American gun culture

[HapSmo19]

Johnny Cash's "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" doesn't equal "openly glorifies hurting people"?

No. The song is called "Folsom Prison Blues".

Let's take a moment to look at the rest of the lyrics:

I hear the train a comin'
It's rolling round the bend
And I ain't seen the sunshine since I don't know when,
I'm stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin' on
But that train keeps a rollin' on down to San Antone..
When I was just a baby my mama told me. Son,
Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns.
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die
When I hear that whistle blowing, I hang my head and cry..

Soooey!

I bet there's rich folks eating from a fancy dining car
They're probably drinkin' coffee and smoking big cigars.
Well I know I had it coming, I know I can't be free
But those people keep a movin'
And that's what tortures me...

Well if they freed me from this prison,
If that railroad train was mine
I bet I'd move it on a little farther down the line
Far from Folsom prison, that's where I want to stay
And I'd let that lonesome whistle blow my blues away.....

Not sure what you consider "glorifying" but that doesn't sound like a WIN to me. More like a cautionary tale.

And a 50+ year old folkish-country song is the best you could come up with?

Who's the weak troll here?

It's been an hour, BigBS. You gonna respond?

[Woodruff]

So HapSmo, is your lack of response the proof that you were simply trolling?

No. I simply re-read your opinions. Noted. Thanks.

Fair enough.

[BigBallinStalin]

Johnny Cash's "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" doesn't equal "openly glorifies hurting people"?

No. The song is called "Folsom Prison Blues".

Let's take a moment to look at the rest of the lyrics:

I hear the train a comin'
It's rolling round the bend
And I ain't seen the sunshine since I don't know when,
I'm stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin' on
But that train keeps a rollin' on down to San Antone..
When I was just a baby my mama told me. Son,
Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns.
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die
When I hear that whistle blowing, I hang my head and cry..

Soooey!

I bet there's rich folks eating from a fancy dining car
They're probably drinkin' coffee and smoking big cigars.
Well I know I had it coming, I know I can't be free
But those people keep a movin'
And that's what tortures me...

Well if they freed me from this prison,
If that railroad train was mine
I bet I'd move it on a little farther down the line
Far from Folsom prison, that's where I want to stay
And I'd let that lonesome whistle blow my blues away.....

Not sure what you consider "glorifying" but that doesn't sound like a WIN to me. More like a cautionary tale.

And a 50+ year old folkish-country song is the best you could come up with?

Who's the weak troll here?

You ever hear the live version of that song? People cheer after he says what I quoted. Simply because your interpretation differs from theirs doesn't mean that your interpretation is the one and only correct one.

How many country songs talk about drinking, getting in fights, going to jail, and not giving a shit?

My point is that music across almost all genres portray this fantasy-based or glorified version of hurting people, yet it's interesting that people only hate on rap music. The haters are prejudiced because they pick only a certain segment of that music, then apply their bias over the entire group.

[BigBallinStalin]

Johnny Cash's "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" doesn't equal "openly glorifies hurting people"?

No. The song is called "Folsom Prison Blues".

Let's take a moment to look at the rest of the lyrics:

I hear the train a comin'
It's rolling round the bend
And I ain't seen the sunshine since I don't know when,
I'm stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin' on
But that train keeps a rollin' on down to San Antone..
When I was just a baby my mama told me. Son,
Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns.
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die
When I hear that whistle blowing, I hang my head and cry..

Soooey!

I bet there's rich folks eating from a fancy dining car
They're probably drinkin' coffee and smoking big cigars.
Well I know I had it coming, I know I can't be free
But those people keep a movin'
And that's what tortures me...

Well if they freed me from this prison,
If that railroad train was mine
I bet I'd move it on a little farther down the line
Far from Folsom prison, that's where I want to stay
And I'd let that lonesome whistle blow my blues away.....

Not sure what you consider "glorifying" but that doesn't sound like a WIN to me. More like a cautionary tale.

And a 50+ year old folkish-country song is the best you could come up with?

Who's the weak troll here?

It's been an hour, BigBS. You gonna respond?

Sorry, bud; I had to finish pounding back a few Budweisers.

YEEEE HAW!!! <FIRES HIS LIBERTY PISTOLS>

[Woodruff]

And a 50+ year old folkish-country song is the best you could come up with?

Country Music: The Special Olympics of Music

(My wife loves country music, so this is my favorite response to her turning it on...)

[Night Strike]

It is, however folks like you who insist that any criticism at all of guns means instant outlawing of all guns that prevent a lot of honest and NEEDED discussion.

Then what discussions need to take place? The fact that the government needs to stop handing guns to drug dealers and other criminals? The fact that the government needs to stop trying to punish those who have never even committed a crime? The fact that where guns are outlawed, the criminals still carry guns while the law-abiding citizens are the only ones who don't?

Explain how these things are happening. But no, you are again just making a bunch of "anyone having anything negative to say is just anti-gun" assumptions.

I thought you were aware of current events. Or do your favored news outlets continue to cover up the ATF's Fast and Furious program where the government sold guns to drug dealers? Every new law that is passed regarding gun control only stops the people who obey the laws; it has no effect on people who break the laws. We already have plenty of laws to prosecute and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so let's start enforcing those correctly instead of passing new ones to keep guns away from law-abiding citizens. New York City has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but they still have gun violence because the criminals will carry the guns anyway. However those strict gun laws keep guns away from people who follow the law.

So, why don't we take away people's right to a trial by jury? Or their right to vote? Or their right to speak? Does everyone deserve a jury? Do people who vote the wrong way deserve to keep voting? Do people who say the wrong things deserve to keep speaking? In ALL of these instances, the answer would be "Yes, they must keep their rights". Yet when it comes to guns, it's not the criminals who should lose access to their guns but the normal, law-abiding citizens who should lose their rights. And yet people think that's perfectly acceptable? No wonder why our rights are in such jeopardy.

I have no idea to whom these comments are intended, but it has nothing to do with anything I have said.. at all.

They were directed to the general topic and people opposed to guns.

They have nothing to do with guns. Further, that whole topic was purely in your imagination, particularly when addressed to me.

You still don't actually read the posts you reply to. I said my post was directed to the general topic at hand and not your post specifically. Sorry that I didn't completely separate my quote of you from anything else said; the world doesn't actually revolve around you. That was my first post in the thread, so that paragraph above was talking about how liberals want everyone's rights to be respected yet will go out of their way to make sure a person's 2nd amendment rights are taken away. We don't take those other rights away from people, so why is it ok to take the right to bear arms away from people who have never even committed a crime? You're right, those rights have nothing to do with guns; my post has everything to do with rights that are actually written into the Constitution yet are selectively trampled over.

[Night Strike]

Stories like this tend to prove my point: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calf-senate-tries-to-criminalize-open-firearms-carry/

[PLAYER57832]

It is, however folks like you who insist that any criticism at all of guns means instant outlawing of all guns that prevent a lot of honest and NEEDED discussion.

Then what discussions need to take place? The fact that the government needs to stop handing guns to drug dealers and other criminals? The fact that the government needs to stop trying to punish those who have never even committed a crime? The fact that where guns are outlawed, the criminals still carry guns while the law-abiding citizens are the only ones who don't?

Explain how these things are happening. But no, you are again just making a bunch of "anyone having anything negative to say is just anti-gun" assumptions.

I thought you were aware of current events. Or do your favored news outlets continue to cover up the ATF's Fast and Furious program where the government sold guns to drug dealers?

I am aware of the phenomenal goof. I am not sure what the relevance to this discussion is, however.

Every new law that is passed regarding gun control only stops the people who obey the laws; it has no effect on people who break the laws.

This is absolutely not true, and again, is the kind of blanket rhetoric that prevents real and truly needed discussions. That folks convicted of certain crimes and, now, with certain diagnosed/certified psychiatric conditions are not allowed to own guns doesn't infringe upon the rights of the rest of us, quite the contrary. For that matter, neither does the restriction against minors buying guns. And, yes, the laws do inhibit those people from buying guns. Prevent utterly? No, but such a claim would be as idiotic as the ones you are attempting to make here.

We already have plenty of laws to prosecute and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so let's start enforcing those correctly instead of passing new ones to keep guns away from law-abiding citizens. New York City has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but they still have gun violence because the criminals will carry the guns anyway. However those strict gun laws keep guns away from people who follow the law.

I see and this relates to whether people have a false or realistic view of the safety carrying one will provide, how, exactly?

So, why don't we take away people's right to a trial by jury? Or their right to vote? Or their right to speak? Does everyone deserve a jury? Do people who vote the wrong way deserve to keep voting? Do people who say the wrong things deserve to keep speaking? In ALL of these instances, the answer would be "Yes, they must keep their rights". Yet when it comes to guns, it's not the criminals who should lose access to their guns but the normal, law-abiding citizens who should lose their rights. And yet people think that's perfectly acceptable? No wonder why our rights are in such jeopardy.

I have no idea to whom these comments are intended, but it has nothing to do with anything I have said.. at all.

They were directed to the general topic and people opposed to guns.

They have nothing to do with guns. Further, that whole topic was purely in your imagination, particularly when addressed to me.

You still don't actually read the posts you reply to. I said my post was directed to the general topic at hand and not your post specifically. Sorry that I didn't completely separate my quote of you from anything else said; the world doesn't actually revolve around you.

Most people consider comments put after a quote and not distinguished to be response.

You goofed, fine, but hardly arrogance on my part.

That was my first post in the thread, so that paragraph above was talking about how liberals want everyone's rights to be respected yet will go out of their way to make sure a person's 2nd amendment rights are taken away. We don't take those other rights away from people, so why is it ok to take the right to bear arms away from people who have never even committed a crime? You're right, those rights have nothing to do with guns; my post has everything to do with rights that are actually written into the Constitution yet are selectively trampled over.

No one is trying to take everyone's guns away , except plenty of right wingers are happy to make that straw man argument.

I deal with truth, not right wing fictions. So far, all you have presented is that right wing fiction.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stories like this tend to prove my point: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calf-senate-tries-to-criminalize-open-firearms-carry/

RE: people openly carrying a gun

“This is not the wild west… how discomforting can it be if you walk into a restaurant, to Starbucks, to Mickey D’s, wherever it is that you may go to, and all of a sudden you see someone walking around with a handgun, and you don’t know, can‘t discern if they’re a law enforcement agent.”

Yet another appeal to government regulation/state intervention. Instead of allowing people to find voluntary means to resolve this issue, the state--on behalf of a loud enough minority--will attempt to enforce "order."

Another solution: let businesses decide if they should allow people with firearms in their places--so as not to disturb a (most likely) extremely small and yet very sensitive group of customers. If the sensitive don't like seeing a guy with gun, they don't have to frequent the establishment.

Seeing someone carry a gun may be scary, but at least you know he's got a gun--and he's not the guy that would tend to rob the place. It takes time for people to adapt to other people's norms, but with the government, who needs to reasonably adapt when you can effectively curb individual liberty?

[HapSmo19]

“This is not the wild west…

Has this guy ever even been to his senatorial district?

[Phatscotty]

I guess 2 blue moons really do only happen once every blue moon.

In a high-profile example of Florida’s controversial self-defense statute known as the “Stand your Ground” law, a judge has dismissed all charges against a man in what was initially considered by prosecutors to be a case worthy of the death penalty.

Judge Richard Oftedahl of the 15th Judicial Circuit last week dismissed two first-degree murder charges against Michael Monahan, 65.

The ruling stated Monahan was justified under Florida Statute 776.013(3), the “Stand your Ground” law, when he shot Raymond Mohlman and Matthew Vittum because he was in fear for his life during an altercation aboard a 35-foot sailboat anchored near Riviera Beach, Florida.

At first glance the case appeared likely to see trial, as there were no weapons on the two dead men and little to go on except Monahan’s account. In fact, prosecutors had originally sought the death penalty against Monahan but altered course early in the case.

When Riviera Beach police arrived at the scene on April 3rd, according to the Sun-Sentinel, they found Monahan:

“Paddling his kayak away from the Green Galleon, where Ramie Mohlman and Vittum lay dead. In interviews with police, Monahan said the men had tried to remove him from the sailboat, which he had bought from Mohlman six months earlier for $1,000.”

Mohlman, formerly a competitive wrestler who quit his local teaching job in 2010 to spend most of the year in Belize, had previously confronted Monahan for allegedly running up $500 of tickets for registration violations with the sailboat.

Monahan’s attorney, however, told the court that Monahan explicitly stated from the outset he was afraid for his life, and felt he had no option other than to defend himself. Mohlman’s intent that day, as well as his justification for boarding the vessel, came under the court’s scrutiny:

“Witnesses told police that by the time Mohlman boarded the Green Galleon with Vittum on the day they died, his plans were to either evict Monahan from the boat, or to kill him… Monahan said Mohlman never showed him any proof of the tickets and felt cornered when Mohlman and Vittum boarded his boat without his permission. He said he didn’t have time to call police.”

In addition to Monahan’s narrative of events, Mohlman’s blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit, and Vittum had cocaine, oxycodone, and marijuana in his system when he was killed.

The Assistant State attorney in the case, Jacqui Charbonneau, tried to prevent the court’s dismissal by asserting neither of the men Monahan killed were armed, they were shot from 20 feet away, and Monahan admitted neither of them laid a hand on him during the dispute.

The judge countered with the fact that the statute does not call for the assailants to be armed or to commit physical violence, only to have created the perception of imminent violence. The most relevant part of the statute reads:

“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

[Woodruff]

I guess 2 blue moons really do only happen once every blue moon.

Is there a reason you believe any of us has a problem with this particular scenario (as it's outlined)? I'm pretty sure none of us do.

[Phatscotty]

Go ahead fellas! Tread on me!"

We need to design that flag for him.

[Night Strike]

It is, however folks like you who insist that any criticism at all of guns means instant outlawing of all guns that prevent a lot of honest and NEEDED discussion.

Then what discussions need to take place? The fact that the government needs to stop handing guns to drug dealers and other criminals? The fact that the government needs to stop trying to punish those who have never even committed a crime? The fact that where guns are outlawed, the criminals still carry guns while the law-abiding citizens are the only ones who don't?

Explain how these things are happening. But no, you are again just making a bunch of "anyone having anything negative to say is just anti-gun" assumptions.

I thought you were aware of current events. Or do your favored news outlets continue to cover up the ATF's Fast and Furious program where the government sold guns to drug dealers?

I am aware of the phenomenal goof. I am not sure what the relevance to this discussion is, however.

A phenomenal goof???? If this were the Bush administration, you'd be calling for immediate impeachment. It's 100% relevant to this discussion because the government is (was) actively providing guns to criminals while at the same time passing regulations to further restrict guns from law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, they have now forced gun dealers in border states (unconstitutionally by the way, since the feds can't force one state to do something and not another) to have stricter tracking and time between sales and blamed it on the increase of American guns in Mexico. Even though those guns were there because of the government, not because of private gun dealers. So yes, it is 100% relevant.

Every new law that is passed regarding gun control only stops the people who obey the laws; it has no effect on people who break the laws.

This is absolutely not true, and again, is the kind of blanket rhetoric that prevents real and truly needed discussions. That folks convicted of certain crimes and, now, with certain diagnosed/certified psychiatric conditions are not allowed to own guns doesn't infringe upon the rights of the rest of us, quite the contrary. For that matter, neither does the restriction against minors buying guns. And, yes, the laws do inhibit those people from buying guns. Prevent utterly? No, but such a claim would be as idiotic as the ones you are attempting to make here.

Those aren't new laws. Criminals and mentally ill people should not have guns. People who obey the law should be allowed to have guns. Why do you bring up those cases but then ignore every other case like the one I posted about California that restricts law-abiding citizens?

We already have plenty of laws to prosecute and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so let's start enforcing those correctly instead of passing new ones to keep guns away from law-abiding citizens. New York City has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but they still have gun violence because the criminals will carry the guns anyway. However those strict gun laws keep guns away from people who follow the law.

I see and this relates to whether people have a false or realistic view of the safety carrying one will provide, how, exactly?

Nice of you to try to tie my statement into something completely unrelated. I clearly stated that in places that have (unconstitutionally) strict gun laws, the law-abiding citizens follow the law and do not carry guns while the criminals DO carry guns. Passing new laws only hurts the citizens, they do not stop the criminals.

That was my first post in the thread, so that paragraph above was talking about how liberals want everyone's rights to be respected yet will go out of their way to make sure a person's 2nd amendment rights are taken away. We don't take those other rights away from people, so why is it ok to take the right to bear arms away from people who have never even committed a crime? You're right, those rights have nothing to do with guns; my post has everything to do with rights that are actually written into the Constitution yet are selectively trampled over.

No one is trying to take everyone's guns away , except plenty of right wingers are happy to make that straw man argument.

I deal with truth, not right wing fictions. So far, all you have presented is that right wing fiction.

HA! There are TONS of people trying to take all guns away (just look at NYC and California). We have all (or nearly all) the laws on the books that we need to make sure people who commit crimes lose their guns and are unable to get more guns. Let's start enforcing those laws instead of trying to pass new laws every time someone commits a gun crime (like Tucson or the killing spree labor day weekend in NYC).

[HapSmo19]

Go ahead fellas! Tread on me!"

We need to design that flag for him.

/5

Did you do that?

[bedub1]

I've been thinking of purchasing a silencer/suppressor since I am finally allowed to use them while residing in the state that I reside in. I was talking to somebody about it, and they told me this: In Germany, it's consider rude and inconsiderate to fail to quiet your firearm. Apparently it's similar to being obnoxious with your motorcycle, or using a leaf blower rudely etc. In the USA it's very difficult to quiet your firearm, and most people seem to think I'm silly for wishing they were quieter. Any Germans present that know if this is true?

[Woodruff]

I've been thinking of purchasing a silencer/suppressor since I am finally allowed to use them while residing in the state that I reside in. I was talking to somebody about it, and they told me this: In Germany, it's consider rude and inconsiderate to fail to quiet your firearm. Apparently it's similar to being obnoxious with your motorcycle, or using a leaf blower rudely etc. In the USA it's very difficult to quiet your firearm, and most people seem to think I'm silly for wishing they were quieter. Any Germans present that know if this is true?

I lived in Germany (on the economy for most of it), and I don't recall this being the case. Then again, since I did not personally have a firearm at that time, it very likely wouldn't have come up in conversation either.

[bedub1]

I've been thinking of purchasing a silencer/suppressor since I am finally allowed to use them while residing in the state that I reside in. I was talking to somebody about it, and they told me this: In Germany, it's consider rude and inconsiderate to fail to quiet your firearm. Apparently it's similar to being obnoxious with your motorcycle, or using a leaf blower rudely etc. In the USA it's very difficult to quiet your firearm, and most people seem to think I'm silly for wishing they were quieter. Any Germans present that know if this is true?

I lived in Germany (on the economy for most of it), and I don't recall this being the case. Then again, since I did not personally have a firearm at that time, it very likely wouldn't have come up in conversation either.

Did you ever go to a shooting range?

[Woodruff]

I've been thinking of purchasing a silencer/suppressor since I am finally allowed to use them while residing in the state that I reside in. I was talking to somebody about it, and they told me this: In Germany, it's consider rude and inconsiderate to fail to quiet your firearm. Apparently it's similar to being obnoxious with your motorcycle, or using a leaf blower rudely etc. In the USA it's very difficult to quiet your firearm, and most people seem to think I'm silly for wishing they were quieter. Any Germans present that know if this is true?

I lived in Germany (on the economy for most of it), and I don't recall this being the case. Then again, since I did not personally have a firearm at that time, it very likely wouldn't have come up in conversation either.

Did you ever go to a shooting range?

Only the U.S. military ones, not the German ones. Sorry.

[BigBallinStalin]

I guess 2 blue moons really do only happen once every blue moon.

In a high-profile example of Florida’s controversial self-defense statute known as the “Stand your Ground” law, a judge has dismissed all charges against a man in what was initially considered by prosecutors to be a case worthy of the death penalty.

Judge Richard Oftedahl of the 15th Judicial Circuit last week dismissed two first-degree murder charges against Michael Monahan, 65.

The ruling stated Monahan was justified under Florida Statute 776.013(3), the “Stand your Ground” law, when he shot Raymond Mohlman and Matthew Vittum because he was in fear for his life during an altercation aboard a 35-foot sailboat anchored near Riviera Beach, Florida.

At first glance the case appeared likely to see trial, as there were no weapons on the two dead men and little to go on except Monahan’s account. In fact, prosecutors had originally sought the death penalty against Monahan but altered course early in the case.

When Riviera Beach police arrived at the scene on April 3rd, according to the Sun-Sentinel, they found Monahan:

“Paddling his kayak away from the Green Galleon, where Ramie Mohlman and Vittum lay dead. In interviews with police, Monahan said the men had tried to remove him from the sailboat, which he had bought from Mohlman six months earlier for $1,000.”

Mohlman, formerly a competitive wrestler who quit his local teaching job in 2010 to spend most of the year in Belize, had previously confronted Monahan for allegedly running up $500 of tickets for registration violations with the sailboat.

Monahan’s attorney, however, told the court that Monahan explicitly stated from the outset he was afraid for his life, and felt he had no option other than to defend himself. Mohlman’s intent that day, as well as his justification for boarding the vessel, came under the court’s scrutiny:

“Witnesses told police that by the time Mohlman boarded the Green Galleon with Vittum on the day they died, his plans were to either evict Monahan from the boat, or to kill him… Monahan said Mohlman never showed him any proof of the tickets and felt cornered when Mohlman and Vittum boarded his boat without his permission. He said he didn’t have time to call police.”

In addition to Monahan’s narrative of events, Mohlman’s blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit, and Vittum had cocaine, oxycodone, and marijuana in his system when he was killed.

The Assistant State attorney in the case, Jacqui Charbonneau, tried to prevent the court’s dismissal by asserting neither of the men Monahan killed were armed, they were shot from 20 feet away, and Monahan admitted neither of them laid a hand on him during the dispute.

The judge countered with the fact that the statute does not call for the assailants to be armed or to commit physical violence, only to have created the perception of imminent violence. The most relevant part of the statute reads:

“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

I dig it.

[Phatscotty]

Did someone say duel?



Johnny Cash: Folsom Prison Blues VS. Brotha Lynch Hung: 781 RedRum

He's beginning to believe!

Another Day, another story....

video

Michigan Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven should have been held up as another example of a citizen putting his concealed carry permit to good use after he foiled a brazen armed robbery last May, but instead of a handshake, Hoven was given a pink slip.

Hoven’s employer– Walgreens– fired him after the incident, despite the fact that he was in fear for his life as a gunman tried to shoot him. No injuries or loss of property occurred.

Now Hoven is filing a wrongful termination lawsuit, and his lawyer has just released shocking surveillance video from the terrifying exchange. The footage appears to corroborate Hoven’s statements and is likely to play a prominent role in his suit against Walgreens.

Here’s a recap of the incident: While working the overnight shift at the Benton Harbor, Michigan, Walgreens, Hoven saw two men armed with pistols burst into the store.

One of the robbers held a gun to the head of a Walgreens employee, while the other masked robber jumped across the pharmacy counter, and tried three times to shoot Hoven, but his gun wouldn’t fire.

Hoven tried to call the police but at that point, he believed his only option was to return fire. He shot three rounds at his attackers. Hoven missed, but scared away the gunmen and ended the robbery without further incident.

“I feared for my life,” Hoven said, “and in self defense, I fired my weapon as I continued to move from him.”

Blue Moon

[end credits]

[Symmetry]

I thought you were aware of current events. Or do your favored news outlets continue to cover up the ATF's Fast and Furious program where the government sold guns to drug dealers?

I am aware of the phenomenal goof. I am not sure what the relevance to this discussion is, however.

A phenomenal goof???? If this were the Bush administration, you'd be calling for immediate impeachment. It's 100% relevant to this discussion because the government is (was) actively providing guns to criminals while at the same time passing regulations to further restrict guns from law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, they have now forced gun dealers in border states (unconstitutionally by the way, since the feds can't force one state to do something and not another) to have stricter tracking and time between sales and blamed it on the increase of American guns in Mexico. Even though those guns were there because of the government, not because of private gun dealers. So yes, it is 100% relevant.

I think we did this one in another thread, but just to reitereate, the program was started under the Bush administration, and the first sales also occurred during the Bush administration. Curiously enough, no members of the Bush administration were called to be impeached. Anyway- the thread discussing it is here. It kind of went dead when it was pointed out that it was a Bush era policy. Funny that. Almost as if it was only worth criticising if Obama did it. Personally, I'd give Obama credit for shutting it down, if I were so inclined.

[Phatscotty]

Bojuka Gun Self Defense Technique - How to Disarm an Armed Attacker

Gun Defense

Thread is collapsing

[PLAYER57832]

That's fine, but none of it shows that the average person is safer for carrying a gun. However, there are plenty of people who believe that is the case.

[Phatscotty]

That's fine, but none of it shows that the average person is safer for carrying a gun. However, there are plenty of people who believe that is the case.

average law abiding person, absolutely makes it safer