer field in less than 3 seconds. When multiple cars are going that fast, a cop waiting on the side of the road or coming from the opposite direction is going to point his radar/lidar gun at any vehicle that looks like it's going faster than traffic. He's not going to be able to be run the plates or see what the driver looks like. And yes, there are exceptions, but those cases are an insignificant fraction of all cases that involve drivers being pulled over.

[QUOTE]But when researchers reviewed stops made during daylight hours, when they said officers could see the race and ethnicity of drivers, Hispanics were nearly 14 percent more likely to be pulled over and blacks were about 7 percent more likely to be stopped than they were at night.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.policeone.com/police-products/traffic-enforcement/articles/180952006-Conn-study-of-race-traffic-stops-singles-out-25-cops/"]Conn. study of race, traffic stops singles out 25 cops[/URL]

[QUOTE=only_human;437811][URL="https://www.policeone.com/police-products/traffic-enforcement/articles/180952006-Conn-study-of-race-traffic-stops-singles-out-25-cops/"]Conn. study of race, traffic stops singles out 25 cops[/URL]
Hispanics were nearly 14 percent more likely to be pulled over and blacks were about 7 percent more likely to be stopped than they were at night.[/QUOTE]
This could easily be within the margin of error when you consider the low number of driving age blacks in Connecticut (~8% of driving age population). The percent of driving age Hispanics is even lower.

Even if the sample size were large enough to make it true, the study doesn't prove racial bias. Cops may simply be biased against younger drivers, who tend to drive more dangerously than older ones. The median age of Connecticut Hispanics (and Connecticut blacks, to a lesser extent) is much lower than the median age of Connecticut whites.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that the racial issue was deliberately introduced by police unions to draw attention away from the real issue of police brutality toward citizens of all races. The former can be defused by allowing protest marches, having cultural sensitivity classes, and waiting for the public's anger to burn out. The latter requires real solutions like having body cameras on all officers and reversing the militarization of police departments.

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;437812]This could easily be within the margin of error when you consider the low number of driving age blacks in Connecticut (~8% of driving age population). The percent of driving age Hispanics is even lower.

Even if the sample size were large enough to make it true, the study doesn't prove racial bias. Cops may simply be biased against younger drivers, who tend to drive more dangerously than older ones. The median age of Connecticut Hispanics (and Connecticut blacks, to a lesser extent) is much lower than the median age of Connecticut whites.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that the racial issue was deliberately introduced by police unions to draw attention away from the real issue of police brutality toward citizens of all races. The former can be defused by allowing protest marches, having cultural sensitivity classes, and waiting for the public's anger to burn out. The latter requires real solutions like having body cameras on all officers and reversing the militarization of police departments.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/"]You really can get pulled over for driving while black, federal statistics show[/URL]
[QUOTE]The Justice Department statistics, based on the Police-Public Contact Survey, show that "relatively more black drivers (12.8%) than white (9.8%) and Hispanic (10.4%) drivers were pulled over in a traffic stop during their most recent contact with police." Or, to frame it another way: A black driver is about 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than a white driver, or about 23 percent more likely than a Hispanic driver. "Driving while black" is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;437814][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/"]You really can get pulled over for driving while black, federal statistics show[/URL]

[quote]...were pulled over in a traffic stop during their most recent contact with police[/quote][/QUOTE]

That's not the same as how many were pulled over, but from reading the data behind it as well as I could, I think that's just an inaccurate summary.

The interesting thing to me is that the reasons for being pulled over are so different between the races. What if the increased traffic stops on blacks aren't due to police bias, but due to socioeconomic factors making them more likely to drive with broken vehicles or expired/invalid registration? What the survey didn't record is how often people of different races drive while giving police various reasons to pull them over, and how that correlates to how often they're pulled over. If this is the case, it still represents a racial inequality, but not one that's the police's fault or their issue to fix, but a symptom of something larger: that different races sit at different economic levels, and have different behaviors when it comes to respecting various traffic laws. Of course, there's still the possibility that someone (consciously or not) said, "blacks do X more often than other races, so let's make a policy of stopping people doing X any time we can".

I'm not saying for sure that "[this race] does X, Y, and Z", but the data raises the question in my mind.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;437793][QUOTE=MooMoo2;437785]Thuggish cops are the issue here, not race. If the victims were white, behaved the same way, and were stopped by the same cops, the same thing would have happened.[/QUOTE]
That's a difficult statement to refute categorically, but I question its credibility. Wouldn't you expect a strong correlation between thuggishness (under any reasonable definition of that word) and racism in cops?

You do, I hope, acknowledge that racism is rampant in human societies, and that police officers are not immune from it?[/QUOTE]

You're both right:

[url]https://theconversation.com/why-do-american-cops-kill-so-many-compared-to-european-cops-49696[/url]

“Racism helps explain why African Americans and Native Americans are particularly vulnerable to police violence… But racism alone can’t explain why non-Latino white Americans are 26 times more likely to die by police gunfire than Germans. And racism alone doesn’t explain why states like Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming – where both perpetrators and victims of deadly force are almost always white – exhibit relatively high rates of police lethality.”

[QUOTE=ewmayer;437755]Push people past the breaking point – which it appears the latest spate of summary executions of “living while black” unfortunates by cops have done – bad things are gonna happen. Reap the whirlwind.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing. Considering that police in the U.S. have wronged so many people and gotten away with it, someone was eventually going to snap. You can only beat a dog so many times before it bites back.

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-gun-instructor-slain-yr-firing-uzi-files/story?id=41662473[/url] [quote]I’d like to see someone take responsibility for what happened to my dad.[/quote]Yes, it is called personal responsibility. Learn to take it. Why is it never their own fault? Blame someone else and get paid millions, that will bring your dad back to life.[quote]If they don’t change something, it’s going to happen again,[/quote][list=1][*]We must do something[*]Blaming other people is something, therefore we must do it[*]???[*]Profit[/list]
Your dad was there voluntarily, no one was forcing him. His fault.

[QUOTE=retina;440776][URL]http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-gun-instructor-slain-yr-firing-uzi-files/story?id=41662473[/URL] Yes, it is called personal responsibility. Learn to take it. Why is it never their own fault? Blame someone else and get paid millions, that will bring your dad back to life.[LIST=1][*]We must do something[*]Blaming other people is something, therefore we must do it[*]???[*]Profit[/LIST]
Your dad was there voluntarily, no one was forcing him. His fault.[/QUOTE]
It can't be Darwin Award material, as the dead man had already reproduced. However, there was massive misjudgement and utter stupidity on the part of the instructor. He was the one who switched the gun to full auto. He had to know the recoil of the weapon, but made no preparations to guard against the result. Too bad for his family. EDIT: .....AND for the girl he handed the gun to.

[url]http://wgntv.com/2016/09/06/13-killed-51-hurt-in-shootings-across-chicago-over-labor-day-weekend/[/url]

1. How many of the shootings were gang related?
2. How many were drug related?
3. How many were random, somebody wanted to shoot and picked a target?

Keep in mind that Chicago had the toughest gun laws in the U.S. for the last 50 years, yet they were consistently the worst for violent crime in the U.S. Criminals don't obey laws, particularly gun laws.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;442277]1. How many of the shootings were gang related?
2. How many were drug related?
3. How many were random, somebody wanted to shoot and picked a target?

Keep in mind that Chicago had the toughest gun laws in the U.S. for the last 50 years, yet they were consistently the worst for violent crime in the U.S. Criminals don't obey laws, particularly gun laws.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. But we're close to Indiana, etc. Not to make light of the horrible situation, but local gun laws are irrelevant if the jurisdiction is near another with looser laws.

The law can't even keep major fireworks out of the metro Chicago area, though such are totally banned, except for permitted professional public displays. On July 4, a friend of ours, with a 4th floor deck, has a fireworks watching party, and the sky gets lit up in the entire field of view: >180 degrees. LOTS of people are setting off big mortar shells.

Illinois police watch just over the border in Indiana at fireworks stores, and bust fools who load up and head right back. But bring a van from Arkansas, and you'd slide right past with a full load.

Point is, again, Chicago's gun laws don't apply outside City Limits.

EDIT: On review, I see that this is the same as your point about criminals and gun laws. My point is that stricter laws should prevail nation-wide, so that smuggling isn't so easily local in nature.

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729[/url]

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38535699[/url]

No additional comment from me just yet.

[QUOTE=xilman;450601][url]http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729[/url]

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38535699[/url]

No additional comment from me just yet.[/QUOTE]
Yesterday morning the car in front of me was covered with bumper stickers that I glanced over 'cause there's not much else to do while stopped at the light.
In addition to a couple of ballerina type stickers (a ballerina mom, apparently), there were stickers to the tune of
"Gun control - buying one gun when I wanted to buy three",
"From my cold dead hands!",
"I'm willing to die for my 2nd amendment right"

Some people ...!
The car drove where I was driving... to the hospital!

[url]http://neurosciencenews.com/gun-violence-psychology-5875/[/url]

[URL="http://www.local8now.com/content/news/Texas-law-to-allow-open-carry-of-swords-knives--434342073.html"]Texas law to allow open carry of swords, knives[/URL]
[QUOTE]AUSTIN, Texas (KHOU) -- A new open carry law in Texas will allow citizens to carry swords in public.

House Bill 1935 was signed into law which will allow people to legally carry long knives, daggers and spears in public.

The purpose of the law, according to its author Representative John Frullo, is to simplify laws pertaining to knives and to limit their restrictions.

Currently, blades, such as Bowie knives, swords, machetes and spears, that are over 5.5 inches are illegal. When the law changes in September, citizens will be able to carry them in public.[/QUOTE]
via Google search:
[QUOTE]Are knives arms?

Knives are clearly among the “arms” which are protected by the Second Amendment. Under the Supreme Court's standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment “arms” because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” including self-defense.

Knives and the Second Amendment - Wall Street Journal
Wall Street Journal › online › documents
[/QUOTE]
[YOUTUBE]rLY_d4QmoNw[/YOUTUBE]

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40618356"]More on the right to bare arms[/URL].

[QUOTE=xilman;463459][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40618356"]More on the right to bare arms[/URL].[/QUOTE]

And what are on the end of arms? [SPOILER]hands, of course[/SPOILER]
[URL="http://mentalfloss.com/article/66366/10-hair-raising-facts-about-edward-scissorhands"]
10 Hair-Raising Facts About Edward Scissorhands[/URL]
[QUOTE]STAN WINSTON BUILT EDWARD’S HANDS.
Edward’s iconic hands were designed by makeup and special effects icon Stan Winston, who was best known for his work on the Terminator movies, Jurassic Park, and Aliens, among many other projects. It was Winston who decided to use real scissors for Edward’s fingers. When Winston first showed his sketches to Burton, the director responded that, “I didn’t think he’d actually have scissors for fingers. I thought they’d just be long sharp pieces of metal that weren’t finished—but this is much better!” Winston would go on to work with Burton again on Batman Returns and Big Fish.[/QUOTE]

How 2nd Amendment Distortions Kill -Robert Parry
 

[URL]https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/03/how-2nd-amendment-distortions-kill/[/URL]
The explanations of the historical intentions of those who created the Second Amendment should be required reading for any who think that anyone should be able to own a bazooka or 50 caliber machine gun. (Yes, this is hyperbole.) Heck! Why shouldn't I have a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer"]howitzer[/URL] to defend my home and family? That guy two blocks over is a right bastard!
[QUOTE]Many politicians, especially those on the Right, pretend they are strictly adhering to the U.S. Constitution when they often are just [URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/17/the-rights-made-up-constitution-5/"]making the founding document mean whatever they want[/URL] – but perhaps nowhere is that as dangerous as with their make-believe Second Amendment.

In the wake of Sunday’s mass shooting in Las Vegas – where one individual firing from a high-rise hotel murdered 59 people and wounded more than 500 at a country music festival – we are told that the reason the United States can’t do anything to stop this sort of carnage is the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms.”
“Gun rights” advocates insist that pretty much any gun control violates the design of the Constitution’s Framers and thus can’t be enacted no matter how many innocent people die.

Some on the Right, as well as some on the Left, even claim that the Founders, as revolutionaries themselves, wanted an armed population so the people could rebel against the Republic, which the U.S. Constitution created. But the Constitution’s Framers in 1787 and the authors of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress in 1789 had no such intent.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;469174][URL]https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/03/how-2nd-amendment-distortions-kill/[/URL]
The explanations of the historical intentions of those who created the Second Amendment should be required reading for any who think that anyone should be able to own a bazooka or 50 caliber machine gun. (Yes, this is hyperbole.) Heck! Why shouldn't I have a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer"]howitzer[/URL] to defend my home and family? That guy two blocks over is a right bastard![/QUOTE]
I think the right to keep and bear arms should apply to nuclear weapons! I've had it with those namby-pambies who say you can't fight City Hall! City Hall will do as [i]I[/i] say, or else!
:devil:
In Colonial times, men eligible for militia duty were in many cases [i]required[/i] to own guns, because they were required to supply their own arms and ammunition for militia service.

Of course, women and slaves were not eligible for militia duty. Besides a minimum age requirement, there was usually a requirement that someone in the militia be of "good character."

In the days when the Republic was founded, the most powerful weapons in existence were cannons. And private ownership of cannons was allowed. In particular, merchant ships were allowed to be armed with cannons, to protect themselves from pirates. Also, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant "letters of marque and reprisal" -- that is, licensing privateers. Private contractors, if you will, with their government's permission to commit piracy on the high seas against enemy ships. Of course, they would have had cannons on their ships.

The Constitutional authority to grant "letters of marque and reprisal" has never been repealed by amendment. I suspect it has been nullified by treaties made, but am unable to cite any sources.

Back to the militia. The Founders distrusted standing armies. That is one reason for the clause in Article I, Section 8 giving Congress the authority (my emphasis)[quote]To raise and support Armies, [u]but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years[/u];[/quote]

The founders had envisioned the militia as a means to meet military emergencies, as well as a check on a standing army running roughshod over the civilian populace, which is something they had had some experience with. In conjunction with the then-current practice of requiring militia members to provide their own armaments, the text of the Second Amendment,[quote]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[/quote] clearly assumes a connection between the right to keep and bear arms, and serving in a militia.

However, certainly by the time of the War with Mexico, the need for a national professional army was generally recognized. State militias had pretty much become a joke.

So the context that gave rise to the Second Amendment is no longer present. The NRA seems to take the position that it never existed.

The right of local authorities to regulate the storage and use of weapons seems not to have been questioned until relatively recent times. Perhaps the most famous local gun control ordinance ever was Ordinance 9, enacted in Tombstone, Arizona Territory, on April 19, 1881:[quote]"To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons"

Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance."[/quote]

It was the alleged violation of this ordinance by the Clantons that led to the gun fight at the OK Corral.

The fright of the people who keep and bear arms
 

As the saying goes, "I'm not afraid of the dark, I'm afraid of what's in it."

Bearing in mind that sanity is a continuum and not an asurable certainty, how much lethality should a typical citizen have access to before statistics become statistics? There are less then 200 nations but there is still conflict somewhere, somehow. I don't see why individual people are necessarily more restrained than nations. How safe of a thing is it to arm millions of people with extreme lethality?

[url]https://nbcchicago.com/news/local/Assembly-Eliminates-Wisconsins-Minimum-Hunting-Age-Allowing-Even-Toddlers-to-Hunt-454933193.html[/url]

What could [I]possibly[/I] go wrong?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;471060][url]https://nbcchicago.com/news/local/Assembly-Eliminates-Wisconsins-Minimum-Hunting-Age-Allowing-Even-Toddlers-to-Hunt-454933193.html[/url]

What could [I]possibly[/I] go wrong?[/QUOTE]Maybe something like [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfMzK7QwfrU]9-year-old girl accidentally kills shooting instructor with Uzi[/url] (Don't worry, the video goes black and ends ends just before it actually happens.)

In one of the episodes of the old TV series about the young Indiana Jones, he is in a hot air balloon with a machine gun and a German officer he captured. The officer warns him about the gun "walking up" if he fires it. Indy asks, "What is `walking up'?" When he fires the gun full auto, he finds out as the gun points higher with each round fired, and he winds up shooting a bunch of holes in the balloon above him. The German officer says, "[i]That[/i] is `walking up'!"

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;471066]In one of the episodes of the old TV series about the young Indiana Jones, he is in a hot air balloon with a machine gun and a German officer he captured. The officer warns him about the gun "walking up" if he fires it. Indy asks, "What is `walking up'?" When he fires the gun full auto, he finds out as the gun points higher with each round fired, and he winds up shooting a bunch of holes in the balloon above him. The German officer says, "[i]That[/i] is `walking up'!"[/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWvK018OhiI&t=1h18m12s[/url]

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;471071][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWvK018OhiI&t=1h18m12s[/url][/QUOTE]Fascinating. The info at the link says a little over 93 minutes. The [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0394999/]IMDB description[/url] says 45 minutes, but my guess is that's only half. The original airing was in a 2-hour time slot. In the UK it was aired in 2 parts.

Back in the 1960's and early 1970's, 10 minutes of every program hour was commercials. It seems that by 1993, it was up to 15. Nowadays, it's more like 20. Ad segments are now as long as program segments. Program continuity? What's that?

When old TV shows are run in syndication, they do stuff to make room for more commercials. They may "time compress" the program by carefully editing out little bits here and there. Or they might chop out whole scenes. The opening and closing credits are butchered into meaninglessness.

Sometimes, they remake old TV movie features rather than try to rerun the old ones, because the old ones would no longer fit into the original time slot.

[b]BBC America[/b] shows 1960's episodes of [i]Star Trek[/i], which had runtimes of 50 minutes, and showed in 1-hour time slots. They had been showing them in 70-minute time slots, but recently have begun showing them in 75-minute time slots.

It's enough to drive ya to buying a friggin' [i]arsenal[/i], I tell ya. It brings to mind [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvp97SMZc6M]Bill Hicks on the Evils of Marketing[/url].

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;471100]
It's enough to drive ya to buying a friggin' [I]arsenal[/I],[/QUOTE]
What you need is regulation! :smile:
Here in the Netherlands, for example, TV advertising is limited to approximately 12 minutes per hour, and programs on the public broadcasting channels are never interrupted for advertisments.

[url=http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/02/shoppers-pulled-weapons-walmart-shooting/]Man with a gun! -- and another, and another,... (Thornton, CO 11/01/2017)[/url][quote]When a gunman opened fire inside a Walmart in Thornton Wednesday night, shoppers screamed and ran for cover — and others pulled out their own handguns.

But those who drew weapons during the shootings ultimately delayed the investigation as authorities pored over surveillance videotape trying to identify the assailant who killed three people, police said Thursday.

Although authorities said “a few” individuals drew handguns, they posed no physical hazard to officers. But their presence “absolutely” slowed the process of determining who, and how many, suspects were involved in the shootings, said Thornton police spokesman Victor Avila.

It took more than five hours to identify the suspect, 47-year-old Scott Ostrem, who is accused in the seemingly random shootings. The problem for investigators came when they reviewed the surveillance footage and had to follow each individual with a firearm until they could eliminate them as a suspect.[/quote]

[url]http://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/01/why-was-joshua-tree-hiker-carrying-a-gun/[/url]
[quote]a loaded handgun typically weighs a little over two pounds. That’s equal to an extra quart of water.[/quote]
It doesn't say much if you choose to carry a gun into a National Park. Besides protection, it can be used for signalling if you get lost (fire 3 successive shots into the ground).

But there is something fishy going on if you bother to carry a gun but fail to carry other protections (water, food, clothes, etc) that you'll almost certainly need:
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/joshua-tree-hikers-died-sympathetic-murder-suicide-article-1.3580665[/url]

And again: [url]https://nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/church-shooting-texas.html[/url]

This shooting in Texas is especially tragic. It seems that Our Hero had been kicked out of the Air Force after being convicted at court-martial for assaulting his wife and kid. Twelve months confinement, demotion to lowest rand (E-1), and a bad-conduct discharge.

Now, a bad conduct discharge from the Armed Forces doesn't automatically prohibit you from owning a gun (though a [i]dishonorable[/i] discharge does, thanks to the a provision in the Gun Control Act of 1968, put in because Lee Harvey Oswald had been dishonorably discharged from the Marines). However, the nature of the offense he was convicted of (domestic violence) should have pegged him as someone who shouldn't own firearms. A conviction under civilian law would have this effect, but I don't know whether a [i]military[/i] conviction for domestic violence does this. If not, something tells me it soon might.

There seem to be some really heroic actions after the massacre. Some guy nearby saw the shooter outside the church, got a rifle, and took him on. When the shooter drove off, the guy flagged down another man who was driving by, and got him to pursue the gunman.

Headline [i]des Tages[/i]: "Texas church shooting: Donald Trump says massacre at church is ‘not a gun situation’ | Independent"

So the shooter was targeting the in-laws … perhaps the Dear Cheetoh is right that the weapon of choice was secondary, it was really all about those annoying in-laws. The obvious solution is a nationwide law banning in-law-dom, but I can hear the NRA nutters’ sloganeering against that now, e.g. “when in-laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws”, and “you can have my annoying mother-in-law when you pry her from my cold, dead fingers”.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;471214]Headline [i]des Tages[/i]: "Texas church shooting: Donald Trump says massacre at church is ‘not a gun situation’ | Independent"[/QUOTE]

Sad to say, it's more a "failure of law enforcement" situation.

This just gets better and better.

My puzzlement over why his court martial conviction for assaulting his wife and child didn't disqualify him from buying a gun was of short duration:

[url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/air-force-failed-report-texas-suspects-convictions-fbi/story?id=50969640]Air Force didn't share info that would have blocked Texas shooter from gun buys[/url]
[quote]The Air Force failed to submit information about Texas church shooting suspect Devin Kelley's convictions to the FBI, the Air Force said today.

The failure was a result of what one law enforcement source described to ABC News as an administrative error. Had the conviction information been entered into the NCIC, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System should have prevented the sale of the firearms Kelley purchased, law enforcement sources said.[/quote]

It seems that Our Hero was a real winner.

[url=http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/06/texas-shooting-devin-patrick-kelley-colorado-arrest/]Gunman who killed 26 people in Texas cited for cruelty to animals in Colorado[/url]
[quote]On Aug. 1, 2014, El Paso County Sheriff’s deputies cited Kelley for misdemeanor cruelty to animals.

Numerous witnesses said they saw him beat a dog with his fists.

Jennifer Jones told deputies she saw a young brown and white Husky running loose near the back of her camping space. A heavyset man later identified as Kelley – with shaggy, dirty blond hair – ran up to the dog and jumped on top of it.

“She stated the white male then began punching the dog with a closed fist near the head and neck area. She stated she witnessed four to five punches and then the male suspect grabbed the dog by the neck and drug him away,” an El Paso County deputy report says.

Charles Harolds told deputies that Kelley was yelling at the dog to come to him and when it didn’t he tackled the dog and held it down with his knees and punched the dog.

Brent Moody told deputies he saw the dog run away from Kelley. When Kelley caught up with it, he grabbed the dog and threw it to the ground.

“He could hear the suspect yelling at the dog and while he was striking it, the dog was yelping and whining. The suspect then picked up the dog by the neck into the air and threw it onto the ground and then drug him away to lot 60,” Moody told the deputy.

When El Paso County Sheriff’s Sgt. Ronald Mitchell convinced Kelley to open the door of his trailer home, he could tell the dog was undernourished. When he touched the dog he could feel the dog’s ribs.[/quote]

[url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2017/11/05/reported-shooting-baptist-church-town-near-san-antonio]Sutherland Springs church shooter didn't have gun license, threatened mother-in-law[/url]. So, the Great State of Texas denied this guy a gun license. And yet,
[quote]The Texas Department of Public Safety issued Kelley a private security license this year.[/quote]
Texas Governor Greg Abbot said,
[quote]"By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun, so how did this happen?"[/quote]

Gee, what a surprise! The Air Force's failure to report the Texas church shooter's domestic abuse conviction wasn't just an isolated incident: [url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-church-shooter-air-force-mattis-20171107-story.html]Pentagon has known of crime reporting lapses for 20 years[/url]

Even better, his conviction was a plea deal, that involved sweeping most of his crimes under the rug:

[quote]Air Force records show Kelley initially faced charges of domestic violence for seven alleged incidents in 2011 and 2012. Five were withdrawn as part of a plea agreement, including two involving Kelley pointing a loaded gun at his wife. He pleaded guilty to striking, choking and kicking his wife and hitting his stepson "with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm."[/quote]Yeah, he fractured the kid's skull.

The article [url=http://www.chicoer.com/general-news/20171114/rancho-tehama-shooter-faced-charges-of-shooting-at-stabbing-neighbors]here[/url] about the Rancho Tehama shooting has a picture of Our Hero, who apparently was facing trial for his earlier Heroics in a long-running dispute with neighbors.

[url=https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/11/15/trump-copies-sutherland-springs-tweet-for-northern-california-shooting]Trump Copies Sutherland Springs Tweet For Northern California Shooting[/url] The tweet, obviously in response to the Rancho Tehama shooting, was posted 14 November, 11:34 PM. Transcribing from the image,[quote]May God be with the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI and law Enforcement has arrived.[/quote]
From the news article,[quote]The post was deleted about ten hours after it went up — more than enough time for hundreds to call him out on it online.[/quote]Obviously, he just copy/pasted, and didn't bother changing the locale. It's sad that the President of the United States treats these outrages in such a superficial, shallow fashion. But perhaps the saddest aspect of this is, when the image of the erroneous tweet was captured, it had already garnered over 6000 Retweets and more than 34,000 Likes.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;471835]The article [url=http://www.chicoer.com/general-news/20171114/rancho-tehama-shooter-faced-charges-of-shooting-at-stabbing-neighbors]here[/url] about the Rancho Tehama shooting has a picture of Our Hero, who apparently was facing trial for his earlier Heroics in a long-running dispute with neighbors.[/QUOTE]
The Rancho Tehama shooting just gets better. Before Our Hero took his show on the road, he shot his wife to death and hid her body under the floorboards.

He was also under a court order to (among other things) surrender all firearms. Alas, the order was not enforced:

[url=http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-gunman-shooting-order-20171115-story.html]Despite court order to give up weapons, Tehama gunman fired guns with impunity, frightening neighbors[/url]

Apart from his tweet erroneously addressed to the people of Sutherland Springs, taken down ten hours after he posted it, [i]Ill Duce[/i] has had no comments on the shooting AFAIK.

The problem with the "good guy with a gun theory"
 

From the [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/?utm_term=.b75b98bdd1c4"]Washington Post[/URL]: [B]Man accidentally shoots himself and his wife at a church, shortly after a discussion on shootings[/B].

TL;DR version: an 81-year old takes his gun out at church and unloads it to show how safe it is to carry all the time, reloads and re-chambers before holstering. When someone who missed the demonstration earlier asks to see the gun, he forgets that he reloaded it and manages to shoot himself in the hand and his wife, in a wheelchair next to him, in the abdomen. Due to confusion when other churchgoers call 911, two schools and a hospital nearby are put on lockdown because the police worry that there is an active shooter in the area.

45 minutes of hilarity ensue.

[QUOTE=schickel;472036]45 minutes of hilarity ensue.[/QUOTE]Well done Sir!

I much admire a good black sense of humour. :bow:

This is one of the latest on a story that's been in the news for a couple of days now:

[url=http://www.9news.com/news/local/politics/lori-saine-colorado-loaded-gun-tsa-denver-international-airport/497304931]Colorado lawmaker out on bond after TSA finds loaded gun in bag at DIA
[/url][quote]Her lawyer told 9NEWS she just forgot the gun was in her bag.[/quote]

If that doesn't fly, perhaps she can claim [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vSfqR3Hyxc]I Didn't Know The Gun Was Loaded[/url]

[QUOTE]Her lawyer told 9NEWS she just forgot the gun was in her bag. [/QUOTE]
And the pope's a Presbyterian.

[QUOTE]Her lawyer told 9NEWS she just forgot the gun was in her bag.[/QUOTE]And the ironic part is that everything would probably have been perfectly fine if they didn't find the gun. It is not as though the gun will suddenly climb out of the bag and start shooting holes in people. I believe that she did forget about the gun, because taking it knowingly would be more unbelievable IMO. When things become common place they are easy to forget. And there is the real WTF; guns becoming so common place that they feel "normal" and give people comfort.

Anyhow, we shouldn't be spending so many resources looking for weapons, we [i]should[/i] be fixing society. In the land of the scared and the surveilled everyone "needs" a gun to "protect" themselves from what exactly?

[QUOTE=retina;473418]In the land of the scared and the surveilled everyone "needs" a gun to "protect" themselves from what exactly?[/QUOTE]

And the lesson today is how to die
And then the bullhorn crackles and the captain tackles
With the problems and the hows and whys
And he can see no reasons

'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to die, die, oh oh oh?

[QUOTE=xilman;473441]And the lesson today is how to die
[/QUOTE]
But it's Friday! :wink:

[QUOTE=retina;473418]And the ironic part is that everything would probably have been perfectly fine if they didn't find the gun. It is not as though the gun will suddenly climb out of the bag and start shooting holes in people. I believe that she did forget about the gun, because taking it knowingly would be more unbelievable IMO.[/QUOTE]
It does seem more likely she had forgotten about the gun than that she deliberately brought an unsecured, loaded gun into an international airport. A lack of criminal intent might get the charge dismissed, or knocked down to some minor infraction.

It is amusing, though, that the woman is a big "gun rights" advocate. I mean, with rights go responsibilities, and simply forgetting about a loaded gun in a bag one is bringing into an airport is IMHO less than responsible.

As to everything being fine if TSA hadn't found and reported the gun, that's [i]probable[/i]. There are, however, some fun alternatives. For example, the TSA screener is having a bad day/week/month/year/life, detects the gun, and, instead of reporting it, decides to take it and use it to go ape:censored:.

Or a disgruntled airport or airline employee. Or perhaps a passing thief rifles through the bag, and takes the gun for the purpose of making some quick cash. Since the owner had forgotten about it, the theft might not have been detected until Something Very Bad happened with that gun; and if it had subsequently been recovered and traced, much hilarity would have ensued.

I finally got around to following up on a story from around Thanksgiving. I was surprised that no charges had been filed at the time. The wheels of justice turned a bit after that... [url=https://nypost.com/2017/11/30/hunter-charged-after-shooting-woman-he-thought-was-a-deer/]Hunter charged after fatally shooting woman he mistook for deer[/url]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;473941]I finally got around to following up on a story from around Thanksgiving. I was surprised that no charges had been filed at the time. The wheels of justice turned a bit after that... [url=https://nypost.com/2017/11/30/hunter-charged-after-shooting-woman-he-thought-was-a-deer/]Hunter charged after fatally shooting woman he mistook for deer[/url][/QUOTE]
The law was very firm, it
Took away his permit,
The worst punishment he ever endured.
It turned out there was a reason,
Cows were out of season,
And one of the hunters wasn’t insured.