Skip to main content

Seriously? Do you NRA dimwits really think this crazy shit was what I meant when I came up with the Second Amendment? Are you kidding me? Maybe we didn't have your technology in 1787, but clearly we Founders were a hell of a lot smarter than you are. (Well I was smart anyway. Washington wasn't really that bright. Hamilton was no genius. Adams? Don't get me started.)
But never mind that.

Frankly, I wish I'd never even written that boneheaded amendment. What was I thinking? In retrospect, perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to drink all that wine right before the convention. All I wanted to do was go home and sleep it off. In fact, I was so bombed, I made a spelling error in my first draft, when I wrote, "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Just think how much better that would have been -- you wouldn't have a constitutional right to own a gun, but you would have the right to pull up your sleeves. But Tommy Jefferson, who was a little OCD, corrected it.

Now the damn thing has gotten all misconstrued.

For starters, do you really think you need an assault weapon to protect your home against intruders? How often does that happen? You're in bed, you hear a noise (which is probably the cat), you grab your assault weapon out of your closet, you pad downstairs in your comfy slippers, you hear the noise again and then you pump 30 rounds into your drapes. Nice going, Dillinger.

Here's an interesting development. I love this one. You morons allow people to carry concealed weapons. Oh please. So you can do what? Shoot somebody who double-dipped a cracker in the hummus?

And how come, when one of your numerous deranged nutcases decides to shoot twenty people at a mall, nobody in the crowd ever seems to have a concealed weapon except him?

And now you need an Uzi to kill a deer? This is what you call hunting, Davy Crockett? Are you kidding me? You can't eat a deer if it has six-hundred bullet holes in it, unless you don't mind cracking a crown. Nobody really likes venison anyway. It's gamey.

And how many of you lamebrains have accidentally shot yourselves or an innocent bystander or your neighbor's Camry? Or all three at the same time?

Clearly, being loaded is not a good state to be in when you're writing a constitution. In retrospect, I should have been more specific and worded it differently, giving American citizens "...the right to keep and bear harmless shitty weapons like muskets so you can maybe shoot something if it's not moving..."

That's right folks, I was talking about muskets. One lousy bullet per shot. Half the time, the goddamn thing blew up in your face. Or the bullet got stuck in the chamber. Or it just fell out of the barrel. And even if you could fire the damn thing, it almost always missed the target by a mile.

And, do you have any idea how long it took to load? Ten minutes! There was the powder and the flint and the wadding paper and the ramrod and all this other crap. Sometimes, you had to sit down to do it. You could have knitted a nice pair of socks instead. And if it rained or you dropped it in a lake, you were out of business.

Okay, maybe I misjudged future technology. My bad. You folks seem to have a lot of ingenuity for developing weapons, but where's the cure for cancer?

As for the part about forming militias to topple a lousy government? Guess what? You have a lousy government right now -- Congress, Supreme Court -- and I don't see any fireworks. Besides, that's kind of a long shot (no pun intended) isn't it? You've got a Glock. Whoopee. They've got the atomic bomb. Good luck with that.

You want to topple the government? Try voting. I assume you still have that right. What? Not so much in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida?

I know I speak on behalf of all the other signers of the Constitution when I say this to you NRA folks: "If that's a pistol in your pocket, chances are you'll accidentally shoot yourself in the nuts."

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  well, certainly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, theatre goon

    entrusting the writing of a bill of rights to someone who didn't want a bill of rights in the first place was a questionable decision.

    It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

    by happymisanthropy on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:42:26 PM PST

  •  Woo (7+ / 0-)

    I can sort of see where you are coming from, because guns are useless when you are fighting an army of strawmen.

  •  Hahahahahahahahaha. (14+ / 0-)

    I honestly thought about going through and responding to everything wrong but hey, I don't have that much time right now. (We'll see how much work I get done though.)

    What's your goal with this diary?

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 01:09:43 PM PST

  •  You have no idea what you're talking about... (14+ / 0-)

    ...do you?

    Let's just take the basic, easily checked facts, shall we?

    That's right folks, I was talking about muskets. One lousy bullet per shot. Half the time, the goddamn thing blew up in your face. Or the bullet got stuck in the chamber. Or it just fell out of the barrel. And even if you could fire the damn thing, it almost always missed the target by a mile.

    And, do you have any idea how long it took to load? Ten minutes! There was the powder and the flint and the wadding paper and the ramrod and all this other crap. Sometimes, you had to sit down to do it. You could have knitted a nice pair of socks instead.

    This is simply exposing your complete ignorance of the subject.

    In fact, a musket can be loaded in less than a minute with a bit of practice, and is extremely reliable and accurate.  They also will not, "explode in your face," unless, of course, you try to load one when you don't know what you're doing.

    Much like this diary, in fact...

    So, if you can't even get basic, simple facts anywhere close to correct, why would one accept any of your other assertions as anything other than being as ignorant as that one?

    A rhetorical question, of course.

    You are as misinformed about history as you are about the function of a musket.

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 03:13:23 PM PST

  •  History shows us that the real purpose of the 2nd (0+ / 0-)

    Amendment (actually the third article of the batch of proposed amendments) was meant to protect the right of the States to call up, arm and use a militia.  It turns out that the ONLY point of contention at the time that the 2nd was drafted, was over leaving in or taking out that part of the original draft, in which an individual had the right to NOT be subject to the State's ability to make them bear arms, simply because they happened to be a concientious objector.

    Having written the above, my favorite handgun has been the Baretta M84 and my favorite rifle has been the H&K Model 91 (the semi-auto version of the German Army's G3 battle rifle).

    •  Okay, almost correct. (10+ / 0-)

      7 Out of the original 13 States did provide a list of amendments they wanted added to the new constitution.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      New Hampshire said it most eloquently:

      XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
      The desire to add a Bill of Rights was to further clarify the things the newly formed central government could NEVER abrogate.

      This point was made by New York:

      and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
      However, the misunderstanding comes when one assumes that the Founders were claiming only the State could bear arms through raising a militia.  The State cannot be a "conscientious objector".  This anthropomorphizing of the State denies the very real argument that an individual had the unalienable right, not the State that was presented by Mr. Gerry during the First Debates in Congress, on said amendment.
      Pg. 778

       This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

      They were not talking about States' rights to raise a militia, but an individual right here.  They did grant one exception to the Federal Government when that unalienable right could be infringed, while in militia service, not before or after.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 04:35:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Article the Fourth (7+ / 0-)

      http://www.constitution.org/...

      I suggest you read the concurrent Militia Act of 1792 and determine from that document who, was to provide what, exactly.  (bold mine)

      http://www.constitution.org/...

      That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
    •  You're not quite right on several points (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, theatre goon, PavePusher

      The concern over the conscientious objector clause was, specifically, a fear that such a clause would be twisted by a tyrannical state, which could declare someone to be scrupulous without their consent, and use the declaration, along with a twisted version of the clause, to disbar them from their right to keep and bear arms.

      It's also important to point out that what we conceive, today, as "militia" is quite different from what was used then. Several drafts and proposals explicitly defined the militia in the clause in variants of "the body of persons capable of bearing arms". At no point in the extended debate was "militia" defined as any sort of organized paramilitary, but always merely as a subset of the population at large when acting in a specific capacity, much in the way "electorate" is used.

      Nor did the provisions to "arm" a militia mean the states, or federal government planned to provide anyone with guns. The expectation was that they would bring their own; proposals were made to provide guns to those who could not afford it, but were generally rejected. Madison's own commentaries indicated that the Article I power of Congress to "arm" the militia, when in Federal service, was intended for it to specify the length, type, and caliber of weapon to be used - not to for it to provide them. In other words, set standards.

      Finally, the notion that it was to protect a "state's right" is way off base. The Framers did not believe states had rights - only people. States have "powers", while the people have both "powers" and "rights". The Constitutional language is extremely consistent on this point. The 2nd is not about states at all, but about the people.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:28:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Short on facts, long on principle (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril
    Hidden by:
    IndieGuy, Tom Seaview

    I wholy agree with your sentaments here. The 2nd Amendment has been twisted so the gun fetishists think they have a right to own deadly arms. And actually, if you apply the 2nd to present law, it means that only the National Guard have a right to weapons to defend the US.

    However, these people are quick to jump on you for calling their precious weapons by incorrect names. I would suggest a bit more research first, then take it to the gun nuts.

    Good luck!

    •  And all that you can offer... (12+ / 0-)

      ...in support of the diarist is personal insult and equally erroneous assertions.

      That's just sad.  

      Just about what we've come to expect, but sad, nonetheless.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 03:56:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Truth is tough (1+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Peril
        Hidden by:
        IndieGuy, Tom Seaview

        gun nuts contribute to a culture that kills tens of thousands of americans each year. their sad, misplaced devotion to equally misplaced constitutional interpretations so they can get deadly weapons that all civilized countries have either banned  or severely restricted is pitiful.

        the huge number of deadly weapons is a reminder of how behind the US is when compared to civilized countries.

        •  Define "civilized" to the Swedes, will ya? (6+ / 0-)

          They not only demand their people be armed, they provide them with the equipment.

          Your theory here of what constitutes "civilized" does not float in the real world.

          You may not understand this but we have the unalienable right to self-defense by whatever means may be necessary.

          The most effective tool created, that makes all men equal, are firearms.  This includes the infirmed & physically disabled in our society.

          Should they be left without the means of self-defense in your "civilized" society?

          As for your "culture" remark, I actually agree, but even my personal opinion that movies, tv and violent video games adds to those deaths is simply mistaken. Violent crimes & murders have gone down to a 40 yr low.  

          Surprising isn't it???

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 04:44:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  guns are made for killing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cartoon Peril

            and are not unnecessary now. self defense is outdated. we have police. the last we need is a bunch of yahoos blowing holes in anyone that isn't white.

            its up to the government to protect people. the police and the military. not vigilante action that hurts far more than it helps.

            •  rofl (10+ / 0-)

              The lethality of firearms is exactly why I own them.

              Police? Really? Police don't even have a duty to protect you. They're clean up.

              Self defense isn't vigilante. Self defense is a human right.

              Oh, and self defense? Yeah, that occurs a lot more frequently than you think. The LOW end of defensive gun uses is 108k a year. The high? 2.5 million.

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 04:54:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  bullcrap (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cartoon Peril

                ive seen both these studies (kleck for the higher one, right?)

                they're so full of holes that someone probably shot the research. not to mention that Kleck is a gun nut himself.

                Self defense is a right. guns are not. if you insist on not calling the police like everyone else, learn nonlethal methods. even better, learn conflict resolution to not get into these situations in the first place.

                •  Self defense is a right (13+ / 0-)

                  and you cannot remove that right by removing the means to exercise that right.

                  It is a dog's right to defend itself from attack. If you yank his teeth, you are effectively removing the pooch's ability to defend himself. Therefore, the pooch has the right to his teeth.

                  Cats have the right to defend themselves. If you declaw a cat, you are effectively removing the cat's ability to hold anything at bay and strip the cat of the ability to flee up a tree. Therefore, cats have the right to their claws.

                  People do not have defensive teeth like a dog, nor claws like a cat. We fragile pink-skin soft-bellied hairless apes have our tools to use to defend our squishy selves. That means guns.

                  So yeah, I've a right to the fruits of my sapient tool-creating fellow hominids. Get over it.

                  •  when the means for "self defense" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cartoon Peril

                    or whatever peoples' excuse for owning deadly weapons is, become more of a societal menace than benifit, we certainly have the right to take it away from untrained, irresponsible people.

                    besides, where are you getting these "rights"? a right to own guns isn't in the constitution. read it sometime.

                    •  Neither is the right to own paper. (12+ / 0-)

                      Yet you needed paper in order to have freedom of the press.

                      The government isn't required by the constitution to have offices for the public to access, but without those offices the public would not be able to exercise their right to petition for redress of grievances.

                      The mechanism I refer to here is the same limitation of access to a right that was used in the first jim crow days... The public has the right to vote, therefore obstructions and hurdles ((such as poll taxes and/or literacy tests)) that prevent access to the polls were unconstitutional.
                      Along the same rationale, creatures of the genus/species Homo Sapiens have the right to defend their selves. Without natural fang or claw or tough skin armor, the most popular method of exercising that right is the handgun. Therefore, an obstruction or hurdle that prevents people from that inalienable right becomes just as unconstitutional as a literacy test.
                      Same rationale goes for abortion. A woman has the right to her own body. An obstruction or hurdle that prevents a woman from full governance over her own body violates that right of self ownership.

                      That's where these 'rights' come from, they exist within the penumbra of the shape of the constitution. Take a philosophy class sometime.

                    •  Society has no rights, show me where they (8+ / 0-)

                      are listed in the constitution?

                      In fact, wasn't one of the issues in the creation of our current republican government to protect from the tyranny of democracy?

                      http://xroads.virginia.edu/...

                      Mr. Madison expresses the same opinion in The Federalist, No. 51. "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.

                      Jefferson also said: "The executive power in our government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period."

                      You did say this, correct?
                      we certainly have the right to take it away from untrained, irresponsible people.
                      Now, would you allow the same standard be placed upon your writings here? Or your right to self-expression? Or your right to practice a religion? I personally think all those Jehovah's Witnesses are annoying and irresponsible, bothering me at dinner time. NO, dare I say, they are a societal menace to good Christian values! They must not be allowed to do such things!!!!

                      Ughhhhhhhh!

                      You can decide to pursue Article V provisions within our Constitution to negate said protections, if you so desire.  Until such time as "that damn piece of paper" is amended, this is a futile endeavor for both of us.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:35:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I wholly agree (0+ / 0-)

                        no rights are absolute. for example, one cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre. One cannot write lies about people. A religious group can't practice human sacrificial. There are limits to freedom.

                        People that don't use their rights responsibly should have those rights restricted, simple as that. For example, hate speech. Not responsible use. Therefore it should be banned.

                        Same with guns. Guns are irresponsible. They kill tens of thousands. For what? So some people can feel better knowing they can blast anything that comes through the door, even if it's just a lost guy?

                        Our consitution is a living document. it must be interpreted in a modern sense. owning guns might have made sense when rich white men had to keep their slaves in line, or other rich white men wanted to move natives off a nice chunk of valuable land, but it doesn't make sense now. Not with police, and sure as hell not with assault weapons and .50 caliber sniper rifles that can take out a 747 from a mile away.

                    •  It certainly is in there. Like Ragu.... (5+ / 0-)

                      "read it sometime", indeed.

                    •  I've read it. It's right there in the 2nd; as guns (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, PavePusher

                      are a subset of the class of weapon called "arms".

                      It would be nice if there were a, say, lexicographer contemporary with the Framers, who could shed some light on what words meant in the Framers' time period, so as to illuminate things for those writing with 225 years of linguistic drift.

                      Oh, right, there was that Webster guy.

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                      by Robobagpiper on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 01:39:51 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  THAT was the problem. (8+ / 0-)

                  Kimberly Cates ANTAGONIZED these fine young men.
                  She GOADED them into breaking in.  TAUNTED them into killing her, and leaving her daughter for dead.

                  Sporks, you're onto something here.  

                  Sadly our elected representatives just don't get it.

                  A woman doing this sort of thing deserves what she gets... and has no right to think about harming the very persons she enticed into criminal wrongdoing.

                  Andrew "Dice" Clay would be proud of you.

                  •  its worth considering his point of view (0+ / 0-)

                    people just dont invade homes for no reason. there is a reason.

                    did he not have a home? did he not have a job?

                    we have to consider all points of view, not just the one that seems moral.

                    not an excuse for murder, but possibly an explanation.

                    •  or they were adequately well-to-do (9+ / 0-)

                      bored, and fueled by some mind-altering substance.

                      So the homicide being her (the victim's) fault rests well with you eh?
                      Good to know.

                      No doubt rape is brought-on by the woman as well.
                      Luckily, per the GOP: "a woman's body has a means to deal with that".

                      Not so well, with a machete.  

                    •  Sporks belief systems says... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Otteray Scribe, 43north

                      Since one priest committs pedophilia, all priests are pedophiles, got it.

                      Some women, very few, are whores and since all women have a vagina they are all whores, got it.

                      Some men, very few, are rapists so since all men have a penis,  all men are rapists, got it.

                      Some police commit rape, murder, drug dealing, assault so all cops are felons, got it.

                      Geez, isnt this fun, no one is responsible for their own actions either based on an internet fruitcakes warped morals who is so demented and dangerous to themself that his doctors wont even let him use any utensil but a spork!

                    •  Wow, apologetics for violent criminals (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, theatre goon, PavePusher

                      Please stop talking. I'd like to keep racking up electoral victories for our party. Voters seeing people claiming to be Dems making excuses for violent criminals as a justification for disarming their victims will understandably turn away from the Dem party.

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                      by Robobagpiper on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:40:22 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, it was "legitimate rape". (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      Got it.  My bad.....

                •  LOL, bend over and take it eh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  Oh thats right, criminals have superior rights and a woman raped and strangled with her oanty hose is more morally acceptable than a dead attacker.

                •  Seeing as guns fall under the category of "arms", (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, PavePusher

                  which the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution describes as a right held by the people that shall not be infringed, I'm pretty confident that under our system of law, you're full of shit.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 01:34:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I'll agree with "that isn't white" (7+ / 0-)

              As to "protected BY the police"?

              More on NYPD and their adherence to progressive views.

              Why risk the lives of the PD, Military and CIA here at home?

              IF a drone sees you doing something the operator feels is against the public order, than let the chips fall where they may.

              OBEY.

            •  "self defense is outdated."??????!!?!?!?! (8+ / 0-)

              The fuck you say.

            •  P.S. Insinuated racism? (6+ / 0-)

              Fuck that noise too.

              And self-defense is not "vigilante action".

              Your dictionary is Teh Phale.

            •  Man, what planetoid and galaxy are you from.. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Otteray Scribe, 43north, PavePusher

              ..oh thats right, your a Borg, resistance is futile.

              Geez, like the Borg, your belief is fiction.

              Review of just one website that collates actual police incident reports, Keep & Bear Arms, oldest incident dated 9/4/2012, we see all these self defense occurrences.

              Review of the other site ..KC3, Armed Citizen, Aemrican Rifleman, Guns Save Lives and many more show between 100-300 such POLICE/GOVT reported incidents per month.

              Sad that doesnt include all those incidents where shots were not fired. But hey, since 85% of incidents where a firearm is involved shots were not fired, and in only 15% of those where shots were fired was the target hit, you can prove all those incidents were not self defense, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO.

              Since those are GOVT reports, any claim of bias just means the local village has found their lost idiot.

              • Concealed Carrying Walmart Customer in OH Draws Gun on Parking Lot Attacker (OH)
              • Store Clerk Shoots 1 of 2 Armed, Masked Robbers (CA)
              • Marine Veteran Defends Home from Intruder (OK)
              • NOLA Cab Driver Shoots Armed Robber in the Face (LA)
              • New Mexico woman shot intruder who followed her home, deputies say (NM)
              • Coney island patron kills would-be robber during a gunfight (MI)
              • Elderly Texas Homeowner Shoots 2 Home Invaders, Kills 1 (TX)
              • 69 Year Old CA Homeowner Shoots Intruder in Buttocks With .38 During Robbery (CA)
              • Store Clerk Shoots 2 Armed Robbers, Kills 1 Who Was Gang Member (NM)
              • Homeowner Shoots 1 of 3 Armed Home Invaders During Gunfight (FL)
              • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Nine Pellets of OO Justice Edition (OH)
              • Undercover Detective in FL Shoots and Kills Shotgun Wielding Robbery Suspect (FL)
              • Suspect nabbed in Chelmsford, MA housebreak (MA)
              • Apparent self-defense fatal shooting under investigation in Delaware County (OK)
              • Bank President Pulls Gun on Bank Robber (MO)
              • Homeowner Fires at, Scares Off Burglar (MI)
              • Home invasion suspect shot by female victim (AL)
              • Armed Burglar Sues 90 Year Old Homeowner For Shooting Him During Attack (CA)
              • Homeowner shoots home invader, protecting wife and child (UT)
              • Owner of Pizzeria Shoots and Kills Armed Robber (IN)
              • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Tough Old Bird Edition (FL)
              • Reasons why you shouldn't try stealing a gun owner's car (MO)
              • Elyria homeowner sleeps with gun after burglary, shoots intruder when he comes back for seconds (OH)
              • Authorities: Man fatally shot during home invasion (MI)
              • Police: Homicide victim killed in self-defense (GA)
              • Police: Killing of gang member was self-defense (CA)
              • Cab driver shoots at robber who pointed gun (PA)
              • Twelve-year-old Bryan Co. girl shoots home intruder (OK)
              • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Don’t Mess with Texas Edition (TX)
              • Mesa father fatally shoots man beating up his son (AZ)
              • Dead man was burglar, shooter tells police (OH)
              • Michigan Father Wields Shotgun Against Daughter's Ex-Boyfriend (MI)
              • Concealed Carrier Shoots and Wounds Shotgun Wielding Armed Robber (TX)
              • 70 Year Old WVA Woman Chases Off Burglar Using Revolver After He Punches Her in the Face (WV)
              • Police say man acted in self-defense to shoot offender (NM)
              • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Conflicted Edition (CA)
              • 72 Year Old California Homeowner Shoots, Kills Bulgar Who Cut Power To His Home Before Breaking In (CA)
              • Elderly MI Homeowner Shoots 1 of 2 Burglars With a .410 Shotgun (MI)
              • Father Shoots 1 of 3 Home Invaders Who Cut Power To His Home Before Attacking (FL)
              • Homeowner Shoot and Kills Violent Home Invader, Wounds Another, Third Captured (IN)
              • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Broad Daylight Edition (KS)
              • Media: "Akron would-be robbers take off when victim, CCW permit holder, pulls gun on them" (OH)
              • Homeowner Shoots 1 of 3 Armed Home Invaders, Others Flee (FL)
              • Police: Store employee fatally shot suspected would-be robber (IN)
              • Indianapolis liquor store worker shoots armed robber dead (IN)
              • Former Houston Firefighter Shoots and Kills 1 of 2 Armed Home Invaders (TX)
              • Arcade manager shoots, kills armed would-be robber (TX)
              • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Double Tap Edition (CT)
              • Off Duty FL Cop Shoots and Kills Registered Sex Offender Who Broke Into His Girlfriend’s Home (FL)
              • Son in Law Draws Gun to Protect In-laws’ Property After Good Neighbor Called Him (GA)
              • 69 Year Old Homeowner in SD Shoots and Kills 21 Year Old Home Invader (SD)
              • Woman Says Her Life Was Saved by Shooting at Late Night Burglar (WI)
              • Muskegon County man with calm nerves, shotgun talks down intruders (MI)
              • Store owner shoots at robbers (KY)
              • Gunman dies from gunshot wounds (UT)
              • St. Paul mom, daughter hold burglar for police with pink gun (MN)
              • 10 year-old with BB gun saves mother's life from attacker (WA)
              • Buckeyes for Concealed Carry President Uses Handgun to Defend Family (OH)
              • Homeowner Wakes Up To Morning Home Invader, Fights Back (SC)
              • Employee fatally shoots back at customer who opened fire at Don's Guns (IN)
              • DGU of the Day: Shotgun-Wielding Neighbor Runs Off Rapist Edition (TX)
              • Big Bad Wolf gets perforated while threatening Little Red Riding Hood (TX)
              • Musician in CA Uses Gun to Stop Burglars For The Second Time In His Life (CA)
              • Police: Detroit man shot back at would-be robbers, killed teen (MI)

              • Disabled Homeowner Shoots and Kills Female Burglar (OK)
              • Big Bad Wolf gets perforated while threatening Little Red Riding Hood (TX)
              • Disabled Oklahoma Homeowner Shoots and Kills 1 of 3 Women Who Broke Into His Home (OK)
              • 68-year-old woman fires gun to chase off attacker (OH)
              • Armed Houston, TX Restaurant Owner Chases Off 2 Burglars (TX)
              • Winslow Township Pharmacist Fires Handgun At Would-Be Robber (NJ)
              • Homeowner Catches Three Car Thieves, Held Them at Gunpoint Until Police Arrived (MO)
              • NOLA Homeowner Still Without Power Shoots Looter in the Face (LA)
              • Phoenix Homeowner Unloads Birdshot into Would-be Robber (AZ)
              • Homeowner Shoots 1 of 2 Intruders, Suspects Caught When They Ran Right Into a Rape Crime Scene (IN)
              • Lexington, KY Homeowner Shoots At, Scares Off Daytime Intruder (KY)

          •  You mean Swiss, surely. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, rockhound, PavePusher

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm gonna toss pastries at the ad homs every time. (6+ / 0-)

      Bon apetit.

    •  Please, present your evidence. (6+ / 0-)

      We await it eagerly.

    •  Fetishism is the belief... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Otteray Scribe, 43north

      .. that an inanimate object has supernatural powers to choose a target, load, aim and pull its own trigger.

      Whereas gun owners dont love, make love to, or marry a firearm instead they love the idea said firearm represents, the right to choose. Unless you have a website, magazine or some club where you can prove gun owners having sex with firearms or valid marrigae licenses?

      Oh thats right, maybe in homosexual circles, and a few kinky sites where women, you know, those genetically built where the barrel of a firearm may indeed be used sexually. But since the majority of gun owners are men, goes without saying.

      Sexual fetishism, is where the phallic symbolism said inanimate object imparts upon the feeble minded, causes such a psychosocial reaction as to make it nearly impossible for said afflicted individual to function in public. This reaction is demonstrated by the incessant, lame, and childish attempts at demonization of those they associate with the object of their fear, a firearm.

      Then of course there is the advanced stage of fetishism, that mental health professionals do indeed recognize as mental illness. Where one believes that said inanimate object has the powers to use its voice and esp to force a person close by to commit a violent act.

      Luckily for the public safety, most who hear voices and must obey are locked away for being the loveable, violent schizophrenics they are.

      You were saying illiterate one?

    •  You fail Constitutional history (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, theatre goon, PavePusher

      It's amazing how many gun controllers will issue decrees about what the 2nd really meant without actually doing any research into the contemporary debates on the matter.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:29:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  no points (10+ / 0-)

    "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

    by Tom Seaview on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 03:55:53 PM PST

  •  oh, and gun owners don't eat hummus (0+ / 0-)

    they do velveeta/rotel.

  •  Do not mock the 2nd Amendment Religion! (0+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 05:23:51 PM PST

  •  How many folks here were happy to see... (9+ / 0-)

    ...our Senate victories in Missouri, North Dakota, and Montana? Me too, and you can forget ever seeing them again if we start pushing gun control again. Please, please think about the consequences of your actions.

    You want twelve dollar gasoline? Bomb Iran!

    by wishbone on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:11:39 PM PST

    •  says who? (0+ / 0-)

      a lot of people just dont know the horror of guns in america. if we put our minds to it to inform people, they will be first on the bandwagon.

      especially with common sense regulations, like an assault weapon ban, microstamping, and registration.

      •  I find your ideas interesting... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tom Seaview, theatre goon, 43north

        and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

      •  hi (6+ / 0-)

        Please define "assault weapon" in a way that does not refer to cosmetic features or exclude firearms commonly used for sporting purposes.

      •  Wow, a insane obamabot.. (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        tytalus

        ..claiming insanity and the pathological lie that gun control reduces violence when it never does = common sense.

        But hey, refusing to acknowledge Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 anf how the 8-1 vote affirmed the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination. Yeah sad how our own government acknowledges that 85% of the exsiting 22,417 gun control laws dont apply to felons as identifying oneself by registration and such, dont apply to felons.

        You mean microstamping, a mark that has been proven only to be 52% repeatable by the patent holder, LOL, that any good defense lawyer would love for any idiuot prosecuting attonrey to try and use as evidence when our legal system still has the premise of REASONABLE DOUBT, a mark that can be removed by use of a simple rattail file, that can be defeated by picking up brass at the gun range from other marked weapons and spreading at the crime site, that wont affect people using a revolver.

        Hey they tried something just like this called CoBIS in MD, NY, NJ at $4 mil per year. Keeping a database of fire shells and over 11 years, all it managed to do was trace and prove, yep, two firearms were indeed stolen, solving no violent crimes, not reducing violence in any fashion. It was defunded in summer 2012 as a $44 mil dollar waste of taxpayers money.

        Oh you mean like the registration Canada, where there is just over 50% compliance, 47 guna traced a stolen, and not one single violent crime solved much less prevented. Funny how even the Cannucks have defunded the long gun portion of the registry in summer 2012 also as the cost to taxpayers now exceed $2 billion, wow how ineffective that gun control is.

        Oh you mean like the semi-autorifle banned because they look evil? Where the violent crime rate before, 1994, during 1994-2004, and after 2004 was the same?

        The  one where looking at the FBI report from several years ago?

        Violent Encounters – A study of Felonious Assaults on our nations law enforcement officers
        USDOJ, FBI, National Institute of Justice
        August 2006

        http://www.americanfirearms.org/...
        http://www.americanfirearms.org/...
        http://www.americanfirearms.org/...
        http://www.americanfirearms.org/...
        http://www.americanfirearms.org/...

        You can go here and read the National Sciences Foundation report from 2004 on gun control laws, a study that was formed by the anti gun Clinton Administration so just like the Ludgwig & Cooke study noted below, doesn't prove any causality theory, much less any effect of gun control laws on violent crime, but then you have better data and facts than these experts who by chance, are anti gun, yeah, they are, sucks for the antis when their own study hurts their position, LOL! "

        An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, National Institute of Justice, June 2004

        http://www.ncjrs.gov/...

         E.G. Government admits the ban didnt do didley squat

        Firearm Violence, a critical Review" 2004  

        http://www.nap.edu/...

        Or should you go to the FBI UCR database and review how in 2010 out of 1.28 mil violent crimes reported (4 mil not reported) 361,000 involved a firearm, 14,748 murders, 358 of which a rifle of any type was used, 162 of which a semi-auto rifle banned because they look evil was used.

        All while deaths committed by illegal use of hands, feet, fists, blunt objects, andknives each by themself, totalled more than semi-auto rifle banned because they look evil, in fact totalling over 1,900 deaths.

        Real common sense would dictate that you address the largest problem first.

        So you few einsteins get right on  registering and banning hands, feet, fists, all blunt objects and knives ok Don Quixotes, LOL, what maroons!

        •  Jarhead - drop the use of Obamabot. (3+ / 0-)

          You're not doing your posts justice.
          The information contained therein, is lost due to the static generated by "Obamabot".

          The Romneybots would have elected a man with a proven history of enacting an Assault Weapon Ban, that being a politically operative tool for the advancement of other goals.  Quid Pro Quo.

          This comment is from someone who didn't vote for Obama, as he's not progressive-enough.

          Otherwise?  Good research.

  •  The ignorance is strong with this one (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, theatre goon, PavePusher

    It's like biblical exegesis from someone who's read nothing more of scripture than a few of the phrases in red and the Decalogue, much less knowing the first thing about archaeology of the Levant.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:46:13 AM PST

  •  Well, there's a point to that: the RKBA theory (0+ / 0-)

    is that the founding fathers were granting to individuals the right to shoot the founding fathers in armed revolution.    Which seems pretty unlikely, given how close they had already come to being hanged for political beliefs, and how early rebellions were put down with extreme prejudice.

    See, e.g., the federal reaction to the Whiskey Rebellion:

    On August 7, 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation, calling out the militia and ordering the disaffected westerners to return to their homes. Washington's order mobilized an army of approximately 13,000 — as large as the one that had defeated the British — under the command of General Harry Lee, the then-Governor of Virginia and father of Robert E. Lee. Washington himself, in a show of presidential authority, set out at the head of the troops to suppress the uprising.

    This was the first use of the Militia Law of 1792 setting a precedent for the use of the militia to "execute the laws of the union, (and) suppress insurrections," asserting the right of the national government to enforce order in one state with troops raised in other states. Even more importantly, it was the first test of power of the new federal government, establishing its primacy in disputes with individual states.

    http://www.earlyamerica.com/...

    Notably, even today, the officials who state that they believe that gun rights are meant to be used to defend against tyrannical officials work behind heavy security.  

    One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

    by Inland on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:39:38 PM PST

  •  He did some of his best writing hammered. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas
    "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

    - James Madison

    Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

    by SpamNunn on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:45:49 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site