Bio not provided
Answer the question or are you that much of a dumfukk?
1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118759/nra-and-gun-trafficking-are-adding-fuel-border-migrant-crisis
So you are still too stupid to prove that the dependent clause now overrules the independent clause we see!
Oh thats right, Obama appointed an anti gunterd BATF agent from Chicagostan, which has the poorest record of prosecuting crimes involving the illegal use of a gun of ANY of the 90 district offices!
Yet you expect an incompentent to improve how again?
Geez more evidence the democrats dont care about enforcing the existing laws!
Really sad when even your gun ban leaders admit ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS MORONS!
Bloomberg’s guy admits ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS, LOL!
More democrat enabled blood lust!
Target robbery……thought this was a gun free zone eh?
Thought criminals obeyed your no guns at Target signs eh?
A man fatally shot his wife Sunday
night in a cafe in the Ikebukuro district of Tokyo, apparently in a fit of
anger during a quarrel.
Amazing how violent and blood thirsty democrats are...well not really, its what they are!
Politicians and thuggstas
working together…the chicagostan way!
Hey, another gun free zone where thuggsta democrats rob without
fear of being shot on the L in chicagostan
More chicagostan gun ban
This is what happens to
disarmed citizens in chicagostan
Man that’s a lot of killing enabled by democrats!
Fake firearms, man you anti gunterds better ban those to!
Gun free signs, didn’t stop the criminals yet again!
Thought you anti gunterds claimed no guns allowed signs stopped
criminals eh, LOL!
LOL thuggsta accidently
shoots partner during crime, LOL, better ban guns from criminals!
Another enlightened democrat resorting to violence first!
Undocumented democrat killed her son!
Review of Self-defense incidents collated at Guns Save
Lives dot net (many more website and incidents exist, takes time to
collate) from February 2012-present shows….
780 = Total Incidents
2,242 = Total People Defended
1,264 = Total attackers
11 = Attacked in car (car jacking)
168 = Attacked at Business
506 = Attacked at Home
83 = Attacked Other (churches, parking lots, etc…)
64.9% = % of attacks at home
2.52 = Avg. # of attackers when more than 1
59.6% = % of incidents 1 attacker
40.4% = % of incidents more than 1 attacker
60.6 % = % of bad guys armed
Hmmmm, where were all the police to protect these victims
By the way moron, when are any of you obamabagger anti gunterds going to post the publicly available 990 tax forms of the NSSF & NRA side by side and prove your straw men lies are true!
Since both are publicly available, you should need only 30 minutes maximum to pull and post said evidence!
Failure to do so means you are proven to be the pathological liar we already know all anti gunterds to be!
1 week, 1 day ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118759/nra-and-gun-trafficking-are-adding-fuel-border-migrant-crisis
But in reality, we have
found the perfect solution for suicide and violence in the US, all based on your progressive
kommies penchant for everyone shares responsibility for everyone else’s
This based on a N Korean defectors response to what is the suicide
rate in N Korea!
is known to be the country with the lowest suicide rate on earth. Why is this,
for this nation with the worst world economy, human rights violations, and
highest number of defectors in the world? It is because there is a mental
pressure far stronger than suicide itself.
defines, "Every citizens of DPRK is a family member of 'Kim Il Sung
People' and a child of 'Ocean-like Kim Jong Il comrade'." Because of this,
every citizen is a member of this larger society; therefore, committing suicide
is considered a treason, marking the person as a traitor to the leader, the
party, the nation, and the people.
in your family committed suicide, everyone in the family gets purged by North
Korea's infamous IMPLICATED CRIME LAW.
This is why
a North Korean citizen can end his/her poor life by starving/freezing/beaten to
death, but not suicide. However, even with this kind of strict and unforgiving
social pressure on suicide, some people kill themselves with much contempt for
let the dead rest, but the rest of the family would be socially and politically
ostracized for the rest of their lives, with no hope for success or career.
reality, you anti gun nuts should be all over this kind of law, the IMPLICATED CRIME LAW to punish those
not responsible, collectively, the kommie lovers way.
of suicide or violent felony, your entire family will never have welfare, food
stamps, free school, no citizenship, etc, etc…no trial to decide this,
automatic and no repeals!
be a constitutional law as we already see law abiding people not guilty of
committing a crime being taxed, registered, banned because of the criminals
are you anti gun nuts going to buy into such an obvious good law that would
reduce suicides and violence in just a couple months time eh?
Lets see, lets start with you posting a video of a gun loading, aiming, and pulling its own trigger!
Next you will prove you are GOD by demonstrating how a gun is the root cause of avarice, greed, lust, religious intolerance, poverty, drug & alcohol abuse, gangs, lack of schooling, 1 momma w 8 kids & 8 different daddies etc, etc.....
Oh wait, guns are not the root cause of violence, hence anyone claiming GUN VIOLENCE is clinically insane or a pathological liar!
The actual subject is the failure of gun control mantra by the democrats and their inherent failure to actually address violence, not voter fraud.
So instead of your childish BS, when are you going to act like an adult and address your violent constituents and actually enforce the existing laws eh?
Aw, that the best pile of lies ya got obamabagger?
@johnbook1985 All you ignorant obamabagger pavement apes do is copy and paste, hence everything you post is a lie!
Mexican government reported that there were 31,532 homicides in the country between January
and November of 2013 including 16,736 labeled as “intentional” murder and
14,796 as “negligent” manslaughter.
Those figures along with other national
crime statistics were released by the Mexican government’s Executive Secretariat of the
National Public Security System (SESNSP) on Dec. 17.
Isnt it amazing how gun control of only the law abiding hasnt reduced violence by the bad guys....
Not really, shall we even begin to start posting how people in Mexico in defiance of the absurd laws, are now arming themselves, forming miltiias, and fighting off the cartels.......and the corrupt government who many times are one and the same as the cartels.
See, thats what happens when government oversteps their authority and disarms the law abiding civilians, a result repeated all the time!
Why is it, that the police,
whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.06%
of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis?
FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR
(Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.
But oh wait, we have to
remember those on avg. for the last 10 years 73.95% of all violent crimes committed
each year the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National
Victimization report 2008. Oh yeah, Canada & England recognize this as well, funny how they come up with the same results eh!
So based on that (1.38 mil x
45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are
solved each year.
Oh thats right, someone
planning and being prepared for the worst case is insane in your opinion. So
why weren't you the one leading the health care reform for Obama? I mean since
being prepared is insane, there really is no need for car, home, life or
medical insurance right?
The courts have
ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals:
v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement
that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d
560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no
liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d
197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to
provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924,
165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia,
468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police
Warren v. District of Columbia,
444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363
(Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat.
4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d
460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App.
3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville,
272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d
206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super.
324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no
liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super.
281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth.
170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police
“Law enforcement agencies and
personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of
others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989
A history of gun control in the US amazing how violence always increased when gun control was implemented....hmmmm!
1.) The SodbustersThe United States was pretty well settled by 1885, with homicide
rates that generally reflected the country of origin of the settlers. Most
areas homicide rates were as low as 0.4 per 100,000 population, or 1 murder for
250,000 population. The exceptions were some notorious cities such as New York
and San Francisco.
2.) Labor Wars The same labor problems that very nearly destroyed the British
Monarchy visited the US. While the homicide rates stayed extremely low by
today’s standards, murder rates were terrifyingly high by the standards of the
time. The resulting gun control laws that were intended to disarm strikers and
scabs hit everyone, and the homicide rate more than tripled.
3.)Sullivan’s Turnaround The labor wars took a breather in 1909 and 1910, with a slight
decrease in both homicide and violent crime rates. There were well founded
hopes for continuing decline in those rates but New York’s “Big Tim” Sullivan
destroyed those hopes with New York’s Sullivan Law and the soaring crime rates
4.)Bathtub Gin and Gun Control. As a result of further labor problems, WWI, prohibition, and
the rise of gangs such as Capone’s, murder and violent crime rates did not come
down until 1934, when prohibition was a dead letter and cash strapped police
departments stopped enforcing gun laws that should never have been passed in
the first place.
5.)The Black Market Spike. During WWII the same gangs that fought for alcohol distribution
rights fought to supply the black markets with everything from kerosene, meat,
and catchup, to tobacco, and yes, booze. While law eforcement came down hard,
it was still enough to cause a short term spike in murder rates.
6.) The Second American Gun Control
Drive The second gun control drive effectively began in early
1963 and the results were immediately obvious. Homicide rates doubled in a
decade, going from a rate of 4.6 per 100,000 population in 1963 to an official
rate of 9.4 per 100,000 in 1973 and 9.8 in 1974. The apparent short term declines between 1973 and 1991 are a
result of under-reporting crime totals, and not an actual decline. That decline
did not come until…
Relaxed gun laws and falling
crime rates By 1991 the beneficial effects of
Florida’s Concealed Carry Weapons permit system had become obvious. The two
murders a day in Florida’s roadside rest areas had disappeared, violent crime
and homicide rates were “falling
off a cliff, and people sorely beset by violent crime were begging their
legislators for relief. And for concealed carry.
8.) And now, with murder rates at a
100 year low And now, with a year and a half
years of decline to add to the post 1993 decline, it appears the United States
murder rate is at its lowest point since 1910. And it is obvious that the
ruling faction in the Democratic Partei wants to drive murder rates back to
where they were in the 1980′s.
Yeah, see words have meanings, and complex sentences determine the meanings of words within the sentence, and all the diversionary BS you have spouted, will EVER change the rules and how a complex sentence works.
See, changing how those rules work, based on your based idiotic political beliefs just doesnt work that way, cause every single ruling in the world where a complex sentence was in the wording of the claim, would then have to now be re-reviewed as einstein wannabe YOU, claims it is now changed.
By the way dumfukk, the placement of the dependent clause first in a complex sentence does not make it the determinator in any fashion!
By the way, why is it that you realy so heavily, on a ruling (Miller 1939) where the defendent had already died, and his representation never showed to provide the evidence that a short barreled shotgun, was indeed an appropariate weapon as it had been used in WW1 and on may previous occasions for battle....hmmmm.
Funny how even when the government plays bully like that and does a one sided review with no counter arguement, how they managed to implement the two pronged test of what is an acceptable firearm, and geez, the AR15 and all similar rifles do indeed pass that test, its called IN COMMON USE!
Maybe you should go convince one of the leading criminalogist/constituional scholars in the US Professor Adam Winkler how that Miller ruling wont eventually lead to eliminating the aasault weapon BS laws, which he stated it will, capiche moron!
Obviously, you cant provide any proof other than your beliefs, hence not the one who cant understand the ruling, also not the one who cant prove the 2A is a collective right only moron, you are!
So sad, you obfuscate all sorts of your beliefs based on midirective claims and provide no proof to back it up. so lets use the 3 steps of CONSTITUTIONALITY and let you spew some more!
In analyzing the typical constitutional
claim, there are a series of three steps that must be followed in a logical
1.The first step is to specify the nature
of the constitutional claim. This includes the character of the government
overreaching and the constitutional provision(s) allegedly violated (e.g.,
racial discrimination engaged in by the federal government in violation of the
equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause; state
interference with a fundamental right in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process Clause; state discrimination against interstate commerce in
violation of the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause; state discrimination
against out of state residents in violation of the Privileges and Immunities
Clause of Article IV, etc.).
Oh wait, it must be SPECIFIC to the particular
case, which can be thousands of different permutations, hence an all
encompassing ruling is rather hard to get to a writ of ceritori, which nothing
in the lower courts was…HMMMM!
2. The second step is to identify the
abstract criteria used to evaluate a constitutional claim of the kind asserted.
These abstract criteria are embodied in a "standard of review." A
standard of review is a test created to distinguish between constitutional
exercises of government power and unconstitutional exercises of government
power. The test identifies the dividing line between the constitutionally
acceptable and the unconstitutional. If the government action passes scrutiny
under the standard of review, the government has respected the limitations
placed on its authority by the Constitution. The standard of review may also be
referred to as the "level of scrutiny," the "test" or the
"standard." The standard of review must be determined before a court
can consider the facts of a particular case. A court at this stage is
identifying general constitutional principles which it will use to resolve a
case of the type it has before it. The selection of a standard of review is a
critical stage in constitutional analysis and is often a subject of
disagreement between the parties to the action because the standard selected
can often make the difference between victory and defeat. The party raising the
constitutional claim will try and present arguments for the strictest standard
of review available under the circumstances in order to make it difficult for
the government to justify its action. The government, by contrast, will try and
present arguments for the most lenient level of scrutiny available under the
circumstances so that its burden of justification is much lighter.
Oh wait, a lower court, that is an
obvious BIAS against the 2A would NEVER make a decision based on PERSONAL
BELIEFS now would they, oh hundreds of examples already exist!
3. The third step is to apply the
standard of review to the particular facts of the case. This may involve an
analysis of the government's reasons for its action, including the nature of
the problem the government is trying to solve, what the government hopes to
achieve by the solution it has devised and the connection between what the
government is trying to achieve (the ends) and what it has done (the means). In
general, the sounder the connection between the governmental ends and means,
the more likely a court will be to find the government has acted in a
So the GOVERNMENT is verify that its
actions were an valid logical attempt to solve a problem by its actions…that’s
ok, so where again is a law, that doesn’t affect the actual criminals, solve
any alleged problem?
Can the militia exist without the individual first existing, yes or no moron!
You are being obtuse MORON!
Why is it all anti gunterds have a rabid aversion to enforcing the existing laws....oh thats right, it doesnt increase useless as teets on a boar hogs gun control laws that only affect the law abiding, hence it is a lame diversionary tactic of the ingorant, hate filled intolerant obamabagger anti gunterds!
They do this diversionary tact because 30% of the population, not white, commits 87% of all violent crimes, and votes predominantly democrat....hmmmm......makes democrats the most violent portion of our society.
So we understand why democrats dont REALLY want to address violence, they are the problem!
Thanks yet again for demonstrating and reinforcing that democrats dont really want to do anything about actual violence, they just want to stomp their feet, squeal in petulent rage and go WAAAAAHH DATS NOT FWAIR USING FWACTS I CANT PWOVE WONG WAAAAAAH!
Eugene Hollon, authored a review of government data shows over 1870-1885 all
the wildest west towns reviewing government death data and wow, only 45 deaths
for a 1 per 100k death rate.
we review FBI UCR database in 2008 and we see gun ban paradises Chicago 12.3
deaths per 100k people, NYC 4.3 deaths per 100k people, Washington D.C. 23.2
deaths per 100k people,
Wow, funny how the gun ban paradises are so much more
violent than the wild west eh? Just proves reality is entirely different than
your drug induced fantasies based on dime store novels and Hollywood.
Geez, lets get into the context of what was, see all the
cowboys and travelers, came to towns because thats where the saloons, the
gambling, the pretty saloon girls, the entertainment of the day were located
Some towns had people hang their guns up when they came to town
becuase they were going to DRINK and get STUPID.
Oh wait, no one has ever said drinking and handling a gu_n is
But then they didnt take their guns away, they just requested
by the facts, they not carry while they were PARTYING.
In fact, that led directly to CONCEALED CARRY, the hideout
gun, but hey, such facts are lost on simpletons!
Those country cops didnt ban certain types of guns, they didnt
have registrations, they didnt do all that extra BS regulatory bullying that
anti guntards love to do today.
We even have evidence that gun control then, didnt work
either, otherwise how did the OK Corral occur in a hang your guns up town eh?
a clue moron!
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops --- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline. --- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got. --- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troopsalways ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions. --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army. --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
You obviously never passed basic english comprehension and did not graduate high school either, topped off with your inherent natural born pathological liar as well BECAUSE THE DEPENDENT CLAUSE NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL DICTATE THE MEANING OF A COMPLEX SENTENCE, END OF STORY!
Still waiting for you to prove the militia existed before the armed indivudal and their pre-existing individual rights....oh wait, negative IQ anti gunterds never prove anything they claim, my bad!
Oh wait, your the anti gunterd, who claims the BOR is a control on the citizens rights, when it has been since its inception, a control of the government powers, prove otherwise MORON!
Heller was a ruling on the consitutionality of the gun ban, not the individual right (THAT WAS 8 to 1 MORON)
Hmmm, oh wait, does the BATF & the NICS background check
ever catch a bad guy using a fake identification, why no they don’t Mr Steve,
Man, lots govt. data and facts steve intentionally ignores
about gun dealers yet it claims they are INTENTIONALLY the major source of
firearms, yet the BATF doesn’t catch or stop fake id or straw buyers, hmmm.
In fact the CBS News 3/21/2001 report showed 100% of
undercover congressional investigators using fake IDs were able to skirt
mandatory background checks and purchase guns in all of the five states where
The General Accounting Office study concluded that the
national background check system for purchasing guns "cannot ensure that
the prospective purchaser is not a felon."
1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118759/nra-and-gun-trafficking-are-adding-fuel-border-migrant-crisis
This means that in 2010
14,409,616 background checks so
2,977,559 / 17,387,175
= .171 or 17.1%, shows 83.9% of all background checks that
mattered, went through the system
So 50% of 2,977,559 =
1,488,780 bad guys had someone straw buy for them in 2010.
Oh wait, we see that the
actual # of firearms purchased per background check via NICS & NSSF
data average at .38 guns per each background check between 1997-2011
(5,459,240 purchased in 2010).
That means 1,488,780 x .38 = 565,736 firearms
were sold to straw buyers in 2010 alone.
Since 17.1% of sales didn't
go through NICS, safe to assume that 83.9% of the sales to straw buyers didn't
get caught by the background check as they only prosecuted 26 straw buyers
whom they caught AFTER the fact, one can assume that rate applies.
That means 565,736 x .839% = 474,653 firearms were sold from licensed
dealers to straw buyers.
Oh wait, does the BATF allow civilians access to
use the NICS for private sales, oh wait, they don’t do they, hmmmm!
since .097% of dealers (67 in 2012) x 4 years (time needed to audit all
dealers)= 248 bad dealers = 474,653 /248 dealers = each dealer sold 1,914
guns each illegally, intentionally, 5.25 guns per day if open 365 days a
Claims the massive majority of guns are INTENTIONALLY sold
by gun dealers.
Mar 2013 NICS Operations report shows 2012 that of 13,100
gun dealers audited in 2012 67 out of 69,000 regular gun stores had their
licenses revoked = .097%.
Mar 2013 NICS Operations shows 5 year rotational schedule at
current IOI ATF agent staffing, around 4 years if they increased their staffing
by the 131 IOI's as per BATF budget review. Google justice dot
gov/oig/reports/2013/e1305 dot pdf
In Minnesota alone
IOI in office,
IOI auditors claimed needed,
available IOI inspection hours,
6634 FFL's in division,
1327 ffl's audited,
hrs average per audited FFL's, 53080
hours needed to meet audit schedule / 1,520 hours per year available per IOI
auditor = 12,580/1,520 = 8.27 auditors needed (17 less than requested)
Avg. hours needed per all audits = 49.8 hrs so
auditors x 1,520 hrs) /49.8 = increased
# of gun dealers audited each year = 3,998 more dealers per year.
13,100 + 3,998 = 17,098 so 69,000/17,098 = 4.035 years,
Such inconsistency a government agency stating they need
more than they actually do.
That means out of 25 BATF offices, there are 5 offices that
are worse off than St Paul MN in getting their job done
USDOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001 shows 80% of guns
acquired by unlicensed means = (50% from theft/50% from straw buys).
USDOJ Background Checks & Firearm Transfer report 2008
shows the % of bad guys attempting to buy from a licensed source had reduced by
68% since 1997.
Simple math shows a 68% reduction means bad guys attempting
to buy from a retails store 12% x (1.00-.68%) = 3.64% & gun shows 2% x
(1.00-.68%) = .64%.
NICS Operations report shows that in 2010 139,651 bad guys
rejected at both state & federal levels.
Simple math shows as 139,651 = 4.48% of bad guys rejected so
139,651/4.48 = 1% x 100 - (139,651) = total checks not performed each year
because the bad guys INTENTIONALLY don’t attempt to buy from a licensed source
Did a review, dug up the budgets for the
BATF since 1998, a 138% increase in budget, amazing how govt. data proves old
smelly wrong, the fact she yanked her replies is also proof of that.
The only BUDGET cuts that were threated, were DIRECTED
specifically, at the failed Project Gun Runner programs that were identified as
NOT being a valid project as shown by the way the Fast & Furious programs
So reality is the BATF poor performance on that nasty little intentional screwup caused their own heartburn, so sad!
BATF Budget (Millions)
“The reason the ATF
doesn’t make it a high priority to target people who attempt to buy a gun from
the gun dealer is they spend the majority of their time targeting violent
offenders who use guns illegally,” said Mike Brouchard, the former assistant
director for field operations of the ATF. “By taking that person and arresting
them it has little to no impact on violent crime.”
So waiting for you
antis to show how maybe saving one injury from bad guys a year at a cost
of over $330 mil a year is justifiable!
So in 2012-2013 the FBI
spent over $68 million on salaries 2-1, and shows an increase of $100 million
in salaries and benefits for expansion to support the massive increases in NICS
transactions run in 2014!
So we see that us $168
million in salaries, but wait, that doesn’t cover the entire NICS operations
cost to tax payers.
See, 13 States contact
only state, 7 states contact state for handgun & FBI for long guns (80% of
all guns purchased are handguns) and the remainder use NICS for both handguns
and long guns.
That means roughly that
$168 million (just in salaries and benefits) are being spent in 2014 for 30
states operations of the NICS…hmmm!
So there must be a way to
figure out what cost there is accrued in the states who don’t use the NICS,
yeah, we can.
Can anyone claim
government is any more efficient in those 20 states than it is in the 30 states
using the federal NICS, no, didn’t think so!
In 2012 there were 8,725,425
million background checks processed by federal (1,143,049 by e-check)
were processed by state users
So lets see $168 mil/30
states = $5.6 mil average cost per state using federal NICS
20 states x $5.6 mil
= $112 mil cost for 20 states not
using federal NICS!
Oh wait, that is only $280
mil cost to tax payers to run the NICS for both federal & states…hmmmm.
How much does it cost to
run all the facilities, and support functions of their daily operations….
Amazing how one can easily
show that taxpayers foot the bill of $330 million a year for NICS, and only show maybe 1 or 2
injuries prevented each year, WOW ISNT THAT SUCH A GREAT THING, well, maybe to
a moron socialist it is!
Then of course one must also look at how many people the
background check supposedly saves.
Since physically stopping a person
from acquiring a gun, is only accomplished by putting them in jail, one
only has to work from the avg number of incidents a gun is used by a bad
guy in a crime and calculate against the number of bad guys actually
Of course you anti
guntards can prove that people stop trying to lie, do evil by comparing the
4.48% of bad guys who are supposedly stopped from buying a gun results in the
well publicized and proven human trait of giving up, as you anti guntards have
clearly demonstrated how you give up your pathological lies, hate and ridicule
after being stopped in oh so many of your gun control anti rights efforts!
In 2010 using
NICS, FBI, USDOJ, Police Firearm Dishcharge reports, CDC data, we
1.248 mil violent crimes reported, 74.65% not reported, 322,000
involved a gun, 85% of incidents no shots fired, 15% of shots fired hit
target 1 in 7 injuries fatal.
one calculates out the multiple USDOJ studies showing that over 80% of all
violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members, crazies
violence abusers..we see the following.
(total successfully prosecuted
by BATF in 2010)
44 x 15% = 6.6 total people involved with
6.6 x 15% = 1 person hit by shots fired
1 x 20% = .2
people hit by shots fired by non criminals,
.8 people hit by shots fired
by bad guys
Wow, you do realize that
the cost of the near 3,000 plus people employed by BATF, FBI and
state agencies for background check process cost the US over $300 million
each year, dang.
So explain again
how that $330 mil + in background checks is justifiable to save maybe just 1 or 2 injuries per year?
Oh wait, here are actual government NICS Operations reports on how many bad guys were actually put into jail!
2010, 44 successfully
prosecuted out of 139,651 total rejections
2009, 32 successfully
prosecuted out of 129,357 total rejections
2008, 31 successfully
prosecuted out of 135,933 total rejections
2007, 39 successfully
prosecuted out of 128,277 total
2006, 62 successfully
prosecuted out of 134,442 total rejections
Oh darn, whats this, page 5, you should read it.
Looking at just the Federal background checks, (because only 55% of states use the federal system) we see the following!
The DENI Branch screened 76,142 NICS denials received from
the FBI during 2010, and referred 4,732 denials (approximately 6%) within the
established guidelines to field divisions. The referred cases were made up of
2,265 delayed denials (3% of all denials) and 2,467 standard denials (over 3%).
The remaining denials (71,410, or nearly 94%) did not meet referral guidelines
or were overturned or canceled.
93.8% initial denials were overturned or canceled.
You know that means that they werent actually bad guys,
So since this range is rather consistent, explain again anti gunterds how many people are actually saved by the background checks?
What’s this, a report on
BATF inspections of 13,100 of the existing gun dealers, man, the NRA sure stops
them from doing their jobs eh, uh, no apparently not!
So 69,000 gun stores 67
licenses revoked = 67/69,000 = .000097 = .097% (that’s less than 1/10th
of a % for you math illiterates)
Wow, thought you anti gunterds claimed all these gun stores were intentionally selling guns illegally, uh if they were, why then are the BATF not shutting down more than these on an annual basis sweety!
for the anti gunutters, the only version of the second amendment ratified by
the states, is the 1 comma version.
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the
independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning,
and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the
meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed”)
some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of
conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence
meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the
history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing
over for you actually having data to support your claim.
see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings
1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well
trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same
thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.
So reality is, the only regulation that really is allowed by the
govt., is to the unorganized militia. But as govt. is responsible for the call
up and muster of the unorganized militia, we see they are consistent in their
failure to do their jobs in not doing so.
you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know,
the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to
what exists today.
the right to keep and bear arms
(17 TH of
20 amendments) on
display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library
Santa Ana, California
the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia
composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and
safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the
circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases
the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil
did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted?
that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA
of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail
to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.
anti’s always fail to prove that a collective right can exist without the
individual right first existing as how does a collective begin, oh that’s
right, pre-existing individuals come together to form said collective, DOOOHH!
how all that was before the 2008 rulings eh MORON!
The one that they found wasnt working and shut down with specific orders not to revive it, that one....do tell!
So lets see, pointed out the MASSIVE MAJORITY OF GUNS DIDNT COME FROM PRIVATE GUN STORES!
Otherwise the Mexican government would have allow the BATF in to trace ALL THE GUNS MORON!
Then of course all the OTHER GUNS THE GOVERNMENT SENT that are obviously utrning up in cartels hands because the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT IS MORE CORRUPT THAN A CHICAGO POLITICIAN!
Dont forget about the TIME TO CRIME RATE of those arms traced is near 12 YEARS.
Still waiting on you obamabaggers to demand the Mexican Army give up the NOW over 500,000 weapons in that armory, that they refuse to turn over for trace....
Funny how when reality is looked at, you have a hard time proving more than 4% of the weapons are traced back to gun shops, especially when you idiots refuse to admit the BATF never catches anyone using a fake id to begin with!
You were saying MORON!
BATF prosecutes less than
1% of the 2.056 mil rejected since 1997.
BATF doesn’t do anything
about the 95.52% of bad guys (21 mil + since 1997) who don’t even try to buy
from a licensed source to begin with.
BATF doesn’t allow
civilians access to NICS for background checks on private sales.
BATF out of 139,651
rejected in 2010 only prosecuted 44, 26 straw buyers, 11 felons, 7 domestic
violence abusers, no crazies.
BATF let over 297,577
straw buyers pass the background check and buy over 446,363 guns in 2010 (over
2.23 mil+ since 1997)
Govt. refused to resource
to input the mentally ill & felons into NICS database with only 4.865 mil
severely mentally ill and felons in NICS database as of Mar 2013 while there
are over 31.793 mil of both in the US.
Govt. refuses to resource
people and moneys to pursue the 1.043 mil + people wanted on open felony
warrant of whom 50% are probably severely mentally ill as are 50% of current
2.7 mil prisoners.
Man them are some
nasty loopholes the government & BATF have created.
When are you lefties
going to fix these BATF & Govt. loopholes instead of making more useless
laws that per Haynes vs. US 390, 85, 1968 & Freed vs US 401, 601, 1971
which affirm the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, makes 85% of all
gun control laws not applicable as a prosecutable charge eh?
You know, licenses,
registrations, background checks etc, etc, etc...all require someone to
So explain again how
a law, you cant punish a bad guy with, will reduce violence by said bad guy eh?
Oh thats right, you
lefties will wave your magic fairy wand and sprinkle your magic fairy dust and
wish it to happen, LOL!
Following are the key passages from the cable, drafted on Nov. 30, 2009, which reveals that the ultimate destination of an assault weapon found at a crime scene — one of a batch of more than 1,000 rifles shipped via the DCS program — was the “government” in the Mexican state of Michoacan.
Blue lantern coordinators [who are charged monitoring DCS weapons shipments] requested that Poloff [political officers] investigate the circumstances surrounding the recovery of an U.S. licensed AR-15 rifle from a Mexican crime scene and substantiate the chain of custody from the supplier to the end user. The investigative branch of the Mexican Attorney General (PGR CENAPI) used E-trace to determine that the last legal point of sale was [U.S.-based gun manufacturer] Bushmaster International, LLC. Realizing that the recovered weapon was part of a USG [U.S. government] licensed [DCS] sale, Bushmaster notified the State Department.
… This investigation tracked the chain of custody for the weapon through the following entities: the U.S. supplier, the U.S. manufacture representative in Mexico, the Mexican customs-broker, the Mexican Army, and the State Government of Michoacan.
…. On the basis of this and similar cases, [emphasis added] it is not evident that government officials at the state [level in Mexico] apply strict enforcement measures to track the chain of custody of weapons once SEDENA [Mexico's Secretariat of National Defense, which oversees the Army] transfers them from its custody to the custody of state officials. Given the lack of accountability for weapons once they arrive at the state level, U.S. law enforcement agencies have fair reason to worry that a number of weapons simply "disappear.”
… Post believes both the USG and the GOM [government of Mexico] need to take a more systematic approach to tracking weapon transfers to the state level and beyond to the final end user. We support the Blue Lantern Coordinator's proposal that his office bundle, according to region, the cases of firearms recovered from crime scenes. Mission Mexico's ICE and ATF Attaches would then approach the Mexico Attorney General PGR's International Relations Office with a list of the serial numbers of confiscated weapons that had been transferred to state authorities and request a fuller accounting for how these weapons ended up in the hands of criminals. …
And yet another case of DCS weapons shipments coming under the scrutiny of State Department investigators is revealed in a separate set of U.S. Embassy cables made public by WikiLeaks.
In one of those cables, released on April 4, the State Department’s Defense Trade Controls Compliance office orders a review of a shipment of rifles and ammunition “of significantly heavy caliber” that had been directed to “the presidential guard, or Estado Mayor Presidencial [emphasis added].”
The cable notes that the Estado Mayor “has never previously been party to a U.S. export license for firearms or ammunition.”
“This check is to confirm receipt of these defense articles and verify security of the items,” the cable states.
However, another State Department cable released by WikiLeaks on Feb. 21 of this year points out that “a mid-level Mexican Army major was arrested in late December 2008 for assisting drug traffickers and providing them with limited information about the activities and travel plans of Mexican President Felipe Calderon.”
That Mexican Army major, according to the State Department cable, had been “assigned to the Estado Mayor [emphasis added] … the unit responsible for protecting Mexico's president, to secure the periphery around the president's location” — and the same unit that had acquired the high-powered ammunition through the DCS program.
Narco News queried officials with several think tanks in Washington, D.C., who have expertise in the arms trade or organized crime in Mexico, to get their read on DCS arms diversions in Mexico.
Andrew Selee, director of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, was asked if he believed that the diversion of licensed U.S. arms sales to criminal elements in Mexico is a major problem.
His response: “It’s an intriguing point.”
As part of its Fast and Furious operation, launched in October 2009, some 2,000 or more firearms illegally purchased in the U.S. were allegedly allowed to “walk” (or be smuggled under ATF’s watch) across the border in a supposed effort by the federal law enforcement agency to target the kingpins behind Mexico’s gun-running enterprises, ATF whistleblowers contend.
This flood of weapons, including high-powered assault rifles and even military-grade munitions, coursing into Mexico in fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009 via the DCS program and ATF’s Fast and Furious seems to have been, in part, the catalyst for a huge spike in narco-related bloodshed in the country.
According to a report issued in February of this year by the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego, narco-trafficking-related homicides in Mexico jumped from 2,826 in 2007 to 6,837 in 2008, and spiked again in 2009, hitting a record 9,614. In 2010, the homicide mark shot up to 15,273.
Those three years (2008-2010) account for the bulk of the nearly 40,000 drug-war murders since President Felipe Calderon of Mexico declared his war on the “cartels” in late 2006 and subsequently inserted the Mexican military into that battle.
It is clear that most of the guns allowed to cross the border under ATF’s Fast and Furious operation went directly into the hands of criminals, given those guns were purchased as part of criminal conspiracies being tracked by ATF.
However, even though serious narco-corruption exists within law enforcement and the military in Mexico (the very parties who are the end-users of legally imported weapons), the path that DCS arms shipment diversions follow to the criminal world remains illusive.
The whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks, though, recently released a State Department cable, drafted in November 2009, that sheds some light on how these diversions seem to be carried out.
But first, it’s important to understand the path of DCS weapons shipped to Mexico.
Jason Greer, public affairs officer for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the Department of State, told Narco News previously that “all firearms licenses approved by [the State Department] for commercial resale in Mexico are exported to the Ministry of Defense (MOD), Mexico.”
The MOD is the import authority for firearms and is also responsible for licensing of Mexican firearms dealers. Upon receipt of the firearms, the MOD transfers the firearms to the end-user authorized on the [State Department-issued] export license.
The Mexican Ministry of Defense, of course, oversees the Mexican military. In fact, a reading of Mexico’s firearms law reveals that the Defense Ministry has a monopoly on approving and overseeing all licenses, sales, transport and storage of arms and munitions in Mexico, whether for private-sector players or other government units — including municipal, state and federal law enforcement units.
So, if you are a smart narco-trafficker, and they are smart, it might pay to spread some money and influence around Mexico’s Ministry of Defense, or to have your people inside the organizations that are the ultimate recipients of the weapons (such as Mexico’s local, state and federal security forces) to assure the necessary diversion of firearms to your cause.
And it is that latter scenario that the State Department cable released by WikiLeaks earlier this month reveals is likely the scenario in play. Essentially, the cable establishes state-level government employees, such as the police — many of whom are on the payrolls of narco-trafficking organizations — as the weak link in the DCS chain.
Calderón's Drug War Has Become Hot Market for U.S. Arms Trade
By: Bill Conroy
" The dollar value of U.S. private-sector weapons shipments to
Mexico in fiscal year 2009 exceeded the value of private arms shipments to two
other major conflict regions elsewhere in the world, Iraq and Afghanistan, and
even outpaced the value of arms shipped to one of the United States’ staunchest
U.S. private-sector suppliers shipped a total of $177 million
worth of defense articles — which includes items like military aircraft,
firearms and explosives — to Mexico in fiscal 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of
By comparison, over the same period, private arms companies in the
U.S. shipped $40 million worth of weapons to Afghanistan; $126 million to Iraq;
and $131 million to Israel.
In fact, Colombia, the source of most of the
world’s cocaine and a major battlefront in the so-called war on drugs, received
only $30 million in private-sector arms shipments from the U.S. in fiscal
The onslaught of weapons that hit Mexico in fiscal 2009 via these legal
commercial exports is multiplied even further by the thousands of additional
illegal weapons that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) allegedly allowed to cross the border into Mexico, unchecked,
as part of what appears to be a seriously flawed operation known as Fast and
Furious — which was launched in October 2009.
This double whammy of deadly
firepower pouring into Mexico through these U.S.-sanctioned programs also
coincides with a major spike in Mexico’s murder rate over the same period.
revelation of Mexico’s emergence as a leading market for the private-sector
arms trade in fiscal 2009 surfaced after an examination of the most recently
available figures for the State Department program that oversees foreign arms
sales by U.S. companies.
Under that program, the U.S. State Department
requires private companies in the United States to obtain an export license in
order to sell defense hardware or services to foreign purchasers — which include
both government units and private buyers in other countries.
These arms deals
are known as Direct Commercial Sales (DCS).
Each year, the State Department
issues a report tallying the volume and dollar amount of DCS items approved for
export and shipped — with the most recent report covering fiscal
Narco News reported in March 2009 that the
deadliest of the weapons now in the hands of criminal groups in Mexico,
particularly along the U.S. border, by any reasonable standard of an analysis
of the facts, appear to be getting into that nation through perfectly legal
private-sector arms exports authorized under programs such as DCS.
2005 and 2009, nearly $60 billion worth of U.S. defense articles were exported
globally by U.S. private companies via the DCS program, according to a recent
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
In addition to
the $177 million in defense hardware shipped by private U.S. companies to
Mexico in fiscal 2009, some $204 million in arms were shipped to Mexico in
fiscal year 2008, according to DCS data compiled by the State Department. Now,
war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan dwarfed Mexico in terms of DCS arms shipments in fiscal 2008, with a
total of $3.8 billion collectively, but in terms of actual DCS arms shipments
in fiscal 2009, according to the State Department data, Mexico beat out both of
them — as private-sector arms shipments to Iraq and Afghanistan fell off
At the same time that hundreds of millions of dollars in legal arms
shipments were crossing the border into Mexico though the DCS program, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or the ATF, allegedly was
allowing thousands of illegally purchased firearms to be smuggled into Mexico
by warring narco-trafficking organizations.
Geez, another pile of made up ka ka and lies, you are such a good widdle obamabagger pavement ape drone repeating the lie of your demon spawn master george soros!
Lets see 311 murders, 65 using
firearm in 1996 65/311 = 20.9%
Lets see 244 murders, 44 using firearm in 2011
40/244 = 16.39%
Amazing how when one digs into the
details, the ACTUAL TREND for reduction in killings using a firearm is rather
Yet the number of assaults with
weapons keeps rising, hmmmm. Sure appears that the level of violence isnt being
reduced, but just luck of the draw some of those arent killings, so sad.
Oh and as noted in GOVT. and
recorded history, there was indeed a NASTY gang war going on in the 1980's to
early 2000's. Has that ended matey, oh yes, it has hasnt it.
Oh whats this page #31,Homicide in
Australia: 2007–08 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report
"............. The majority of
firearms used in homicides were unregistered and/or unlicensed" hmmm, such
a consistent trend all over the world that the bad guys dont obey the law to
All the while also refusing to
acknowledge the effect of the baby boomers age subgroup as it affects crime rates.
Geez, the Aussies had the Baby Boomers (born 1947-1964) also didn’t you, yeah
Criminologists the world over all
agree the most active criminal ages are 15-24 and 25-34, then the criminal
activity declines the older a subgroup gets. Amazing how that actually mirrors
identically the trend in murders DECREASING, a trend that Australian government
shows began occurring back in the mid 1980's and continues to this day. Not to
mention the ending of those gang turf battles.
Hence yet again, no valid proof
that gun control had anything relevant to causing that reduction in murders., a
near 42% drop in actual murders using a firearm in the US versus a 39% drop in
murders using a firearm in Australia.
Uh dude, there is no statistical difference
is there, geez shuckey darn!
Yet again proof that less firearms doesn’t equal
less violence, much less more guns equal more violence BS.
3 months, 3 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117258/surgeon-general-nomination-vivek-murthy-guns-and-public-health