NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sj-r.com/Sections/News/Stories/49173.asp

"Friday's discoveries could lead to her being charged with defacing the identification marks on a handgun, manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance and having no valid firearm owner's ID card, police said."

Hmm. If she knew she had an illegal firearm in her house, why didn't she get rid of it a long time ago - take it to the police - as her organization says we all should do?

Why is she involved with people who commit drive-by shootings?

Could she be the one who was doing the shootings?

Anything that discredits and defames Million Mom March is fine with me. I hate people who want to take away our rights.

What is the Million Mom March? I've heard of the Million Man one, but not the Moms.

What is the Million Mom March? I've heard of the Million Man one, but not the Moms.
An anti gun organization.

As usual, "Good for Me but not for Thee!" Just like all the other highly vocal Anti-Self-Defense types who either have bodyguards or "illegal" guns. :p

"She has lived by (the theme of) 'I don't want anyone to go through the pain and misery I have gone through. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.'"

I wouldn't want to go through the pain and misery of Susana Gratia Hupp either (Luby's Diner)... that's why intend to remain armed, whether it be a million or a BILLION ninny mommies (especially the blatantly hipocritical ones).

Anything that discredits and defames Million Mom March is fine with me. I hate people who want to take away our rights.
As anti-gun as I am, I agree with you.

I think that if they are going to do something, they should lead by example.

I always love it when hypocrites are exposed.

I always love it when hypocrites are exposed.
I know. It's fun watching them dig their own graves!

As anti-gun as I am, I agree with you.

I think that if they are going to do something, they should lead by example.

I guess this explains why Senator Dianne Feinstein has one of the few concealed carry permits in the State of California, and has her own pistol.

One would think that she could count on the police, just like everyone else in California.

It also explains why Senator Kerry has an SKS rifle he brought home from Vietnam (even though military regulations prohibit this sort of thing, and BATF regulations forbid this form of "transfer"). For a man to own what he would describe as an "assault weapon" and then vote against their possession, and still keep it...

I could go on, but the hypocrisy would make me vomit...

I guess this explains why Senator Dianne Feinstein has one of the few concealed carry permits in the State of California, and has her own pistol.

One would think that she could count on the police, just like everyone else in California.

It also explains why Senator Kerry has an SKS rifle he brought home from Vietnam (even though military regulations prohibit this sort of thing, and BATF regulations forbid this form of "transfer"). For a man to own what he would describe as an "assault weapon" and then vote against their possession, and still keep it...

I could go on, but the hypocrisy would make me vomit...

And people wonder why there is a gun problem in the USA.

First of all, the lunatic rank and file carries them and they have gun-toting politicians on their side as well as a loud-mouth know-nothing gun lobby on their side.

Of course, let's not forget the morons who carry and own guns and yet talk about how guns are the epitome of evil...etc...

Interestingly, the majority of the "gun problem" is not an equally distributed problem.

The majority of violent crime is not committed with a firearm.
Some populations are far more likely to be using a firearm to commit a violent crime, or to be the victim of a firearm, or to commit suicide with a firearm.

For suicide by firearm, the primary risk factors are being male, black, and between the ages of 19 and 24.

For committing a violent crime by firearm, the risk factors are the same, but you can add "use or possession of illicit drugs" as the real risk factor.

For being a victim of a violent crime by firearm, the risk factor is one of class - the lower on the economic scale you are, the higher the odds.

So for a lot of suburban white people, their exposure to the "shocking levels of gun violence" is relatively low - they see it in the movies and read about it on TV - but as long as they stay out of the downtown area at night...

Guns have a two-way effect. They also can stop crimes that are occurring (studies prove the effect of 2.4 to 2.5 million stopped crimes per year) without firing a shot. So if we suddenly got rid of guns, those crimes would therefore take place in the absence of guns.

That effect shows why interpersonal confrontation-based crime goes up in areas where guns are suddenly banned. Because now anyone larger than you or with a steel pipe can now beat the crap out of you because they know you're unarmed.

But violent crime is something strange (by and large) to the white suburbanite.

And people wonder why there is a gun problem in the USA.

First of all, the lunatic rank and file carries them and they have gun-toting politicians on their side as well as a loud-mouth know-nothing gun lobby on their side.

Of course, let's not forget the morons who carry and own guns and yet talk about how guns are the epitome of evil...etc...
Well, MY gun(s) have never "caused a problem", but then they can't they are inanimate objects that can do no harm by themselves.

Under my control, they have been useful in thwarting 3 acts of violence against my person (my concealed pistol has anyway) and my rifle has allowed me to win not a few awards for shooting skill.

Under the control of a criminal - who doesn't give a hoot if they are "illegal" or not anyway - I'm quite sure they could be used for evil - but that is not the fault of the gun.

BTW, is it the fault of the tire iron that was weilded against me (before I displayed my capability to shoot my attacker (and intent if he did not stop)) that a crime was (nearly) committed or was it the fault of the drunk redneck who tried to swing it at me? BAN TIRE IRONS!

Oh, even given a magic wand that made every gun in the world go away I (and many, many others) could and would be rearmed within a matter of days (http://www.medicine-book.com/Expedient_Homemade_Firearms__The_9mm_Submachine_Gun_0873649834.html) . Something that easy to build is impossible to ban. Try it and only the Predators (Criminal & Government alike) will have them.

I guess this explains why Senator Dianne Feinstein has one of the few concealed carry permits in the State of California, and has her own pistol.

One would think that she could count on the police, just like everyone else in California.

It also explains why Senator Kerry has an SKS rifle he brought home from Vietnam (even though military regulations prohibit this sort of thing, and BATF regulations forbid this form of "transfer"). For a man to own what he would describe as an "assault weapon" and then vote against their possession, and still keep it...

I could go on, but the hypocrisy would make me vomit...

Or the Daleycrats (separate from Democrats) who have "special prmits" in Chicago to own handguns when the citizenry are not.

Or Rosie O'donnel w/ her armed security guards.

As for Kerry, that's another "he said, then said something different" story. Intitially it was stated in an "exclusive interview" that he returned w/ a "Chinese Assault Rifle". When the hypocrisy hit the fan, the story changed to that it was an office assistant who filled out a questionaire in the first person and that Kerry "really" owns an "old" Russian rifle that was "given" to him by a friend.

There's also the fact that he tried to ban a shotgun he was given as a gift during the campaign and proudly displayed during the show.

The one I liked was Ted Kennedy's bodyguard arrested at the Capitol Building with seven (7) weapons concealed on his person with 300 rounds of ammunition (including two submachineguns).

Ted was upset that the Capitol Police arrested his bodyguard for violating the law. Apparently, Ted feels he needs those guns, and he believes he is above the law (and any restrictions in the Capitol).

Michael Moore's bodyguard evidently had a similar problem, but it was at an airport.

If these people are against guns, why do they feel the need to be surrounded by them?

I guess they don't believe their own mouths.

Or the Daleycrats (separate from Democrats) who have "special prmits" in Chicago to own handguns when the citizenry are not.
<snip>
Yah. That's why there is so much "gun crime" in Chicago (& DC, & NYC, etc.) Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

which is why the town with the lowest crime rate in America requires its residents to keep and maintain a hindgun in their homes.

common sense, jackasses

or should i say liberals?

which is why the town with the lowest crime rate in America requires its residents to keep and maintain a hindgun in their homes.

common sense, jackasses

or should i say liberals?
that kind of thinking comes from an archaic time when there was a threat from other clonial nations trying to invade. the thing is, that kinda thinking is irrelevent for these times. you can use the argument 'for self-defense', but the reality of that is there are other forms of self defence other than using a firearm. it too the australian government one massacre to change and ratify gun-laws that restrict gun ownership and use, yet after how many massacres? the US government has done nothing to amend that part of the constitution and bring in gun-control. you may argue for your right to own guns, but you have to rememeber, that that right could be shared by a crack-pot loony who could invade your house or work place. then, you might argue that you can use your firearms to defend yourself, when in fact, if the amendmant was changed and legeslation in place, that scenario could have been prevented

that kind of thinking comes from an archaic time when there was a threat from other clonial nations trying to invade. the thing is, that kinda thinking is irrelevent for these times. you can use the argument 'for self-defense', but the reality of that is there are other forms of self defence other than using a firearm. it too the australian government one massacre to change and ratify gun-laws that restrict gun ownership and use, yet after how many massacres? the US government has done nothing to amend that part of the constitution and bring in gun-control. you may argue for your right to own guns, but you have to rememeber, that that right could be shared by a crack-pot loony who could invade your house or work place. then, you might argue that you can use your firearms to defend yourself, when in fact, if the amendmant was changed and legeslation in place, that scenario could have been prevented

Most violent crimes are not committed with firearms in the U.S.

2.5 million violent crimes are STOPPED every year by civilians who carry guns - and without firing a shot.

And, it's been proven in my area that allowing people to have concealed carry permits is frightening criminals into going to jurisdictions where people are forbidden to carry guns.

Double-digit drops in violent crime in my area. More guns.
Our neighboring jurisdiction, just as affluent - Montgomery County - has had a 70 percent increase in armed robbery and double-digit increases in their violent crime over the same period - and the felons I talk to (I'm a lawyer) tell me that it's too dangerous to rob someone in Virginia now. So they drive to Maryland where they know the victim won't have a gun.

Gun control makes violent crime safer for the criminal. Because he knows no one will stop him.

Most violent crimes are not committed with firearms in the U.S.

2.5 million violent crimes are STOPPED every year by civilians who carry guns - and without firing a shot.

And, it's been proven in my area that allowing people to have concealed carry permits is frightening criminals into going to jurisdictions where people are forbidden to carry guns.

Double-digit drops in violent crime in my area. More guns.
Our neighboring jurisdiction, just as affluent - Montgomery County - has had a 70 percent increase in armed robbery and double-digit increases in their violent crime over the same period - and the felons I talk to (I'm a lawyer) tell me that it's too dangerous to rob someone in Virginia now. So they drive to Maryland where they know the victim won't have a gun.

Gun control makes violent crime safer for the criminal. Because he knows no one will stop him.
well maybe you should look into ways of stopping the criminal element before it starts, coz you practically said it yourself, they can drive to another state and commit the crime. and as i said before, there are other forms of self defence other than the carrying of firearms. any basic martial arts/self defence class will teach you how to disarm an attacker, and give you time to get away.

http://www.sj-r.com/Sections/News/Stories/49173.asp

"Friday's discoveries could lead to her being charged with defacing the identification marks on a handgun, manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance and having no valid firearm owner's ID card, police said."

Hmm. If she knew she had an illegal firearm in her house, why didn't she get rid of it a long time ago - take it to the police - as her organization says we all should do?

Why is she involved with people who commit drive-by shootings?

Could she be the one who was doing the shootings?
Sounds like an economically disadvantaged version of Rosie O'Donnell! :D

well maybe you should look into ways of stopping the criminal element before it starts, coz you practically said it yourself, they can drive to another state and commit the crime. and as i said before, there are other forms of self defence other than the carrying of firearms. any basic martial arts/self defence class will teach you how to disarm an attacker, and give you time to get away.
Any martial arts devotee who says he/she can disarm an attacker armed with a pistol is full of shit!

that kind of thinking comes from an archaic time when there was a threat from other clonial nations trying to invade. the thing is, that kinda thinking is irrelevent for these times. you can use the argument 'for self-defense', but the reality of that is there are other forms of self defence other than using a firearm. it too the australian government one massacre to change and ratify gun-laws that restrict gun ownership and use, yet after how many massacres? the US government has done nothing to amend that part of the constitution and bring in gun-control. you may argue for your right to own guns, but you have to rememeber, that that right could be shared by a crack-pot loony who could invade your house or work place. then, you might argue that you can use your firearms to defend yourself, when in fact, if the amendmant was changed and legeslation in place, that scenario could have been prevented
In what way do Oz's laws against possessing anything that you to (or it) declares to be a "weapon" prevent someone from taking some simple SMT tubing and a hacksaw and making a submachine gun?

When Philip Luty did it, just to prove to the Home Office that he could, he was thrown into irons and his book is on the Brittish Banned Books list (available only at specific libraries, under giovernment supervision, no copying allowed)

By "banning" weapons you are only keeping weapons out of the hands of wackjobs, not criminals. But then again, criminals don't normally shoot up schools, they just shoot up Cops, each other and the random unarmed civillian. I guess that isn't as sext a PR hit as a school massacre... that could have been done just as easily with an SUV at recess time.

well maybe you should look into ways of stopping the criminal element before it starts, coz you practically said it yourself, they can drive to another state and commit the crime. and as i said before, there are other forms of self defence other than the carrying of firearms. any basic martial arts/self defence class will teach you how to disarm an attacker, and give you time to get away.
And if you are in a wheelchair? Or Old?

"Have no fear of any man/No matter what his size/When danger threatens, call on me/And I will equalize." (Colt Firearms)

Every woman in the world should memorize that line.

It's A Human Right to have the tools to Survive! (http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html)

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/ccw/s_disarm.jpg

An anti gun organization.

exposed as a bunch of hypocrites, who'd have thought.

this not too long after Mikey Moore's (Fahrenlies 9/11) bodyguard was caught in a similar situation

ahhh... liberals and hypocrisy :D

Stevens said she believes the search warrant was obtained illegally. She said no drugs were found in her home. And as for the gun, she admits to having it in the house. But she said it belonged to her son. She didn't find it until six or seven months after he died. Not knowing what to do with it, she wrapped it up, put it in a drawer and forgot about it.

What does she mean she didn't know what to do with it? If she's so involved with anti-gun movements, you'd think that she'd know what to do with it. You've got a handgun with the serial number removed? Hmm, perhaps you should turn it into the police, and then wonder why your son had an illegal weapon in his possession in the first place.

What does she mean she didn't know what to do with it? If she's so involved with anti-gun movements, you'd think that she'd know what to do with it. You've got a handgun with the serial number removed? Hmm, perhaps you should turn it into the police, and then wonder why your son had an illegal weapon in his possession in the first place.

Although she denies it, they also alledgedly found drugs in her house.

So she:

1. Had a son that owned a blatantly illegal gun

2. Admittedly has contacts w/ gang members

3. Doesn't know what to do w/ an illegal gun even though she's a "prominent member of an anti-rights organization

4. Is alledgedly into drugs

I think this quote by Alan Gottlieb says it best:

"Annette Stevens may now understand why so many law-abiding people are fed up with the kind of gun laws that are promoted by the Million Mom March and other extremist gun control organizations. Ironically, the law against filing serial numbers off firearms is one that gun rights activists and organizations have long supported. Yet here she is, this ?poster mom? for gun control, acknowledging that she has kept an illegally-altered handgun in her home while she?s been campaigning to deprive other citizens of their firearms.

?In the kind of Draconian anti-gun society Stevens and her cohorts are trying to create, it wouldn?t matter if she were innocent as she claims. Under the laws her group supports, gun owners are essentially considered guilty until they prove themselves otherwise. That?s everything from background checks to waiting periods, and certainly the Illinois requirement that gun owners have a Firearms Owners Identification Card. Stevens has no FOID card, so there?s another gun law violation. There are thousands of local and state laws across the country that the Million Moms support, none of which have done anything to prevent a single crime. All they do is chip away at the gun rights of law-abiding citizens.

?If Stevens is so convinced guns don?t belong in society, then why didn?t she immediately turn that gun over to the police when she found it more than two years ago? Why did she keep it? What?s wrong with this picture? Ms. Stevens is about to learn that supporting gun control is like keeping a vicious dog. They sometimes bite the hands that feed them."

This post is false.

We all know that anti-gun people hire armed body guards to escort them, not purchase guns of their own.

I mean, that would be hypocritical!

And I wonder if she has one of these on her door . . .

http://handguncontrolinc.org/WhyMe_277w.gif

In what way do Oz's laws against possessing anything that you to (or it) declares to be a "weapon" prevent someone from taking some simple SMT tubing and a hacksaw and making a submachine gun?

When Philip Luty did it, just to prove to the Home Office that he could, he was thrown into irons and his book is on the Brittish Banned Books list (available only at specific libraries, under giovernment supervision, no copying allowed)

By "banning" weapons you are only keeping weapons out of the hands of wackjobs, not criminals. But then again, criminals don't normally shoot up schools, they just shoot up Cops, each other and the random unarmed civillian. I guess that isn't as sext a PR hit as a school massacre... that could have been done just as easily with an SUV at recess time.
we did not 'ban' firearms, but legislation was brought in prohibiting some weapons, and restricting the use of others. i dont say 'get rid of guns' but there needs to be things put in place so as to restrict access, both to the law abiding and non law abiding citizens. the thing is you and otheres are mainly basing your arguments on defence against people against guns, but you have to remember the laws apply to all. as for the martial arts that some people shot down, parden the put, cause of being ineffective against guns, i was replying to the statement that only a certain percentage of crimes involve guns. to use a gun to prevent a knife attack is just overkill. also, as i said before, more needs to be done by authorities (government as well as police) to prevent crimes taking place in the first place. i dont know if you realise this, but with the gun laws in america makes it come across to the rest of the world that it is a nation of trigger-happy gangsters and red-neck hicks

we did not 'ban' firearms, but legislation was brought in prohibiting some weapons, and restricting the use of others. i dont say 'get rid of guns' but there needs to be things put in place so as to restrict access, both to the law abiding and non law abiding citizens. the thing is you and otheres are mainly basing your arguments on defence against people against guns, but you have to remember the laws apply to all. as for the martial arts that some people shot down, parden the put, cause of being ineffective against guns, i was replying to the statement that only a certain percentage of crimes involve guns. to use a gun to prevent a knife attack is just overkill. also, as i said before, more needs to be done by authorities (government as well as police) to prevent crimes taking place in the first place. i dont know if you realise this, but with the gun laws in america makes it come across to the rest of the world that it is a nation of trigger-happy gangsters and red-neck hicks

What do you propose to "put in place" to restrict criminals from getting guns? More laws? That seems to be working.

Restrict access. Many nations (including the US) have used that idea to prevent groups of people it didn't like to acquire firearms and keep them under submission. That's the ONLY reason a gov't would want to "restrict access" to Law Abiding Citizens.

So if someone w/ a knife is threatening you, you wouldn't want something to keep him away from you? What do you think is "reasonable" when someone is trying to kill you or your family? Tasers aren't real effective and not everyone responds to pepper spray. Of course many places in the US ban that as well.

we did not 'ban' firearms, but legislation was brought in prohibiting some weapons, and restricting the use of others. i dont say 'get rid of guns' but there needs to be things put in place so as to restrict access, both to the law abiding and non law abiding citizens. the thing is you and otheres are mainly basing your arguments on defence against people against guns, but you have to remember the laws apply to all. as for the martial arts that some people shot down, parden the put, cause of being ineffective against guns, i was replying to the statement that only a certain percentage of crimes involve guns. to use a gun to prevent a knife attack is just overkill. also, as i said before, more needs to be done by authorities (government as well as police) to prevent crimes taking place in the first place. i dont know if you realise this, but with the gun laws in america makes it come across to the rest of the world that it is a nation of trigger-happy gangsters and red-neck hicks
How do you restrict gun sales to nonlawabiding citizens? More laws? Right, Einstein. Laws only apply to the lawabiding.

Using a gun to prevent a knife attack isn't overkill, it's protection. My fists won't beat a knife. My knife might beat your knife, but it might not. My gun always beats your knife. Think for once.

How do you restrict gun sales to nonlawabiding citizens? More laws? Right, Einstein. Laws only apply to the lawabiding.

Using a gun to prevent a knife attack isn't overkill, it's protection. My fists won't beat a knife. My knife might beat your knife, but it might not. My gun always beats your knife. Think for once.

He'ld rather listen to the media and use "reasonable force" to prevent crime.

Along that logic, "Crocodile Dundee" is an accurate description of Australians and I should ask an intruder what his intentions are and what he is armed w/ before I can respond.

Here's another great one from the anti-rights lobby hypocrisy corner:

http://www.goodbyeguns.org/page.html

It opens w/:

In his legal practice, he relishes cases that emphasize the rights of the individual. "Even though the preservation of individual rights is out of fashion now," Clark explains, "I've always admired Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, who understood that the primary purpose of the Court was protecting every individual from being oppressed by the Government." As Clark notes, this philosophy sometimes puts him at odds with the trends of the day.

Clark believes a small group of con artists are fooling our citizens into throwing away the rights our founding fathers paid for with their lives. Think Radio advocates "awareness and thought" as tools to defeat these evil and sinister con artists.


And then goes on to a petition that demands:

We, the people, therefore call upon you, our elected
representatives, to enact legislation to remove all guns and
firearms from private ownership.
Prohibit and criminalize the domestic possession of a
gun or firearm
Provide exemptions for governmental law enforcement
agencies, the armed services, and bona fide museums.
we, the people, choose to eliminate
all privately held guns and firearms from the United States
of America.

So he's going to protect the rights of the individual by taking away the rights of the individual?

I also like how he uses political cartoons to defend his "gun control myths"

well maybe you should look into ways of stopping the criminal element before it starts, coz you practically said it yourself, they can drive to another state and commit the crime. and as i said before, there are other forms of self defence other than the carrying of firearms. any basic martial arts/self defence class will teach you how to disarm an attacker, and give you time to get away.

I teach martial arts. I teach pistol and rifle classes. I also teach knife fighting.

We have a neat little demonstration with an unloaded gun - if the shooter is ready to fire, the martial artist cannot beat the gun. Consider that statistics show that even if someone already has a gun drawn on you, and your pistol is in the holster, you still have a 50 percent chance of firing first.

We've demonstrated this in class over and over and over again.

We also have a demonstration with a rubber knife, with chalk on its edges. It's nearly impossible to engage a hostile person who is using (not just holding) a knife without getting cut. If the knife were real, we would be talking about losing all of your fingers, or ruining your arm, or in some cases, being fatally stabbed in the chest or neck.

Like I said, violent interpersonal crime in our jurisdiction is at an all-time low, while violent interpersonal crime in the adjacent affluent jurisdiction is at an all-time high. You'll always have criminals. Police can't be everywhere. Martial arts sounds nice, but it doesn't work for most people, and it certainly doesn't work against armed or multiple attackers.

Guns deter crime. The statistics prove it.

exposed as a bunch of hypocrites, who'd have thought.

this not too long after Mikey Moore's (Fahrenlies 9/11) bodyguard was caught in a similar situation

ahhh... liberals and hypocrisy :D
I'm a liberal. I'm no hypocrite. You can find hypocrites on both sides of the political battlefield. Don't paint with such a broad brush.