“She’s got to. She’s a Democrat. She must prove she loves America, as opposed to Republicans, who everyone knows loves America: they just hate half the people living in it.”
— Jon Stewart; “The Daily Show,” August 26, 2008
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Indecision 2008 – Michelle Obama’s Patriotism | ||||
|
||||
Firstly, that whole episode of “The Daily Show” last night was pure genius. They are in Denver for the Democratic National Convention, providing their characteristic “coverage” of the speeches and news surrounding the event. This is the kind of thing the writers/producers of the show win a Peabody, and surely this election cycle will be no different.
Secondly, I have been watching some of the speeches, but at the very least, the “big name” speech of each night, including Michelle Obama (as described in the video above) and Hillary Clinton.
Michelle Obama is a badass and I’d love to see her in a debate with Cindy McCain, ’cause it’d be brutal and sad. I like that she doesn’t take any crap from people, and that she has a mind of her own. Watching Laura Bush speak…very occasionally (what…she talks?)…is very uninspiring, and mostly boring. Michelle wrote her own speech (according to Rep. Harold Ford) and delivered it as well as her husband would have. Beautiful, inspiring words…and yes, she’s patriotic…
Hillary Clinton spoke last night and, while I wasn’t quite as “inspired” as I was by Michelle Obama’s, it was still an excellent speech that held the tone of party unity admirably. From the outset, she expressed her support for Obama and the party as a whole, discussed her accomplishments in the campaign, and even stuck it to McCain as, perhaps, only she could. I’m glad she’s putting this “divided party” thing to bed, thankfully not providing a spectacle for the pundits to tear apart and report on for 25 hours a day (not a typo). Either way, it sounds like most people were very impressed by her words and that she’s a team player, which will probably just make her more powerful within the party than she ever would have been as President.
Only a few months left!
This post prompted me to buy the next 16 episodes of TDS on iTunes. To hell with $65/month cable.
“accordate”. heh.
You know you can watch most of those for free at Dailyshow.com, right?
This whole week has been ridiculous, man…beautiful, beautiful commentary… If you didn’t get these in iTunes, be sure to watch all of this week’s shows online!
I might vote for him, but if he takes my guns I’m coming after you.
Well…so long as you don’t get a criminal record, then you won’t have to worry about having your guns taken away.
…for now.
He supports a total ban on semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and all handguns.
Directly from the man’s website:
“Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.”
And the definition of a semiautomatic weapon, from the bill itself and its 60 co-signers in the Senate, and referenced from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban):
“… semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”
So yeah. You tell me why you need an AK-47 or AR-15 to take down a deer or pheasant…
A semi-automatic was used at Virginia Tech, for the record. Both shooters at Columbine had semi-automatics.
Yeah, I don’t see a problem with this!
“not particularly suitable for sporting purposes”
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment has never been for hunting deer or pheasant. It doesn’t exist as the SECOND amendment to our constitution so we can eat some deer meat. It exists so we can protect ourselves from others and from our government. You tell me how a people should protect themselves from such a government without formidable weapons. Nazi Germany understood that to subdue racial groups of people they needed to be relatively unarmed, and they enacted things like the first gun registration the earth had ever seen, which led to the banning and confiscation of “military” weapons. They didn’t think their government would turn on them, but guess who gassed millions of unarmed people?
“A semi-automatic was used at Virginia Tech, for the record. Both shooters at Columbine had semi-automatics. ”
And Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. Ought we ban its use? No, of course not. Drunk drivers kill people every day, should we ban alcohol or cars? Fertilizer, like semi-automatics, has a legitimate legal purpose. Millions and millions of people own these things and use them responsibly. Some people break laws, and it’ll never change.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the Second Amendment… It reads as follows:
“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.”
So yeah, check out that “well regulated” part… Meaning “the crazies don’t get guns, and if you want to have a gun, that’s cool, but it needs to be regulated.” There’s ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Second Amendment about defending yourself from the government. Perhaps that’s IMPLIED, but if we’re going the “implication” route, then I’m sure it could be IMPLIED that not everyone needs to have a semi-automatic weapon, and only people that are actually in an active militia should have access to such a thing.
Oh yeah, and fertilizer is relatively well regulated. If you go and buy a barrel of fertilizer, rest assured that Homeland Security will be keeping an eye on your house, dude.
perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the supreme court?
If you read the transcripts from the arguments that the founders laid out when arguing for this amendment, it becomes clear that they intend it as an individual right and that it exists for personal protection as well as protection from the government. the supreme court agrees.
Also- the people of the day were allowed to have the most sophisticated firearms available. If you restrict firearms to only those useful for sport- then you have a nation of sporters, not a nation capable of protecting itself from tyranny. Lets restrict the 1st amendment to only ink and pen. The typewriter, computer, and modern media are much too powerful, and clearly were never meant to fall under 1st amendment protection.
Furthermore: how does banning guns, in your mind, make violence go down? Look at all the cities in America that have comprehensive bans on handguns, or other types of guns. All of them have crime rates that have RISEN since these bans have been enacted. The same is true of Concealed Carry Laws… once they’re enacted, state crime rates go down. But Obama wants a nationwide ban on CCW. You see, it would seem that the good guys listen when you say, “no guns!” but of course, the bad guys do not! On the same token, bad guys take note when good guys are armed. There is a reason “Hot” burglaries are not nearly as prevalent in the US as they are in places with very few guns, like the UK.
Also, those evil semi-auto handguns prevent approximately 2.5 million crimes per year, or upwards of 6,800 crimes per day. What sorts of crimes, we might ask? When you break it down: 500+ rapes, 1,000+ murders, and 5,000+ other crimes documented as “violent crimes” are prevented by handguns every single day.
(from “Targeting Guns”, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997)
We should really be looking at the data, and not emotional hearsay.
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms.”
Firstly, Mr. Madison…thanks for helping write a very lovely document! It was way better than the Articles of Confederation. However, you didn’t actually write that in the text of the Constitution, so it’s therefore inadmissible in the Supreme Court of law. 😛
Secondly, taking your argument (now to Nathan, not Mr. Madison…) further from “ink and pen” to “keyboard and mouse,” the Constitution was also written in a different time, one where we were at war and at risk of being invaded from all sides. We’re the strongest nation in the world now (i.e. a different time than when it was written), so if we’re hypothetically restricting the first amendment, we may as well hypothetically restrict the second amendment now that we’re in a time where such things aren’t necessary!
As for your statistics, feel free to check out these two PDF files I pulled from such sources as The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. From the latter:
“Living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.”
…and…
“Since 2005, a total of 14 states have adopted statutes that expand the range of places where people may use guns against others, eliminate any duty to retreat if possible before shooting, and grant shooters immunity from
prosecution, sometimes even for injuries to bystanders. Such policies are founded on myths. One is that increasing gun ownership decreases crime rates
— a position that has been discredited. (Wellford CF, Pepper JV, Petrie CV, ds. Firearms and violence: a critical review. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.)
…and…
“Another myth is that defensive gun use is very common. The most widely quoted estimate, 2.5 million occurrences a year, is too high by a factor of 10.”. (Hemenway D. Survey research and self defense gun use: an explanation of extreme overestimates. J Crim Law Criminol 1997;87: 1430-45.)
The Lancet article is useful, as well…
Your move, homes 🙂
https://linsenbardt.net/andy/nejm.pdf
https://linsenbardt.net/andy/lancet.pdf
Check out the PDF found at http://www.gunfacts.info; there are links to lots of studies in there.
Basically how I feel about gun control: People who are going to hurt other people with guns aren’t going to decide not to because of a law. People who are going to defend themselves, or use guns for some currently lawful purpose, are the only ones going to willingly submit to further restriction.
Guns serve a legitimate purpose- and to not trust Americans with them is crazy. They can be used to hunt with, or to protect yourself with. A 1911 makes a 5’4″ woman formidable when confronted by a 6’2″ aggressor. To some people these things aren’t evil black killing machines, but a tool designed for safety and survival. Those people shouldn’t be denied their right because other people break laws and use them for evil purposes.
I don’t mind keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. You should be trusted with them until you show your true colors, and then let the restrictions fly. Until then, keep your hands out of my safe.
So yeah- I won’t be voting for Mr. Obama after hearing his plans for making my family and home less safe. Too bad, because I like a lot of what he says.
One thing we might agree on though, is that shooting a tommy gun on MoH is a right every man woman and child should exercise. Perhaps tomorrow?
Right, since “gunfacts.info” isn’t an overly biased source…hence why I found a few peer-reviewed journals…let alone the fact that gunfacts.info employs terrible web design, but I’ll try not to hold that against it… 😛
I think the statistics speak for themselves, but as Obama said in his acceptance speech, surely there’s a happy medium, and I believe there is. There’s NO WAY any government, Republican or Democratic, will allow conceal-and-carry semi-automatics. It just won’t happen. Perhaps conceal-and-carry will be legal in some places, and not in others, but Obama is primarily against the semi-automatic part…my assessment is that he may “bend” on the conceal-and-carry part, assuming that proper regulatory safeguards are taken into account.
So far as the “true colors” part goes, that’s all well and good except for the accessibility for minors to get their hands on guns. There are _always_ exceptions for people that “fall through the cracks,” and while the Columbine incident and Virginia Tech could have been prevented with proper psychological profiling (if there is such a thing), neither one was prevented because an aforementioned criminal was restricted from purchasing a gun.
And regardless of the gun issue, I’m sure hope you aren’t turning into a single-issue-voter and that you’ll take other things into account in your voting come November! If gun ownership is the only problem with Obama that you have, then that should be a small price to pay 😛
So far as MoH goes, I should be available tomorrow evening. _Maybe_ tomorrow afternoon…but it depends on other factors. I may be hitting up the C&C3 action, but we’ll see. Either way, I’ll be around!
(I do very much enjoy these intelligent discussions, for the record!)
“There’s NO WAY any government, Republican or Democratic, will allow conceal-and-carry semi-automatics.”
I can conceal and carry my semi-automatic in nearly every state of the United States, and almost anywhere I want to in those states. And, in all the states that allow me to, crime rates are dropping, and in the states that don’t… crime rates increase.
Here are some peer reviewed articles for you… http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html
These stats do indeed speak for themselves. There are huge sets of data all over the place that suggest empirically that more guns= less crime.
What is it about semi-automatics that turn you off? Just that Obama hates-em? Would you rather me carry a revolver?
Also- aside from the bad web design, gunfacts.info cites numerous peer reviewed works. They don’t just make up their own studies.
Also Again-
In two weeks I’m teaching rural midwestern high school kids about evolution. Should be interesting.
A). I stand corrected on the semi-automatic conceal and carry part, although that is size-restricted, right? As in, you can’t carry an Uzi pistol down the street under your coat?
B). The link you provided is to a guy named John Lott. I invite you to read through Wikipedia on the guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_r._lott I guess I’m saying that his arguments tend to be of a conservative bias, peer reviewed or not (specifically when discussing women’s rights, abortion rights, etc.) Obviously, Wikipedia = “take with grain of salt,” but still…worth considering when going to his papers for confirmation of this point.
C). Yes, I’d rather you carry a revolver! Those don’t hold as many bullets! Conceal and carry, as a policy, is something I can generally live with (provided you live in an area that warrants such a thing, like some areas of North St. Louis or areas of Detroit). It’s concealing semi-automatic weapons and making it easy to get them that gives me problems. If they can’t be regulated such that kids can’t take them into a classroom and take out 35 people, then they shouldn’t be available at all!
If you can give me a way to restrict the access of minors and criminals to semi-automatics, while still allowing other law-abiding (and well trained) individuals to have them, then we’ll talk. Otherwise, THAT’S the problem I’ve got with them.
And the guy that does Gunfacts.info is also a bit on the biased side of things: http://www.guysmith.org/blog/ He’s also a frequent contributor to the NRA (Guy Smith, at least…not sure about John Lott).
Now, I realize that nearly _everyone_ has a bit of bias in this issue, but again, these two sources link heavily to people that are quite obviously allowing their conservative bias to influence their citations and/or research.
Again, personally, I may not agree with the need to carry a gun while you’re walking around the suburbs in Ladue, MO…but there are people that will want to do so. I’m all about compromising and saying, fine, let them do so. BUT a semi-automatic weapon that is capable of firing multiple rounds without slowing down.
It’s all about the escalation and fighting “fire with fire.” I’d much rather find ways to reduce the needs for guns on our streets than simply saying “everyone carry a gun so that no one will use one.” It’s the same thing we did in the Cold War: if we all have nukes, maybe no one will use them. Did it work? Yeah, I guess. Did it cause a lot of undue stress on economies, citizens, governments? Yes, indeed it did.
Reducing the need for guns needs to be the focus, and doing so by putting more guns on the streets doesn’t seem to be the best way to do it!
And good luck teaching rural midwestern high school kids about evolution. I don’t envy you 😛
Of course those sources are biased. When you’re talking about gun control any source is going to be biased. This makes it important to read the studies for yourself, and also to make sure they are peer reviewed. It doesn’t make them invalid.
As far as size restrictions go- I can carry any weapon I can legally own and can conceal. Personally I can’t legally own an UZI, because an UZI is a fully automatic weapon. If I found an UZI that was semi-auto only, I could carry it.
Now… why should someone who has to go through training and spend hundreds of dollars for a permit be restricted as to how many rounds they can carry? These people are law abiding citizens. They go through intensive background tests as well as being fingerprinted. Criminals aren’t going to be getting a permit to carry their “wonder-nines” around. The type of people who will listen to you when you say “no semi-autos!” are not the type that are going to empty tons of bullets into people. It’s the people who could care less what you say, and already carry guns illegally.
Also- the gun I carry is considered “hi capacity”; and it holds 9 rounds. Smith and Wesson sells a number of revolvers that hold 8. Both can be reloaded quickly, but the revolver fires a round that is much more potent.
As far as shooting without slowing down… semi automatic handguns are not as “death-ray” as people make them out to be. It isn’t like they afford you uninterrupted fire. If I recall the VT shooter actually reloaded a magazine with loose bullets? In any case- he went from room to room unchallenged. A revolver is quickly reloaded with a cheap, $5 speedloader. Also, he used a .22 caliber handgun. This is perhaps the weakest weapon available for purchase. Also- a full 80% of those shot by a handgun survive; this is not the case for guns like a shotgun. If I were to go on the offensive- I’d leave all my handguns at home and get a nice 12 gauge pump. What I’m saying here is really two things- he didnt need those specific weapons to inflict the damage he did; and he was already breaking tons of laws, do you really think making one more would help? Also, he shouldn’t have even been sold a gun- that is the fault of the BATF, “gun control central”. Keep in mind that millions of handguns are illegally owned already- making them go away isn’t going to happen. Sure, you’ll take mine away, because I don’t want to go to jail for having something I shouldn’t; but the criminal element isn’t going to give up their already illegally owned guns because they’re “more” illegal.
We have lots of “experiments” in the united states regarding gun bans. Chicago, and Washington DC have some of the most complete gun control laws anywhere. They are of the type Obama supports and wants to inflict on the entire US. Just look at how they effected crime in those cities. DC has had their ban since the 70’s and
…all it has done is make crime there go up and up and up and up. Same with Chicago. Then we have the assault weapons ban. The very same that Obama would implement in the future. It was in effect for TEN YEARS and by the governments own admission had no affect on gun crimes. In fact- there were more “assault weapons” then ever before because manufacturers ramped up supply before the law went into effect.
Turns out most crimes are not committed using “assault weapons”.
We have our hot button issues. Columbine, VT, etc. It isn’t like these things are happening all the time all over. What is happening all the time all over is people getting robbed, raped, and killed. Also, people protecting themselves from such. Wasn’t that long ago that a guy walked into a church (with an illegally owned rifle) and was gunned down by a person with a CCW permit. In KC last week a gentlemen stopped an armed robber with his own gun. In a walmart in Arkansas a guy stopped an ex-husband from stabbing his wife to death using an evil handgun. 50,000 people in missouri have a missouri issued permit to carry, with as many having one from another state. The gun control crowed said, “blood on the streets!”. The same people who think taking guns from law abiding citizens will help things, said that fender benders would turn into shoot-outs and that people would be getting murdered at a tremendous rate. It just isn’t happening. If it did it would be all over the news.
History has shown us a few important things. 1- taking guns from citizens doesn’t help with crime. 2- giving law abiding citizens a right to own guns helps with crime. 3- criminals don’t listen to gun control laws.
Imagine for a moment you’re a criminal. 100,000+ people in Missouri who might be packin. Or you could go to Illinois (one of the few states with no CCW)… you know those people aren’t armed. Where would you feel most comfortable?
Pro Gun Control
“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
“If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things.”
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933
[T]he definition of a semiautomatic weapon, from the bill itself and its 60 co-signers in the Senate, and referenced from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban):
“… semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”
I challenge you or anyone else to name a firearm with an action which was neither originally designed for military or law enforcement use, was never used by military or law enforcement, nor was derived from a design so used or intended. From single-shot muzzle-loading matchlocks to the most modern handguns and rifles every single firearm available today would fit somewhere in that definition. This is a repeat of language first introduced in 1985 by Howard Metzenbaum and is intended to be a complete ban on citizen ownership of firearms, a complete and total violation of the spirit and the intent of the 2nd Amendment that Barry Obama claims to respect.
Andy,
First off, are you confusing semi-automatics with machine guns?
There is at least one revolver shooter who can shoot 6 rounds, reload and shoot six more, all on target, in under 5 seconds. So for some there is little difference between semi-automatics and revolvers.
Most people I know carry semi-automatics for two main reasons. First they are thinner than revolvers and easier to conceal. Second you are more than likely going to be confronted by multiple bad guys if you are unlucky enough to be a victim and a couple extra rounds may mean the difference in saving your family.
Look back at where the concealed carry laws started in Florida. The Sheriff told his citizens to arm themselves as he could no longer guarantee their safety – not that he’s obligated to under law anyway. We have hard core criminals coming into our country every day and law enforcement cannot keep up with it. Our jails become overcrowded and the solution is to set x% free on the streets.
I hope you understand that it is your moral and legal obligation to provide protection for you and your family. If you have children – YOU are responsible for their protection from criminals. Sure you can call 911 – and they will come out and fill out a report. Most likely they won’t get there in time to prevent the crime though. This is not a put down of law enforcement, just the facts.
A). I stand corrected on the semi-automatic conceal and carry part, although that is size-restricted, right?
I legally carry a pistol with 16 rounds, plus at least one spare magazine of 15 rounds every day.
C). Yes, I’d rather you carry a revolver! Those don’t hold as many bullets!
Eighty MILLION law abiding gun owners yesterday didn’t shoot anyone!
D). If you can give me a way to restrict the access of minors…..
Education is the key. All gun locks can be disabled and defeat the basic purpose for owning a firearm. If you hide something in your dresser drawer, don’t you know your kids are going to get in there? It’s far better to educate youth about gun safety and proper handling and use. Forget the ritalin and teach responsibility and respect.
John, SW Missouri
Why would anyone want to disarm law abiding citizen?, unless of course you’re a criminal who wants the odds on their side.
If you’re of a Socialist mind and want to insure your control of the populance, then disarming them would be one of the best methods of assuring that; would it not? Remember an armed man is a citizen, a disarmed man is a subject. Just take a look a what is happening now in Great Britain. Now they want to regulate kitchen knifes.
Would one of you highly educated people explain to me one thing. If firearm control works so well, then why do the cities with the most onerous firearm restrictions on it’s law abiding citizens have the greatest violent crime rates.
Just take a look at Chicago (run by the Democratic Daley group, San Francisco (again run by liberal Democrats), New York City (enough said about pompous Bloomberg and his violations of the law), and last but not least Washington D.C. with it’s Constitution violating Mayor and City Concil.
First, a few tidbits:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/america/guns.php?page=1
“At the crudest level, as [Justice Stephen] Breyer wrote, violent crime in the U.S. capital has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. “Indeed,” he continued, “a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place.” Those statistics by themselves prove nothing, of course. Factors aside from the gun ban, like demographics, economics and the drug trade, were almost certainly in play. “As students of elementary logic know,” Breyer wrote, “after it does not mean because of it.””
and
“A brief defending the Washington law filed by the American Public Health Association and other groups said there were other collateral positive effects, including reductions in suicides and accidents, that gun control opponents overlook or underestimate. More generally, the brief said, “banning handguns in Washington, D.C., appears to have reduced suicide and homicide rates.” It cited the New England Journal study and statistics showing that Washington has an exceptionally low suicide rate.”
—————————————————–
I’m somewhat frustrated with the overt lack of compromise being presented here in this discussion. Regardless of whatever statistics you put forth, I still read articles like these _daily_ living in St. Louis:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/DB12399353003E9A862574B70057A6CB?OpenDocument
The simple fact remains that the existence of guns in the general public overall increases violence, whether it be by suicide, accident, or murder. If (hypothetically) no guns, or a substantially reduced number (and no poverty and no stealing and no rape…etc…), then we wouldn’t be having this argument.
Obviously, that won’t happen. There will be guns in the public, as per the second amendment (just as there will be poverty and stealing, etc…those aren’t going away). As John says (and rightly so!), education is the best method for taking care of a lot of problems.
So why is it, then, that the people who are most often “clinging to their guns” the same people that don’t support education in the inner cities where these problems are the worst, thereby necessitating the propagation of further guns?
When McCain somehow comes forward saying that he helped fix a “broken community” on the south side of Chicago (or DC or Detroit or wherever), then I’ll listen to his gun policies. Otherwise, I’m trusting the guy that has seen the violence that happens in such places, and knows how to clean it up.
And here’s today’s:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/F9E5E368D92900E8862574B8003EA4CB?OpenDocument
Ought I list all the car wrecks from drunk drivers as evidence for the need for strict regulation of alcohol?
The type of gun used here is not specified, and this crime could easily occur in obamas america. It’s likely owned illegally already, making it illegal again isn’t going to change anythig. Except when they come to my neighborhood, and break into my house with their guns- I will have to unlock my 1830’s flintlock muzzle loader from safe in the basement before I can defend myself or my wife.
as for the cold war:
Do you suggest the united states disband and destroy all of their nuclear weapons, because “bad” places like north korea have them? Sure- it’d be better if they were never invented, but outlawying them on earth isn’t going to do didly squat because the bad guys aren’t going to listen. We just won’t have any.
Here’s what you ignore:
http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=8ca481c1-94cb-4813-8e6c-d29d4752ee0b
I guess she could just ask him nicely to not rape, kill, and rob her.
you guys just need to get a life
Just to make it 30 posts… I’ll agree