Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

30% of the population, not white, per USDOJ data, commits 87% of all the violent crimes in the US and vote predominantly demokrat!

Given those irrefutable fact, we should post a poll stating the following!

If you could ban a small group of people based on their politcial ideology who are proven to commit 87% of all the violent crimes in the US would you ban them, yes or no?

Bet we would get over 90% voting to ban all demokrats, that seems reasonable!

6 months, 3 weeks ago on Conversation @


@KillerB @MaryLardinoBerg

Funny, thing, all those laws scalia pointed to, were for the abuse of the right, not the lawful exercise of the right.

Why is it anit gunterds are too stupid to discern that difference eh?

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


@RenoRobert @RLEmery @MerlinMedic @KillerB

Thanks again for proving how much of a dumfukk you truly are!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


@cebuano_refugee @TexTopCat @MaryLardinoBerg

Funny how anti gunnutters are too stupid to realize that the vast majority of inner city schools are already with metal detectors and armed guards because of the gang issues........

But hey, much better to be disarmed and have a 7 times higher body count in gun free zones than where armed resistance occurs eh!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


@MichaelMeador @RLEmery @Jack Burton jr @FrankMuniz

Sigh, as much as it would FEEL good to do, the anti's are a bunch of perverts to begin with so the intellectual spanking is what we must accept as the anti's carry the infectious progressivus idiotus virus, no known cure! They dont even have to touch you to infect you and I am sure not sticking my head that far up my butt to get the same perspective they have either!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


@RenoRobert @MerlinMedic @KillerB

Guns not used to kill 99.72% of the time they are used.

2012 FBI UCR 322,000 violent crimes reported with a firearm, so where are the 322,000 murders moron?

So since a gun is NOT used to kill EVERY single time it is used, it surely must be doing something else, oh thats right, it is deterring or preventing an attack.

Maybe you should do some actual research into the % of times a firearm is used, the % of times a shot is fired during that incident (felon & police surveys 15% of the time), and the % of times the target is actually hit (police firearm discharge reports 15% of the time), then calculate how many injuries versus deaths there are, CDC data in 2008 12,252 murders, 70,000 injuries.

Criminals in 2008 FBI UCR involving a firearm, we see only 12,252 murders and 70,000 injuries as reported by the CDC.

We see the DOJ Felons Firearms Use survey 1997, published 2001, that exasperatingly funny, matches what the police state in multiple firearms discharge reports, that only 15% of the time in an incident is a shot fired, also that in only 15% of that 15% does a shot hit its target.

So lets work backwards.

82,252 /12,252 = 6.7 or roughly 7 injuries versus deaths

So we see 85% of the time a gun isn't used to kill, wow imagine that.

So we see only 15% of the time of the 15% does a shot hit its target = .0225% /8 (total injuries/deaths from 15% targets hit) = .0028% = .28% of the time a gun is used to kill a person.

Wow, bravo, we see GOVERNMENT DATA proving that a gun is used to kill only .28% of the time it is used.

99.72% of the time, a gun is not used to kill.

Based on this simple and irrefutable math, a firearms only task isn't to kill, otherwise, there wouldn't be any survivors, and 381,758 murders a year (total number of violent crimes reported where a gun was used in 2008 per FBI UCR), prove otherwise.

That isn’t even including all the shooting competitions, hunting and practice each year as we know by BATF& NSSF records that almost 10 billion rounds of ammunition were purchased just last year alone by civilians, so sad how guns have more than one use.

Unless you can convince the police and military that intimidation doesn’t reduce conflict, they should stop carrying firearms themselves, why don’t you go tell them they can stop doing so eh, LOL!

Oh wait, since the same US govt. data also shows since 1960 how law abiding gun onwers have prevented over 1.131 mil murders, prevented over 6.5 mil injuries, and saved over $2.17 trillion in medical expenses, we see why the anti gunterds dont want to discuss THIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


@MichaelMeador @RLEmery @Jack Burton jr @FrankMuniz

Then when they run with it they get spanked LOL, classic ploy!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America



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.

WikiLeaks cables

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.”

Greer added:

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America



Amazing how anti gunterd dumfukks cant comprehend how many of these weapons supplied by our government end up in the cartels hands because Mexico is so corrupt!

Felipe Calderón's Drug War Has Become Hot Market for U.S. Arms Trade

By: Bill ConroyNarcosphere

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 allies, Israel.

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 that year.

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 2009.

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.

The 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 2009.

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.

Between 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 sharply.

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.

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. 

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America



We know, it is because of Eric Holder, the government arms deals, and the thriving gun trafficking trade on the south american borders, unlike your pathetic lies and inferences!

There is this little armory in Mexico that has all the weapons confiscated by the Mexican government.

As noted in the MSNBC report, (not gun friendly) those nearly 306,000 weapons (whole lot more since then) represent only a fraction of the weapons in drug cartels hands. 

Yet only 23,000 or so confiscated from 2005-2008 were sent to the US for traceability where 90% were found to originate from the US.

If so many were indeed from gun stores in the US, why shouldn't the Mexican government supply those weapons for tracing? 

There is no logical reason, unless they already know that is not the case eh?

ATF notes that most weapons have a 14 year life from manufacture to crime. 

Easily those 23,000 weapons (8% of what was confiscated) could have been purchased over that 14 year time span, prove otherwise.

The US has requested access to review the weapons in the armory yet the Mexican government will not allow this, why? 

Based on experience in the level of corruption in business dealings in Mexico, one can safely determine that with greater power, greater corruption.

How many legal shipments of firearms to Mexico have been diverted into the drug cartels hands? 

Do believe if the US found out that a significant percentage of the weapons they provided were being diverted, something would be done don't you?

Grenades, rockets launchers, all sorts of "military hardware" not available to the public in the US, yet the civilians and gun stores are the main conduit for firearms into Mexico, ROTFLMFAO, yeah right.

Of course, the nearly 120,000 deserters from the Mexican army and taking their firearms have no impact as absolutely NONE of these people then find work in the drug cartels eh?

There is also the economic and technical side of the story.

Technical in that the majority of rifles in that armory are true assault weapons.

Full auto AK-47's that cost $300-$400 on the black market

AK-47 (select fire single shot and full auto) in US cost between $13,000 to $15,000 dollars and have a stringent requirement from the ATF on purchase and possession. 

Where are all the arrests?

Semi Auto AK-47 cost from $400-$500, machine shop and a conversion kit adding another $200-$300 in materials and time.

Yet the antis want you to believe the cartels would pay the extra money to do so, lol!

They are violent, not stupid!

So until the Mexican government allows the ATF to go in and identify the weapons and trace, highly unlikely as major Mexican players are involved, any claims that US citizens are the major source of firearms rather than the government which licenses and sells over $34 million in small arms to Mexico every year is BS

Prove otherwise little child!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


Since the claim that gun control of only the law abiding reduces violence by the bad guys is a pathological lie as it never does, hence there cant be any honest discussion when all the anti gunnutters have to start with are lies!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


Lets review the more guns in law abiding civilians hands = more violence BS myth of the anti gunterds eh!

Per FBI UCR & CDC in 1991 24,700 murders, consistent % where firearms used is 67.8% =16,747 murders by illegal use of firearm, 15,383 suicides by firearms, 657 justifiable homicides, 1,463 accidental firearms deaths =34,250 deaths where firearms were used

2011 14,612 murders 67.7% used a firearm = 9,892, 591 justifiable homicides, 835 accidental deaths, 19,766 suicides = 31,084 deaths where a firearm was used.

Since 1991 to 2011, that is a reduction in…..

Totals / Rate

Violent Crime -37.04% / -49.04%

Murder w gun -41.31% / -52.51%

Rape -21.73% / -36.59% 

Robbery -48.47% / -58.31%

Assault -31.26% /-44.36%

Accidental deaths -41.9% / -52.14%

Amazing how those are the highest total reductions of ANY of the 205 other country's in the world during that time!

So explain again how since 1991 there has been a 42% increase in firearms in civilian hands there hasn’t been a 42% increase in violence or suicide?

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


@MichaelMeador @Jack Burton jr @FrankMuniz

SARCASM, Jack is a respected anti gunterd smackdown artist!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America



What need to provide governemnt links, government data and proof.......we havent all millenia!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


Gun Control the largest money scam in the world.

$330 mil a year for 21 mil background checks in 2013 or roughly $15 per background check which at 192.5 mil total background checks since 1997 x $15 = $3.025 billion in cost to taxpayers for an averag 45 successful prosecutions per year, and between 1 to 2 maximum injuries prevented = 16-32 total injuries prevented in 16 years!


It has been noted that in Colorado, over the last 6 months, they have had UBC, of which from somewhat dubious numbers of 13,000 UBC checks that wouldnt have occured they have claimed 104 rejections in that 6 months......hmmmm!

Reality is that 93.8% of those rejections are FALSE POSITIVES as per NICS Operations reports as the Backgound checks have proven to be over the near 17 years!

1-(104x .938) = 6.448 actual bad guys!

Now it is a proven fact per FBI UCR that only 26.8% of all violent crimes committed is the use of a gun occur

6.448 X .268 = 1.72 incidents where a gun would probably be used

1.72 x .15 = .259 incidents shots were fired, uh thats less than 1 time (number of times shots fired as per USDOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001, only 18,000 criminals polled so rather LARGE sample size eh)

.259 x .15 = .0388 number of shots hit their target as police firearm discharge reports only show at best 15% of shot fired hit their target!

Wow so 6 months = .0388 shots hit their target x 2 = 1 year = .0776 shot hit their target in 1 year in Colorado maybe prevented by the UBC provided the bad guy was actually locked up, oh wait, since the bad guys are prosecuted less than 1% of the time we have to reduce that by 99% to be realistic so .0776 x .01 = .00776.

Dang so how many years would the UBC take in Colorado to save 1 injury?

1/ .00776 = 128.8 years

Oh wait, so what the anti gunterds are claiming, is that 128.8 years, at an extra $2 mil per year just in Colorado is justifiable expense for the UBC how again? (thats over $257 million in todays money)

So explain again how 594 will improve upon Colorados UBC, do tell?

Reality gun control is only a scam to get more taxes out of the citizens!

So were the UBC to be implemented in 2014 nationwide at $2 mil extra per state on average, the cost would be $430 mil that year, on top of the $3.025 billion already spent.

2014 32 max injuries prevented +.0776 = 32.00776 into $3.455 billion = $107.942 mil cost per injury prevented!

2015 34.01552 max injuries prevented into $3.885 billion = $114.213 mil cost per injury prevented!

2016 36.0233 max injuries prevented into $4.315 billion = $119.783 mil cost per injury prevented

Get the all about control and the money, not one damn thing about reducing violence!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


So waiting for you antis to show how maybe saving one injury from bad guys a year at a cost of over $300 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)

10,866,878 transactions 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!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


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 put away!

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 see.....

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.

Which if one calculates out the multiple USDOJ studies showing that over 80% of all violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members, crazies & domestic
violence abusers..we see the following.

(total successfully prosecuted by BATF in 2010) 44 x 15% = 6.6 total people involved with shots fired

 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 $330 million each year, dang.

So explain again how that $330 mil in background checks is justifiable to save maybe just 1 or two people?

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


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 IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

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!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America


“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.”

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America



Still waiting for you to post that video of a gun loading, aiming, and pulling its own trigger as apparently only the mentally ill claim guns are the root cause of violence, oh wait, thats you!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America



Quit enforcing the anti gunterds claims that guns cause violence sweety, your only helping them by repeating that inferred lie, capiche!

7 months, 1 week ago on It’s time for an honest discussion about guns in America



Rose is a notorious Washington Post blogger obviously paid for by one of the anti gun extremist organizations as she never provides any proper links or references to government data, only repeating, copy and paste verbatim the propaganda of the Brady Bunch and few other illiterate anti gunnutters!

So she never will!

8 months, 3 weeks ago on Conversation @


@Italian Rose

LOL, once a pathological liar, always a pathological liar!

You mean the 2011 Gallup poll which shows 47% of households in the US have a gun, and as per US Census in 2011 that is 114.3 mil households with 2.5 people per household.

Care to do the math,

1973 (78 mil houses x 54%) x 2.5 = 105+ mil people

2011 (114.3 mil houses x 47%) x 2.5 = 135 + mil people, and that’s just what the govt. admits to existing.

Oh wait, there are only 242 mil eligible voters in the US, that means 18 or older to imbeciles...hmmmm!

Half of 242 is 121 mil, yet the number of gun owners by US GOVERNMENT DATA is over 135 million, that they KNOW OF!

Unfortunately for the anti gunterds, they are in fact OUTNUMBERED, no matter how many times they squeal or lie otherwise!

That doesn’t even count all the false responses that the Gallup poll now receives to that question. See the Gallup poll, has been asking the same simple question since 1973, do you have a gun in the home.

Doubt me, we dare you to go to a gun show, and do a survey of how many people actually would say no, when they actually have a gun in the home. Something about the growing lack of trust they have in an anonymous govt. worker asking that question since 1994. Geez, wasn’t that the most recent large gun grab occurred, yeah, it was!

8 months, 3 weeks ago on Conversation @



So you are still too stupid to prove that the dependent clause now overrules the independent clause we see!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


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?

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


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.

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


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 paradise violence!

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!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


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 eh?

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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 actions! 

This based on a N Korean defectors response to what is the suicide rate in N Korea!

North 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.

North Korea 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.

If someone 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 their government.

Suicide may 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.

So in 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.

Convicted 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!

That would 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 actions.

So when 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?

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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?

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


@johnbook1985 All you ignorant obamabagger pavement apes do is copy and paste, hence everything you post is  a lie!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


The 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.;_ylt=AwrBT70TZs5TQkIA7CZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcmlocmY1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ3NV8x

See, thats what happens when government oversteps their authority and disarms the law abiding civilians, a result repeated all the time!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


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?

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals:

Bowers 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 protection)

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 protection)

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 police protection)

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 protection)

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 protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

“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

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @


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 that caused.

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…

7.) 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 1980s.

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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! 

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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 sequence.

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 constitutional manner.

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?

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



Can the militia exist without the individual first existing, yes or no moron!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



W 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.

Then 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 at!

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 smart, hmmmm.

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?

Get a clue moron!

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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.

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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))

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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))

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @



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.

9 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @