Kicking the hornets nest.

[beevul]

We on the pro-gun side of the issue often refer to "kicking the hornets nest", but the reality of it, is this is a different kind of hornets nest. Politicians talking about and suggesting new gun control, is simply being in its vicinity, and prompts stinging and swarming. The mesage that should be sending to the politicos, is simply "leave us be". You got the NFA. You got the GCA. You got the hughes amendment. You got the brady bill and background checks at retail. You got prohibitions on mentally ill, domestic abusers and violent felons. You had your chance at an assault weapons ban and hi-cap mag ban. You had your chance to show it was effective in some way. A study was mandated as part of its passage, and you couldn't show it actually acomplished anything. Quit pretending that we don't have any gun control, after passing each and every one of those as "reasonable common ense gun control". That bears repeating - Quit pretending that we don't have any gun control, after passing each and every one of those as "reasonable common ense gun control".


"Now leave us the hell alone, or face stinging and swarming at the polls on election day".

This is the message thats been sent over and over, and it hasn't changed. The "gun culture" is incredibly touchy precisely because "anti-gun culture" has made clear what they want, how far they'll take what they want, how they'll go about getting what they want, and what they have in mind for the "end-game". And they're well aware that the folks with views like these haven't simply packed up and gone home:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361131


In another thread someone posted a link to tweety saying Obama was planning to have a dedicated Gun Control address. The news of that is making its way around the internet now. My prediction is that by midnight friday night, sales will have increased significantly because of its mention, and the media will be talking about it.



Heres a link to a google search of the terms: "gun control" obama matthews

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=qdr:d&q=%22gun+control%22+obama+matthews&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=b5fa33fa855f3d8

About 26,100 results (0.13 seconds) Thats filtered to show the last 24 hours. Lets see how that number changes in 24-48 hours. My bet is it will snowball, possibly even to the point that damage control will have to be done.



If the "dedicated address" happens, that is to say - if Obama uses the "bully pulpit" to push for a ban on mags or an assault weapons ban - he wont be simply "kicking the hornets nest".

In fact, it would be more akin to grabbing the hornets nest, shaking it violently, and sticking it down the front of ones own pants, then zipping them up.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[left is right]

2. I am not against guns

but I don’t see a reason for our culture to be so saturated with them. I remember hearing a prominent African-American leader of the 1990s (sorry don’t remember the name) talk about the effects of having a gun.
He said that he grew up in one the poorest section of his city. Gangs were rampant. He first started off avoiding the streets that they controlled. At some point, he thought he needed protection and procured a handgun. Soon he was walking openly in the gang areas. Short time later he was feeling so brave he was confronting the gangs (like any dumbs kid) bragging about his gun and what he would.
He continues the story by saying his mother found out about the gun and took it from him. I guess he feared his mother far more than the gangs. He concluded by saying that he credits her bravery with taking the gun away from him with the fact that he didn’t get the chance to kill or be killed. She kept him from ruining his life.
My point is, guns have an almost addictive power over people. It starts to whisper in the ears of way too many people that it is the best solution for almost any problem. Did someone cut me off in traffic? I’ll just scare ‘em with my gun. Did the neighbor’s nasty dog dig up my rose bushes? Maybe my gun can make him see reason. Those kids laughing on the street corner seem awfully scary but I won’t fear I have my gun to protect me. Maybe it’s the rabid ranters of rightwing radio has convinced me that all liberals are evil. I’ll take my automatic with the 30-bullet clip to the local grocery store and just shoot as many liberals as I can

[armueller2001]

4. "I’ll take my automatic with the 30-bullet clip"

Uh.. you're aware that automatic weapons are very tightly regulated and cost at least $15,000 for the average citizen to own, right? I think they've been used in about 2 crimes in the last 50 years.

Also, just for accuracy's sake, "bullets" are not loaded into "clips". Rounds are loaded into magazines. Bullets are what exit the barrel when a shot is fired.

[PavePusher]

16. So, you braod-brush all gun owners with the anecdote of one foolish person.

Fail.

[YllwFvr]

18. when I carry

I avoid confrontation more than when I dont. Id more likely to try and diffuse a situation than argue back. Of the millions of people who own guns how many have a whisper in there ear telling them to go on a rampage? Tell me again how many millions were shot and killed last year?

[Starboard Tack]

28. Thankfully, of the millions who own guns, only a handful are foolhardy enough to

carry them in public.

[YllwFvr]

29. more than likely you are around them every day

yet you dont see them, and you are still alive.

[spin]

46. 780,595 people in Florida have concealed weapons permits ...

and a good percentage carry on a regular basis. Source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

The only estimate I could find for the number of police officers in Florida was 35,500.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_holders.html

Is it possible that you believe that few people carry firearms in public because you never see the weapons.

[rl6214]

30. I am like you

When I was younger and didn't have a ccw lic I would stand and argue with someone and now that I do carry, I just walk away before any confrontation can even begin. The training you recieve in a ccw class teaches that you need to be more patient, less agressive and defuse the situation before it begins.

[liberal N proud]

3. I guess its not exactly inciting violence

"kicking the hornets nest" and "Now leave us the hell alone, or face stinging and swarming"

You know, I am not against people owning guns, What does bother me it he right to conceal and carry. There are just too many hot heads out there that want to take out anyone who crosses their path. Give some of them a gun and they might just shoot you as look at you.

Its the guy that will chase someone 13 miles (and this has happened to me) because he thought he had the right of way at the corner. He was going to pull me out of the car and teach me a lesson. Imagine if he had a gun.

Or the fights that we see in the news where some thug smacks down a few people for what ever sparked his temper, give him a gun and people don't just get a black eye, they end up dead.

Keep your guns for sport and if necessary for protection from what ever you are protecting your possessions from but some control is necessary to prevent the modern version of the shoot-out at OK Corral called shoot-out at Wal Mart.

Just my opinion.

[Callisto32]

6. Yet decades of liberalized gun carry laws have NOT created the bloodbath you seem to expect.

In fact, violent crime has been on a constant drop during the entire time that firearm and carry laws have been liberalizing.

How does one in your position explain that?

[liberal N proud]

7. What I find amazing is there are no good fact to support that either way

There are statistics to gun deaths but never put in a form that compares them year over year, up or down. If you can find that please share.

The facts I have found in searches twist the facts one way or another leave some data out to support one sides story or the other.

[X_Digger]

9. The BJS has some stats, as does the CDC..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[liberal N proud]

15. I don't see a dramatic drop in Aggravated assaults with firearms

It has averaged 70.49 from 1973 through 2007 according to the BJS figures. It looks cyclical.

Thanks for sharing though

[Callisto32]

23. But you ignore the proliferation of firearms and liberalization of laws regarding their carry.

That is the issue here. You suggested this would lead to MORE of these crimes. Your own post says it does not. So if no harm is caused by liberalizing gun laws, why then should they be more restrictive

Edit: Removed a sentence, it came off more snarky than intended.

[Callisto32]

11. Look up the different years, and compare for yourself.

What you will see is that despite increasing numbers of firearms and liberalized laws, violent crime rates continue to fall.

I don't claim that guns and gun owners DECREASE crime, but rather that increasing numbers of firearms and those carrying them in public on a regular basis do NOT INCREASE crime.

[PavePusher]

17. Baloney. The stats you claim don't exist have been posted here many times. n/t

[liberal N proud]

21. Never said the didn't exist

I said what I found, was that each side of the debate twisted the facts to fit their side of the story.

[PavePusher]

25. What you said:

"What I find amazing is there are no good fact to support that either way. There are statistics to gun deaths but never put in a form that compares them year over year, up or down."

And then you claimed that the facts you could find are "twisted".

Yes, I'm sure the DoJ/FBI stats are slanted. Or something.

[shadowrider]

26. What he means is

ANY facts or website, including FBI/DOJ, that doesn't fit his preconceived notion, is worthless.

[X_Digger]

8. Your opinion isn't backed up by fact, however..

As a group, we're up to 45x less likely to be convicted of a crime than your average person walking down the street.

Here's a graph I put together with information available from the TX DPS & DSHS websites. It compares the rate of convictions of CHL holders to the rate of conviction by NON-chl holders. If I compared the number of crimes side by side, the CHL bar wouldn't even show up.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/popdat/detailX.shtm
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[Callisto32]

12. X_Digger,

"If I compared the number of crimes side by side, the CHL bar wouldn't even show up."

Could you please explain this statement? Is that total convictions, or different bars for different crimes?

[X_Digger]

24. for example, in 2007..0.261 % of crimes were by CHLs

There were 61,100 convictions of NON-chl holders, and 160 convictions of CHL holders, for any crime.

When you try to graph them linearly, the CHL bar doesn't even show up, it's so small.

So instead, I compared each group to itself, then compared those rates using the same scale.

[Callisto32]

27. That's what I thought you meant.

Thanks.

[YllwFvr]

19. your scenario?

doesnt happen. about 1 in 12 people have a permit to carry here. Lots of people have a temper. We have people who carry flying off the handle and wasting some asshole all the time. Oh wait..

[rl6214]

31. Why is it the anti's alwasy talk about the

"shoot-out at OK Corral called shoot-out at Wal Mart" but you never hear anything like that out of the hot headed gun owner/concealed carry owner.

[lepus]

35. I see it a bit different.

We as a nation have become desensitized to violence.

Many people are willing to commit physically violent acts without regards to consequences because even if they are caught, the consequences are usually not that severe.

Your examples of bad behavior are what I'm talking about. While many thugs like the rush of the fight and intimidating people, they do not want to go to jail for a long period of time over a shooting.

Me, I'm getting older and more broke down. I did not like fighting even in my heyday. One of the reasons I keep a firearm is because of folks like that. I will not allow myself to be beat upon for any man's entertainment.

[safeinOhio]

5. I think you might find out that

"we on the pro-gun side" are not as omni- dimesional as you think. Just like the tea party thinks they speak for everyone, or almost everyone, the radical gun rights folks will be floored to find out the majority of gun owners are really pretty rational.

[HelenWheels]

10. One issue voter?

Most gun owners, at least members of the NRA, sound like one issue voters.

[Callisto32]

13. You are right, I am a one issue voter.

I vote freedom.

Individual liberty of ALL kinds is my number one issue. I don't really think I need any others. To say that it is okay to control people on certain things seems silly to me, since then who are you to tell other people they CAN'T control people in spheres you think should be free?

Edit: Fixed typo.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Callisto32]

22. "Potential killers."

Just like all humans. This is like when I was told I was a "potential rapist" because I am male. Fucking duh. Thing is, potential doesn't mean shit until you make use of it. You can't know what someone WILL do only what he HAS done. Humans have a LOT of potential both good and bad.

Also note killer as distinct from murderer. In fact, you kill all the time, its called an immune system. Using the word "potential" seems silly now, doesn't it. Killing that which seeks to grievously harm or kill you is wrong how?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YllwFvr]

20. im anti NRA

but a very anti gun politician wont get my vote, I will try to force them out

[Francis Marion]

41. Broaden it up and then it's right.

One issue- no, too narrow for approval criteria, but sufficient for rejection.

I am a One Bill voter: trash OUR Bill of Rights- any one of them- and you're unfit to draft law or serve The People.

They're on board for 1 through 10 or "NEXT!"

[DainBramaged]

33. It amazes me that gun owners can threaten politicians so subtly and get away with it

After the incidents over the past few weeks, why is it always necessary for gun owners to threaten everyone who disagrees with them with some form of retribution? That's what I get from the OP.

[slackmaster]

34. Retribution in the form of votes against you kind of goes with the territory for politicians

It's what people do.

[Hoyt]

36. Yep, pro-gunners will add to their already large weapons cache when controls are considered.

What does that tell you about pro-gunners?

[beevul]

37. What does that tell you about pro-gunners?

Actually, it tells more about you.

And some of the preconcieved notions you hold.

Go forth Ahab, and hunt your whale.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. A slight demurrer. The trouble with that is.....

....him and others like him will turn the Democratic party into the Pequod.

[Straw Man]

38. What does it tell me?

Yep, pro-gunners will add to their already large weapons cache when controls are considered.

What does that tell you about pro-gunners?

It tells me that they know prices are about to skyrocket, so they should get what they want now, and a few extra to sell later for enough cash to cover the original purchase. Free gun!

What does it tell you?

[Hoyt]

39. If it's to make a profit, consider getting into something not related to killing people.

If sales are banned, are you going to become a criminal like Randy Weaver to make a few bucks. I guess there goes that law-abiding, moral citizen argument.

[Straw Man]

40. Not related at all to killing people.

First of all, why are we suddenly talking about me? The question was being discussed abstractly in the third person: what "they" would do. Second, is every firearms transaction "related to killing people"? Perhaps in your world, but not in mine.

Furthermore, your post said nothing about sales being banned, just a vague reference to "controls" being "considered." I certainly have no intention of breaking any laws. I would suggest that you set fire to that little straw man, but it's so slimy that it probably wouldn't burn.

[RSillsbee]

44. Randy Weaver

won a 3 million dollar settlement against the government and had his conviction thrown out for entrapment. The only thing he went to jail for was FTA.

[Hoyt]

45. Now pro-gunners are defending racist survivalists (Ayran Nation) who sold illegal weapons.

Now turn around and tell us how pro-gunners are only buying, hoarding and carrying weapons for self-defense.

[spin]

47. Is it wrong in your opinion to buy firearms and have a firearm collection ...

is that hoarding?

I have been shooting for over 40 years and along the way have accumulated a small collection of firearms I enjoy to shoot. I also have a concealed weapons permit and carry a firearm. Some of my handguns were purchased for self defense but the majority were purchased for target shooting.

[Hoyt]

51. Depends on what one plans to do with them and how stable the hoarder/collector is.

In my opinion, lot of guns -- excluding antiques -- is a symptom of something, especially if carried in public. Kind of like hoarding bombs, don't you think?

[oneshooter]

53. So to you a "collector" is the same as a "hoarder"? n/t

[PavePusher]

68. A stored or carried firearm (even loaded) does not pose anything like the danger of a bomb.

Your hyperbole is noted and dismissed.

[RSillsbee]

48. Now pro restrictionists are defending the killing

of an unarmed woman w/ a baby in her arms ( See, I can spin too)

Seriously are you OK w/ the fact that the FBI had to resort to entrapment to get Weaver? Is he not entitled to equal protection under the law?

TYPO

[Hoyt]

50. Randy Weaver frequented Aryan Nation meetings and sold illegal weapons. Apparently OK with some here

Why do so many pro-gunners defend these type folks and political philosophies? Even supposed liberals do.

Maybe he should have given up -- that would have kept people from getting killed.

[X_Digger]

52. Love the association fallacy.. did you come up with that yourself?

Do you also castigate the ACLU for defending the KKK's first amendment claims?

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. The Second Reich invented retirement at 65. Richard Nixon founded the EPA

The Nazis came up with the idea for what we call high-speed rail, though obviously they never built any of the dedicated lines.

All of these examples are true, BTW. Should we get rid of them?

See, anyone can play Associational Fallacy!

[beevul]

55. Lets not forget what the Gun control act of '68 is modeled after...N/T

[RSillsbee]

56. I don't see anyone disagreeing

Weaver's political philosophies are abhorrent. The very specific question I asked you was "Is he not entitled to equal protection under the law?"

Do his political beliefs make it OK for the the FBI to use entrapment to get him? What about shooting his unarmed wife while she held a baby?

[Hoyt]

57. He had equal protection. If toters shoot someone, what legal protection do they have?

Plus, he helped people acquire weapons that were for more than self-defense. He was a racist; likely member of racist, anti-government organization; and violated weapons laws. He had plenty of chances to surrender, just like the Branch Dividians, yet made his choice. Sorry folks were killed, but the guns he sold were designed to do that to others. Might as well have sold a bomb. Yet, you cry for him. Not me.

[RSillsbee]

58. The guns he sold

were sold to an FBI informant who specifiedthe length he wanted the guns cut to. you might want to at least read up on your topics unless you're happy having your ass handed to you time and again

[Hoyt]

59. So you don't think we should infiltrate racist, terrorist organizations. Interesting.

[RSillsbee]

60. I never said that

(quite a straw man though)What I do think is that members of racist , terrorist organizations are still American citizens and they still enjoy certain rights and protections under the law. Including the right not to be deliberately set up by the police. I also think that I want their rights protected by the courts just as stringently as I would want my rights protected.

Equal protection under the law. It's a very progressive idea (perhaps that's why it eludes you)

[Hoyt]

61. I have no problem "deliberately setting up" terrorists, which Weaver clearly was.

Again, he had equal protection and if he had given himself up and left his fort/compound no one would have been killed. And, he would have been tried in court. Instead he choose to surround himself with his illegal weapons in his compound with a confederate flag flying over it and the inhabitants walking around with weapons strapped to their legs and stuff (women too).

If these are the types of gun owners so many -- including the NRA -- are trying to protect, we have a serious problem that needs immediate attention.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Yep, that assault baby was clearly a threat to law enforcement...

[PavePusher]

66. "I have no problem "deliberately setting up" terrorists, which Weaver clearly was."

Please cite to any crimes commited by Weaver before his entrapment by the Feds.

Then, explain how his wife and son deserved to be murdered.

Were the man's politics vile? No doubt. Did it merit the set-up he received from the government? Only in totalitarian societies.

And we're not one.

[Hoyt]

70. He wasn't set up out of the blue. He was set up because he was a terrorist.

What is so hard to understand?

[X_Digger]

72. SO attach 'terra' to anyone, and any means is justified by the ends?

I'm really surprised to see this kind of shit on DU.

Did you also castigate the ACLU for defending the KKK in Skokie, IL?

http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history

[PavePusher]

73. What were his alledged crimes? Please, don't dodge. n/t

[beevul]

91. You know the old saying...

Opportunity has to knock, but fail walks in freely.

[RSillsbee]

67. Do you really not understand?

The whole thing happened because the FBI decided to entrap him on a weapons charge so they could turn him into an informant.

They went to him, They suggested the crime to him and they (in the person of their informant)specified that he must cut the shot gun down to below the legal limit.

There were no illegal weapons found after he was taken into custody.

Come on dude 5 minutes on google and you would have looked like a genius (in comparison)

Weaver was charged with multiple crimes relating to the Ruby Ridge incident, a total of ten counts including the original firearms charges and murder. Attorney Gerry Spence handled Weaver's defense, and argued successfully that Weaver's actions were justifiable as self-defense. The judge dismissed two counts after hearing prosecution witness testimony. The jury acquitted Weaver of all remaining charges except two, one of which the judge set aside. Weaver was found guilty of one count, failure to appear, for which Weaver was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The reason he failed to appear was due to the fact that he was officially told the court case was on the 20th March when in fact it was on the 20th February. He was credited with time served plus an additional three months, and was then released.

TYPO

[Hoyt]

69. I understand that Weaver had well over a year to surrender, did not, and bad things happened.

He should have given up and gone to trial. Unfortunately, some folks think their cache of weapons makes them immune to laws.

[RSillsbee]

74. Do you not understand

that every one in this country (regardless of whether or not we like their politics) is entitled to be treated equally and fairly under the law?

The court screwed up, the court sent him two appearance dates (both wrong). The court decided to prosecute even after they knew they were wrong convincing Weaver he had no shot at a fair trial.

Again, the only crime weaver was convicted of was FTA. A jury of his peers (surely not all of them were pre-teabaggers) found that he acted reasonably and in self defense after watching US Marshalls kill his son.

That means that 12 jurors, after hearing both sides of the story, unanimously decided that they would have done the same thing in his shoes.

The mindset that Gestapo tactics are acceptable as long as we don't agree w/ the politics of the person they're used on is repugnant to me and I am greatly distressed to see it on DU.

Wonder if your stance would change if the baggers started doing it your way?

ETA as long as people w/ your attitude exist in this country I will fight tooth and nail to keep my guns

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. So you have no problem with cops shooting women holding children. Interesting.

[Hoyt]

71. Daddy Weaver should have given himself up. Instead HE put his wife in danger.

I'm very sorry it happened, but daddy should have had more respect for his wife and kids than to put them in this situation at his compound, confederate flags flying high, and providing illegal guns to agents. He had a long, long time to surrender. Instead, he used his family.

But the real issue here is that pro-gunners say they have them for defense from the thug who is hiding behind every tree ready to mug them. Obviously, many here have guns for other reasons -- some of which are a threat to society.

[beevul]

75. Strangely enoiugh, thats the argument the feds made in court.

Strangely enough, thats the argument the feds made in court.


Has anyone mentioned the fact that the feds LOST in court, Hoyt?

[RSillsbee]

76. Don't you know civil liberties only extend to people who's politics are acceptable

Weaver was an undesirable. he deserved what ever he got and if the Feds had sent in tanks and wiped out his entire family it would have been OK.

( see I can play authoritarian too)

[PavePusher]

77. Which is exactly what they did the next time. Oops. n/t

[RSillsbee]

78. That was different

They only killed a bunch of "fundies"(and their kids) surely we can justify that

[PavePusher]

87. I forget... were there any minorities at Waco?

Or were they racist "terrorists"?

[RSillsbee]

89. Worse

they were polygamists (which is much worse than a gorrillainthemist)

[beevul]

90. ROFL. N/T

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Apparently, flying Confederate flags means it's OK for law enforcement to shoot you

As they were mentioned twice in this subthread as if they were some kind of aggravating circumstance.

Even racist assholes like the Weavers have civil rights, like it or not.

[Hoyt]

84. But they don't have the right to transfer illegal weapons and run from trial for over a year.

Well, I forget that illegal guns, white supremacy and separatist politics are often closely linked.

I suppose Timmy McVeigh was a model citizen until he blew up the federal building. He too was a racist, gun hoarding, terrorist.

How do you feel about the Branch Davidians who had 51 days to surrender and murdered federal agents?

[beevul]

86. Once again, your ignorance is on display.

"Well, I forget that illegal guns, white supremacy and separatist politics are often closely linked."

First, he was a white separatist, which one is allowed to be, even if it is backwards and disgusting.

Second, he was entrapped, for the purposes of turning him into an informant.

"How do you feel about the Branch Davidians who had 51 days to surrender and murdered federal agents?"

Awww, now aint that cute. Another case of hoyt being factually wrong.

The courts held that the branch dividians acted in self defense. I suggest if you have a problem with that you take it up with them.

How do I feel about them? I feel that they were attacked by a bunch of adrenalin addicted assholes in a rush to justify budget increases.

I feel that women and children were put in harms way, for no good reason, when they could have EASILY arrested koresh in town but chose the more dangerous route in spite of being told by ATF agent Robert Rodriguez that the operation was blown, and that the dividians knew about it, and that they had lost the element of surprise.

How do YOU feel about it hoyt?

Ok with children being exposed to potentially fatal flashbang grenades?

Ok with children being with CS gas?

Do tell.

[PavePusher]

88. Back to the Weavers, you have still not answered the question:

What crimes did they commit before the entrapment actions by the Feds?

Please be complete.


As for Waco, you could try to answer the same question...

But I'm pretty sure you'll dodge.

[Hoyt]

83. Why am I not surprised you followed this closely? Did you contribute to his defense fund?

[beevul]

85. It is clear you didn't.

"Why am I not surprised you followed this closely? Did you contribute to his defense fund?"

I follow closely when anyone gets trampled by government. Rather than only when it agrees with my politics.


The courts held that he did.

Does that chap your hide just a teensie weensie bit?

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. That argument worked so well for the Feds, they ended up paying $3M to the Weaver family....

...in a wrongful-death settlement, and the Feds settle civil cases of that magnitude about as often as Michael Jackson started at

outside linebacker.

Do try and keep up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x192007

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. I guess his wife and son were just collateral damage, eh?

[RSillsbee]

65. Wasn'r his son the one that got shot in the back? NT

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. Yeah, but his dad is a racist, so it was OK.

Or so I've been told...

[shadowrider]

82. Amazing how that works.

Guns are bad, they need to be restricted or banned, unless used against someone I don't like, then it's ok.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. False accusation of association.

What other groups may or may not do is irrelevant. We aren't members of KKK, Ayran Nation or other such groups.

[mvccd1000]

43. The same thing it tells me about pot-smokers...

... who will buy as much as they can get their hands on, when it becomes available.