AshKKKroft's Misplaced Priorities

[MrBenchley]

Great piece:

"The CDC's new National Vital Statistics Report shows that the long decline in annual gun deaths and gun homicides that began under the Clinton Administration in the 1990s came to a halt in the first year of Ashcroft's (and President Bush's) tenure. In 2001, gun deaths in the U.S. rose by more than 3 percent, from 28,663 the previous year to 29,572. Gun homicides also rose, albeit by a slightly lesser rate, from 11,071 the previous year to 11,348 in 2001.
So, what is John Ashcroft's Justice Department doing about continuing gun violence in the U.S.?

* In 2002 the Justice Department looked at the 136,000 people who were rejected for gun ownership by the National Instant Background Check system because they had lied about criminal backgrounds, domestic-abuse histories, and other prohibition categories -- and chose to prosecute fewer than 600 of them. "President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft promised to enforce the gun laws on the books," Americans for Gun Safety president Jonathan Cowan said in a statement on Sept. 17, "and this ... is further evidence that they are breaking the biggest promise that they made on guns."
* In early March, Ashcroft testified before Congress and refused to offer support for continuation of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which expires next year. Ashcroft's position is a stark and shameless contradiction to a statement he made during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2001 when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked him whether he would support continuation of the law. He stated, "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I would be pleased to move forward that position, and to support that as a policy of this president, and as a policy of the Justice Department."
* The Justice Department has had little or nothing to say about the documented connection between the nation's lax gun laws and terrorist organizations' exploitation of them. In May, a Congressional Research Service report found that loopholes in U.S. gun laws can be exploited, and already have been, for purchases of assault weapons and explosives by terrorists. Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay wrote in a commentary that he believes the influence of the National Rifle Association (of which Ashcroft is a member) has kept the Bush Administration mum on the issue. "A free flow of assault weapons and .50-caliber sniper rifles is the NRA's goal, despite the benefit it presents to the terrorists who aim to deny us the freedoms that Bush and Ashcroft claim to defend," Sudbay wrote. "When it comes to the gun issue, the White House repeatedly contradicts its own anti-terror message, a glaring lesson in hypocrisy that benefits only terrorists and the NRA."
* Early in his tenure as attorney general, Ashcroft received plaudits from the NRA and its supporters when he told the organization that he believes the Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right to gun ownership. This assessment stands at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the arming of state militias, and not individuals. Despite the fact that during his confirmation hearings Ashcroft had stated that he would not allow his personal beliefs to affect his job as upholder of federal laws, he has subsequently contradicted himself on the Second Amendment just as he has with assault weapons. In May, 2002, the Justice Department filed briefs to the Supreme Court stating that it has officially adopted the NRA position that the amendment guarantees broad individual rights. The reaction? Criminal defendants across the land, including the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, now cite their new Second Amendment rights.

Besides handing the Justice Department unprecedented powers to spy on us, Congress has allocated more than $30 billion this year for the Office of Homeland Security to try to keep us safe from terrorists in the U.S. and is considering President Bush's ill-defined request for $87 billion to fund the military and reconstruction activity in Iraq. Meanwhile, police departments and crime-prevention programs all across the U.S. are being decimated by budget cuts. "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,567016,00.html

[demsrule4life]

1. Guess it doesnt matter which party the Attorney General belongs to

http://www.house.gov/dingell/reno.html

[demsrule4life]

2. Some good reading for people on both sides of the fence.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/crs_gun_control.shtml

[MrBenchley]

3. Yeah, surrrrrrre, dems....

Nice to see the NRA's idiotic propaganda is alive and well....

"The BJS report on Firearm Offenders states that an average of 6,700 defendants were charged with a firearm offense in U.S. district courts between 1992 and 1999. On its face, that number of prosecutions seems incredibly low given the number of prohibited persons stopped by the instant check system."

But when you consider how rarely any of those people were arrested at the point of sale, it seems remarkably high. Or did you want the Department of Justice to stop prosecuting more serious crimes to track down every loony that failed a Brady check? Did you want ATF to station an agent in every gun shop in America for that?

Meanwhile, worth noting that the RKBA crowd lies about this at every chance:

"And while you are at it, ask them why after all the years and millions of dollars promoting the Brady Act, have only about 12 people been prosecuted? Drop me a note when you get the answer."

http://www.neto.com/rcr/brady.html


"Heston: The Brady Law has been in force for three years. In that time, they have prosecuted seven people and put three of them in prison."

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/hestquot.html

"NRA President Charlton Heston also has faulted Clinton's Justice Department for prosecuting only five people in 1997 and just six in 1998 for violating a ban on juvenile gun transfers. He also charged that the administration convicted a mere nine felons for trying to buy guns in violation of the Brady Bill."

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=1999/5/12/065154

[Withergyld]

4. The NIJ has studied

rejections by the NICS.
Here is a link to a draft copy of the report.

(as usual) this is a PDF File (29 pages)
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194051.pdf

[MrBenchley]

5. Hahahahahahaha...

"A reason for the lack of statistical reporting requirements is the fear that a national registry of gun owners might be created. In view of this concern, it is unlikely that a detailed picture of the operation of federal gun purchase regulations will be forthcoming."

Gee, who is that blocking that from happening do you suppose?

It's also wonderful to find THIS on the front page: "Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice."

Wonder if it's by THIS Kenneth Adams, by the way: "The solution lies not in the creation of an extensive new government bureaucracy of air marshals that will cost taxpayers billions a year, but the rethinking of the role of pilots and flight attendants on aircraft. We must create more wolves and fewer sheep." --Kenneth Adams

http://keepandbeararms.com/news/kabanews/display_day_archive.asp?d=10%2F3%2F2001

[Withergyld]

6. There may be a disclaimer

on the report, but it IS posted on their web page. If it was complete "hooey" then why make it available?

[MrBenchley]

8. You tell us....

I don't know what the fuck that lunatic AshKKroft is up to.

[1a2b3c]

7. Now i KNOW youre gonna think im an NRA repuke.....

But I'm not.


The CDC's new National Vital Statistics Report shows that the long decline in annual gun deaths and gun homicides that began under the Clinton Administration in the 1990s came to a halt in the first year of Ashcroft's (and President Bush's) tenure. In 2001, gun deaths in the U.S. rose by more than 3 percent, from 28,663 the previous year to 29,572. Gun homicides also rose, albeit by a slightly lesser rate, from 11,071 the previous year to 11,348 in 2001.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the rise started in 1999. It also says that in 1999 there were 8,440 deaths by all firearms and 6,658 of those were by handguns. In 2001 there were 8,719 homocides by all firearms and 6,790 by handguns. Table 2-10 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf

The Justice Department has had little or nothing to say about the documented connection between the nation's lax gun laws and terrorist organizations' exploitation of them. In May, a Congressional Research Service report found that loopholes in U.S. gun laws can be exploited, and already have been, for purchases of assault weapons and explosives by terrorists.
I would like to know more about this if anyone has a link to the information. Why would they want to buy a semi auto-rifle here when they could get the real thing in a different country? Why are they even allowed to buy a firearm without being a citizen?

Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay wrote in a commentary that he believes the influence of the National Rifle Association (of which Ashcroft is a member) has kept the Bush Administration mum on the issue. "A free flow of assault weapons and .50-caliber sniper rifles is the NRA's goal, despite the benefit it presents to the terrorists who aim to deny us the freedoms that Bush and Ashcroft claim to defend," Sudbay wrote. "When it comes to the gun issue, the White House repeatedly contradicts its own anti-terror message, a glaring lesson in hypocrisy that benefits only terrorists and the NRA."
Lets take the first sentence...true. How does letting a citizen buy a .50 caliber "sniper rifle" benefit terrorists and deny us freedom though? Are they gonna somehow arm themselves(terrorists) and attack us who are already armed on our own land? I dont think they would stand much of a chance. And what does he mean in the last sentence? How is allowing a US citizen to own a gun contradicting an anti terror message??? "Fuck with us and we'll shoot ya" is kind what i am reading here. And again i am not seeing how owning a gun is benefitting the terrorist but i can see how it would benefit the NRA.

This assessment stands at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the arming of state militias, and not individuals.
They did? I didnt know that the SCOTUS ruled that individuals do not have the right to own guns. Someone should have told me, i would have joined my state militia so i could still catch pheasant season this year. :-)

In May, 2002, the Justice Department filed briefs to the Supreme Court stating that it has officially adopted the NRA position that the amendment guarantees broad individual rights. The reaction? Criminal defendants across the land, including the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, now cite their new Second Amendment rights.
You mean we havent taken John Walker Lindh's right to carry or own a firearm away yet? Yet, he just said that according to the SCOTUS, individuals dont have the right to have a gun unless they joined a state militia. Did Jonh Walker Lindh join a state militia? :shrug: Does having an individual right to own a gun somehow give criminals and John Walker Lindh the ability to own a gun legally?

Besides handing the Justice Department unprecedented powers to spy on us, Congress has allocated more than $30 billion this year for the Office of Homeland Security to try to keep us safe from terrorists in the U.S. and is considering President Bush's ill-defined request for $87 billion to fund the military and reconstruction activity in Iraq. Meanwhile, police departments and crime-prevention programs all across the U.S. are being decimated by budget cuts. "
Sounds to me like we would have more money for the Office of Homeland Security if we didnt bomb the shit out of Iraq for no real reason. Cant get much homeland security with budget cuts in police and crime prevention programs. This is the only thing that made sense in the whole article and about the only thing that wasnt a lie. Hell this little story was so full of....hoooey....that maybe this part wasnt even true. But he has the numbers right, i will just go for and say its probably true.

[1a2b3c]

9. <crickets chirping>

The CDC's new National Vital Statistics Report shows that the long decline in annual gun deaths and gun homicides that began under the Clinton Administration in the 1990s came to a halt in the first year of Ashcroft's (and President Bush's) tenure. In 2001, gun deaths in the U.S. rose by more than 3 percent, from 28,663 the previous year to 29,572. Gun homicides also rose, albeit by a slightly lesser rate, from 11,071 the previous year to 11,348 in 2001.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the rise started in 1999. It also says that in 1999 there were 8,440 deaths by all firearms and 6,658 of those were by handguns. In 2001 there were 8,719 homocides by all firearms and 6,790 by handguns. Table 2-10 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf

The Justice Department has had little or nothing to say about the documented connection between the nation's lax gun laws and terrorist organizations' exploitation of them. In May, a Congressional Research Service report found that loopholes in U.S. gun laws can be exploited, and already have been, for purchases of assault weapons and explosives by terrorists.
I would like to know more about this if anyone has a link to the information. Why would they want to buy a semi auto-rifle here when they could get the real thing in a different country? Why are they even allowed to buy a firearm without being a citizen?

Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay wrote in a commentary that he believes the influence of the National Rifle Association (of which Ashcroft is a member) has kept the Bush Administration mum on the issue. "A free flow of assault weapons and .50-caliber sniper rifles is the NRA's goal, despite the benefit it presents to the terrorists who aim to deny us the freedoms that Bush and Ashcroft claim to defend," Sudbay wrote. "When it comes to the gun issue, the White House repeatedly contradicts its own anti-terror message, a glaring lesson in hypocrisy that benefits only terrorists and the NRA."
Lets take the first sentence...true. How does letting a citizen buy a .50 caliber "sniper rifle" benefit terrorists and deny us freedom though? Are they gonna somehow arm themselves(terrorists) and attack us who are already armed on our own land? I dont think they would stand much of a chance. And what does he mean in the last sentence? How is allowing a US citizen to own a gun contradicting an anti terror message??? "Fuck with us and we'll shoot ya" is kind what i am reading here. And again i am not seeing how owning a gun is benefitting the terrorist but i can see how it would benefit the NRA.

This assessment stands at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the arming of state militias, and not individuals.
They did? I didnt know that the SCOTUS ruled that individuals do not have the right to own guns. Someone should have told me, i would have joined my state militia so i could still catch pheasant season this year. :-)

In May, 2002, the Justice Department filed briefs to the Supreme Court stating that it has officially adopted the NRA position that the amendment guarantees broad individual rights. The reaction? Criminal defendants across the land, including the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, now cite their new Second Amendment rights.
You mean we havent taken John Walker Lindh's right to carry or own a firearm away yet? Yet, he just said that according to the SCOTUS, individuals dont have the right to have a gun unless they joined a state militia. Did Jonh Walker Lindh join a state militia? :shrug: Does having an individual right to own a gun somehow give criminals and John Walker Lindh the ability to own a gun legally?

Besides handing the Justice Department unprecedented powers to spy on us, Congress has allocated more than $30 billion this year for the Office of Homeland Security to try to keep us safe from terrorists in the U.S. and is considering President Bush's ill-defined request for $87 billion to fund the military and reconstruction activity in Iraq. Meanwhile, police departments and crime-prevention programs all across the U.S. are being decimated by budget cuts. "
Sounds to me like we would have more money for the Office of Homeland Security if we didnt bomb the shit out of Iraq for no real reason. Cant get much homeland security with budget cuts in police and crime prevention programs. This is the only thing that made sense in the whole article and about the only thing that wasnt a lie. Hell this little story was so full of....hoooey....that maybe this part wasnt even true. But he has the numbers right, i will just go for and say its probably true.

Where did everyone go?

[MrBenchley]

11. I see the RKBA crowd is still infested

[MrBenchley]

10. Lets start with the obvious....

CDC and FBI stats do sometimes show variations...

Here's highlights from the CRS report....

http://www.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2003520836.html

"How does letting a citizen buy a .50 caliber "sniper rifle" benefit terrorists"
Wow...you mean you really have to be TOLD that a gun designed to serve as a military anti-materiel weapon is a danger to public safety?

"This assessment stands at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the arming of state militias, and not individuals.
They did? I didnt know that the SCOTUS ruled that individuals do not have the right to own guns."
Don't know WHY you didn't know that. It's not like it hasn't been pointed out here over and over again.

By the way, did you really need to be told AshKKKroft and his GOP idiots fucked up the Lindh case?
"Remember the hullabaloo last week when the Justice Department changed course completely and came out in support of broader Second Amendment rights for private citizens? Well, Lindh's lawyers threw the feds' now-famous footnote back in their faces Wednesday by arguing that any prosecution of Lindh for carrying a weapon while legally acting as a Taliban soldier would violate his gun rights as recognized by federal officials. The idea is that the Second Amendment right the government now says it recognizes ought to trump the federal statute that generates a separate crime of carrying a weapon while committing a crime of violence. It should be fascinating to read what federal prosecutors write in response to the defense argument — and whether the government actually backs off a bit in declaring gun rights so paramount."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/news/opinion/courtwatch/printable509293.shtml

[1a2b3c]

12. Man i guess so

Wow...you mean you really have to be TOLD that a gun designed to serve as a military anti-materiel weapon is a danger to public safety?
I guess i dont see how the terrorist are going to get ahold of one in the US without passing a background check. Even if they did get one, are we not going to be able to stop them? The .223 was designed by the military for the infantry soldiers. Hell, most rounds are designed by or for the military. So yes, please do tell me why a gun designed by the military is a danger to public saftey in the hands of an American. Anti-Material weapon is also a missleading statement. The .50 rifles you can get in the civilian world are a whole shit load different than the Anti-Material weapons the millitary has.

[MrBenchley]

15. Un-frigginng-believable....

"I guess i dont see how the terrorist are going to get ahold of one in the US without passing a background check."
Do the words "gun show loophole" ring even the faintest of bells?

But even if it didn't exist....the CRS report covers this FACT"

"The Justice Department's gun background check system does not even look at terrorist watch lists."

"So yes, please do tell me why a gun designed by the military is a danger to public saftey in the hands of an American. "
Like Tim McVeigh? Or Buford Furrow? Who the hell are you trying to kid?

"Two anti-government militia members were convicted Tuesday on federal charges of conspiring to blow up two massive propane storage tanks in a Sacramento suburb.
Kevin Patterson, 44, of Camino, and Charles Kiles, 52, of Placerville, now face up to life in prison after they were convicted of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, and up to 20 years in prison for conspiracy to use a destructive device. The attack never took place. "

http://www.examiner.com/headlines/default.jsp?story=n.bombplot.0522w

[1a2b3c]

18. "gun show loophole"

Never heard of it. I know the Person to Person sales loophole.

Newsflash~~~~ Terrorist dont need a gun show to illegally obtain a .50 sniper rifle, thats why they are terrorists.

"The Justice Department's gun background check system does not even look at terrorist watch lists."
No Shit!?! Maybe that loophole needs fixed. Or maybe it is fixed when you are asked if you are a US citizen on the form 4473.


Like Tim McVeigh? Or Buford Furrow? Who the hell are you trying to kid?
its already been pointed out that the military didnt invent the .50 cal, sports shooters did, but i will go with this one anyway. So since niether one of these 2 used .50cal to commit their crimes what point do you have? "Criminals kill people so ban all guns?" Thats all i can really figure out. If i have misread this please fill me in with more details about how banning any gun would have stopped these 2 if there is another gun that isnt banned for them to commit the crime with.

"Two anti-government militia members were convicted Tuesday on federal charges of conspiring to blow up two massive propane storage tanks in a Sacramento suburb.
Kevin Patterson, 44, of Camino, and Charles Kiles, 52, of Placerville, now face up to life in prison after they were convicted of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, and up to 20 years in prison for conspiracy to use a destructive device. The attack never took place. "
Im sorry, what does this have to do with the topic? Explostion~firearms.... I cant make the connection

[MrBenchley]

20. What a pantload...

Even for the RKBA crowd.

""gun show loophole""
Posted by 1a2b3c
Never heard of it."
Nuff said. Clearly there's no reason to go on pretending this rubbish is worth replying to.

[1a2b3c]

23. Any person

Who pretents a loophole only applies to a gun show isnt really worth debating anyway as they have a gross lack of knowledge, other than what the special interest group VPC has to tell them, on the subject.

[MrBenchley]

31. Keep on pimping for AshKKroft then

[1a2b3c]

33. You keep on Pimping for the republicans

Ill stay down here and pimp for gun control that isnt full of hoooey.

[MrBenchley]

34. Not me...that would be YOU

[1a2b3c]

36. really

im not the one pushing for a dumbass bullet tax that would send the voters elsewhere.

[MrBenchley]

38. Yes, REALLY

You're the one pimping for the racist and most extrreme fringe of the GOP.

[1a2b3c]

40. How is that?

Because i use my own free thoughts and not the VPC when it comes down to the "cosmetic" rifle ban?

[MrBenchley]

42. Because you're here pimping for AshKKKroft,, silly

[1a2b3c]

13. and it continues

By the way, did you really need to be told AshKKKroft and his GOP idiots fucked up the Lindh case?
"Remember the hullabaloo last week when the Justice Department changed course completely and came out in support of broader Second Amendment rights for private citizens? Well, Lindh's lawyers threw the feds' now-famous footnote back in their faces Wednesday by arguing that any prosecution of Lindh for carrying a weapon while legally acting as a Taliban soldier would violate his gun rights as recognized by federal officials. The idea is that the Second Amendment right the government now says it recognizes ought to trump the federal statute that generates a separate crime of carrying a weapon while committing a crime of violence. It should be fascinating to read what federal prosecutors write in response to the defense argument — and whether the government actually backs off a bit in declaring gun rights so paramount."

So you are trying to tell me that that a guy can take up a war against his country, while living and fighting for a whole different country, and still have his second amendment rights? You know this is hoooey. Nice little spin but i dont think many people are going to buy it. Sure his lawyers might try it, but thats a far f#*king cry from succeeding.

Im still hearing the crickets from my original post.

[MrBenchley]

16. Still infested?

"So you are trying to tell me that that a guy can take up a war against his country, while living and fighting for a whole different country, and still have his second amendment rights?"
Yeah...guess that's why AshKKKroft and his clowns were able to convict Lindh so easily....oh, wait...that's right .

[1a2b3c]

19. Whats right?

That Lindh is hard to convict or that he can still go to the gun dealer down the road and buy a gun?

The first one makes sense but the second one is the hoooey youve been trying to sell me.

[MrBenchley]

21. What's right is that

just as I said, gun nut AshKKKroft fucked up the Lindh case...

[1a2b3c]

22. AHH

So the earlier hoooey about John Walker Lindh being able to use his second amendment rights was just another interest group spin on the story?

[MrBenchley]

26. Not even close to true

But it's amusing to see how desperately you can spin...

[1a2b3c]

28. I put a spin on it?

I must have missed it. I ssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, so John Walker Lindh can go to the sporting goods store and buy a rifle. My bad, im not up-to-date on the VPC logic.

[Romulus]

14. quick comment

Wow...you mean you really have to be TOLD that a gun designed to serve as a military anti-materiel weapon is a danger to public safety?

I was reading that book "Jarhead," by Anthony Swofford, a USMC sniper during the Gulf War I. In the book, he said that the USMC snipers only got the Barrett AFTER the USMC weapons development group noticed its potential while it was still only in the CIVILIAN target-shooting market. He said the first time the Barrett was given to the USMC snipers was just before the Desert Storm campaign, after they had already been in the desert during Desert Shield. The original weapons they were given were too wimpy and "civilianised" for military use, i.e. the magazines kept falling apart and getting damged, and the scopes sucked. So the weapons development group tried to beef them up to military specs by getting new parts.

If Swofford is right (I'll take his opinion on this over the VPC), then the Barrett was a civilian rifle modified for military duty, just as how the bolt-action Remington 700 was modified in the 60's for military sniper-rifle duty.

Anyone can read the book themselves and draw their own conclusions.

[MrBenchley]

17. Yeah, surrrrrrre....

I'll pass on this hooey.

[demsrule4life]

25. Mr B it aint hooey

The Barrett model 82 came out in 1982. The company came close to going bankrupt from lack of civilan sales. I believe it was in 89 the military started to show interest in it. After changes were made that the military wanted it was adopted as the M821A

[1a2b3c]

24. Figured while i wait around on your

hoooey filled replies to my other posts i would go over this one a little more.

CDC and FBI stats do sometimes show variations...
This cracks me up. They show about a 3,000 person diference. Who do you believe??? The law enforcement agency report that deals with the crimes or the Center for Disease Control, who was easily bought and payed for by special interest groups like the VPC? The fact that their homocIde numbers are 1/3 higher than the agency who deals with the homocides.....I would try and go with the FBI.

Now the Lautenberg report. I just gave it a quick gaze and it all seemed alright to me. He was right on when he mentioned the background check for 50 pounds of gunpowder. But how is banning the sale of a .50cal to citizens gonna stop terrorist? Terrorist arent even citizens and cant buy the gun anyway! A citizen could buy the gun for them, but they could buy them any other gun, all of which could kill many people and possibly shoot down helicopters. So whats next on the ban list? What gun do we need to ban from US citizens so that we will be safe from NON US citizens?

[MrBenchley]

27. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it...

"the Center for Disease Control, who was easily bought and payed for by special interest groups like the VPC?"
Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

[1a2b3c]

29. Its alot easier to swallow then

the FBI being bought and paid for by the NRA. It does explain why their numbers are grossly inflated compared to the reports from the freaking agency that deals in homicides.

Around and around you spin
When will you stop?
When will the VPC win?

[MrBenchley]

30. Gee, bubba...all the spin is yours.

Here's an in-depth report that discusses some of the discrepancies...not that I suspect that really matters to someone who tries to spin a comment about a Canadian election into a personal attack so he can express "outrage.:"

www.bsos.umd.edu/ccjs/faculty/wiersema/homstds.pdf

[1a2b3c]

32. lets clear up the outrage

Its more like tired. Im tired of reading crap that is nothing but insults. Its all ive read and mainly it comes from 2 anti RKBA posters on this site. That isnt to say that the people on the other side dont join in. I took it upon myself to just reply in the same manner that i get replied to. I am going to just keep doing it from here on out until it stops(yeah right)or we all or just me get tombstoned.

Inbetween my rude posts and calling everything hooey or having a VPC spin, i will include facts and then watch none of them get answered to or get a serious reply as we have seen in this thread.

[MrBenchley]

35. Who are you trying to kid?

" i will include facts"
Yeah? When will you start?

[1a2b3c]

37. Before you can figure out fact from fiction i guess.

Check the thread titled "so am i wrong"

[MrBenchley]

39. Been there did that

And, wow, were you wrong.

[1a2b3c]

41. Run and hide little one

Run and hide.

[MrBenchley]

43. Might as well go to the personal attacks

You've sure been shown up when it came to facts.