Thread: A Psychopath and the NRA

So, you're saying we ought to have laws designed around the assumption that everyone may be a psychopath? Should a woman be subjected to a background check for mental problems before having an abortion? And if there is such a history, she is to be denied the abortion?

You are comparing being naked on TV, which is NOT a Constitutionally guaranteed right, to a Constitutionally guaranteed right? LOL

The true danger to our safety is the Fascist progressives trying to take out guns from us.

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem."

Was he unaware of what Tim McVeigh did without firing a single shot from a Bushmaster?

Those of his ilk should put there ideology to the test; let women use guns to defend their genitals. Let's see if the Republicans ban guns. Or we'll see exposed the Leftist's hatred, lies and subterfuge.

This myth about "unlicensed dealers" is pure folly. There is no such creature under the law. The claim that an FFL holder could drop their licensure and continue to sell firearms is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT.

When I got to the line, "semi automatic MACHINE guns" I stopped reading. I once watched a congressional hearing in which no one seemed to know that a semi auto was different from an auto. They referred to them as if there was no difference. Ignorance? Hardly. Some were playing DUMB, those ivy league grads.

We need to work on fixin' this rotten society, then the gun problem and other problems will magically fix themselves. How did we manage to make it for over 200 years before so many americans started going nuts, killing people in such numbers, in so many instances? What changed in society? Find that and you find the cause.

Originally Posted by midcan5

A psychopath answers the NRA's question, do gun regulations work?

from p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.

"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! "






"Reynolds: Would any of the various proposals have actually prevented the tragedy that is the supposed reason for them?

Leiter: Yes, a total ban on private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, such as the Bushmaster rifle used by the Newtown killer, would have made a difference. We can not control very well who gets ahold of guns once they are in private hands, but we can do better at controlling the kinds of guns that are even in circulation. Australia has kindly run a natural experiment for us: after a series of mass shootings, culminating in the Port Arthur incident in which 35 were murdered in 1996, the conservative Prime Minister John Howard (who, some will recall, supported President Bush in the Iraq war) spearheaded uniform gun control throughout Australia; "the new gun laws banned rapid-fire long guns, specifically to reduce their availability for mass shootings. Under the 1996–7 Australian Firearms Buyback, 643,726 newly prohibited semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were purchased by the federal government from their civilian owners at market value....Tens of thousands of gun owners also voluntarily surrendered additional, non-prohibited firearms without compensation."
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports: Glenn Reynolds wants to have a "conversation" about guns


"Late in 1997, Eric took notice of school shooters. "Every day news broadcasts stories of students shooting students, or going on killing sprees," he wrote. He researched the possibilities for an English paper. Guns were cheap and readily available. Gun Digest said you could get a Saturday night special for $69. And schools were easy targets. "It is just as easy to bring a loaded handgun to school as it is to bring a calculator," Eric wrote... "Ouch!" his teacher responded in the margin. Overall, he rated it "thorough & logical. Nice job." 'Columbine' p199 Dave Cullen


"The logic is inexorable: as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. When most citizens then have the ability to kill anyone in their vicinity in an instant, everyone is less secure than they would be if no one had guns other than the members of a democratically accountable police force.

The logic of private gun possession is thus similar to that of the nuclear arms race. When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable. The other states then have an incentive to get nuclear weapons to try to restore their security. As more states get them, the incentives for others increase. If eventually all get them, the potential for catastrophe — whether through irrationality, misperception, or accident — is great. Each state’s security is then much lower than it would be if none had nuclear weapons." Gun 'Control' Is Not Enough - NYTimes.com


"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/...ein_Quotes.pdf

Switzerland -- Almost 100% gun ownership by law -- If not the lowest then almost the lowest violent crime rate in the world.

Now how does disarming people improve the crime rate?

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

When I got to the line, "semi automatic MACHINE guns" I stopped reading. I once watched a congressional hearing in which no one seemed to know that a semi auto was different from an auto. They referred to them as if there was no difference. Ignorance? Hardly. Some were playing DUMB, those ivy league grads.

We need to work on fixin' this rotten society, then the gun problem and other problems will magically fix themselves. How did we manage to make it for over 200 years before so many americans started going nuts, killing people in such numbers, in so many instances? What changed in society? Find that and you find the cause.

It's due to several causes with lack of respect for human life being very near or at the top of the list.

Laws aren't going to fix that.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Those of his ilk should put there ideology to the test; let women use guns to defend their genitals. Let's see if the Republicans ban guns. Or we'll see exposed the Leftist's hatred, lies and subterfuge.

Post of the year

Originally Posted by MattInFla

This myth about "unlicensed dealers" is pure folly. There is no such creature under the law. The claim that an FFL holder could drop their licensure and continue to sell firearms is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT.

Actually I gently disagree...

Whither or not a FFL holder 'drops' his license, or keeps it and 'sells on the side' or someone else, who never had a FFL sells guns, once someone sells a gun outside of the existing laws... they too have (wait for it...) BROKE THE LAW.

And in fairness, there are people out there that will sell guns outside the law. And to these people too, one law or a hundred, they will, if they can, sell guns w/o care for the law.

Once you have made the decision to kill 100 people, breaking the law a couple of more times to get a gun illegally is nothing to you.
Once you have made the decision to sell guns illegally, pass one law or one hundred, they are all nothing to you.

So the same psycho will drive his car into a crowd.
A psycho is a psycho is a psycho.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Whither or not a FFL holder 'drops' his license, or keeps it and 'sells on the side' or someone else, who never had a FFL sells guns, once someone sells a gun outside of the existing laws... they too have (wait for it...) BROKE THE LAW.

tsquare, I am very sad to see you have bought into what Ayn Rand called the Great Inversion! Americans exercising freedom (in one private citizen selling his private property to another private citizen) is no kind of breaking the law but has been spun to call it a damnable "loop hole." Compare and contrast private gun sales to the principle of Roe v Wade - right to privacy.

As I understand the law, to enjoy the privileges that come with a FFL (government license) is the obligation to check someone's backgrounds. To not have a government license is not breaking the law. I know enemies of liberty want us to accept the premise that there ought to be a law to stop Americans from exercising their freedom, in doing with their own property what they damn well please.

Libertarians reject such premises out of hand. Rather than get lost in the minutia of legality and entangling precedents, keep your eye squarely on the premise. As Dr Martin Luther King pointed out, we should respect only the laws that are justified and not respect laws that are unjustified - as opposed to holding all laws passed by tyrants as equally deserving our respect b/c "it is the law."

Sure, enemies of liberty may from time to time advance their nefarious agenda by getting people to pass a law that they already believed was law as you are speaking of. Some fight these successfully in court and others, like Obamacare, lose in court. Keep in mind the wisdom of Jefferson, that the tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. The Great Inversion is rather than have government only allowed to do what is authorized by law and people free to do all but what is restricted, the opposite is the case; government is allowed all power not expressly forbid them and people may only do what is legally allowed.

This is sometimes communicated by using the terms "illegal" and "unlawful" as synonyms. Nothing could be further from the truth. One is against the law. The other is acting without lawful authority, a term that specifically applies to agents of the government. People do not need lawful authority to act. The people's authority to act is from Nature not government. This is radically different from the authority government rightfully acts, which is from the people. Example: It is unlawful for you to breath. But it is not illegal. Likewise, it is unlawful for you to sell private property (a gun included). But it is not illegal.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

When I got to the line, "semi automatic MACHINE guns" I stopped reading. I once watched a congressional hearing in which no one seemed to know that a semi auto was different from an auto. They referred to them as if there was no difference. Ignorance? Hardly. Some were playing DUMB, those ivy league grads.

We need to work on fixin' this rotten society, then the gun problem and other problems will magically fix themselves. How did we manage to make it for over 200 years before so many americans started going nuts, killing people in such numbers, in so many instances? What changed in society? Find that and you find the cause.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Bingo. Nail on the head.