Need some reference...

[Axman]

I was discussing gun control with a co-worker and he said something that stopped me cold. I need links that will either verify his statement or vilify it.

Here is his statement... "You do realize that gun control was a major part of the Jim Crow laws in the 1800's don't you?" Now, as some of you know, I am a black man. This statement disturbs me greatly and I need references on it. Thanks.

[rogerashton]

1. My only knowledge on this is from personal experience.

(By the way, I am a "white" southerner). When I was growing up in Louisiana in the 1950's, Jim Crow and segregation were still in full force, but pretty much everyone I knew, black or white, had a gun or two or more. There was no gun control. Carrying a concealed weapon was illegal, but the law was unenforced. (My late mother carried a concealed Saturday Night Special, illegal under federal law, in her purse quite routinely!)

From family stories, I believe this had been unchanged since at least the 1920's.

"Jim Crow laws in the 1800's" huh? Many of them were enacted in the period from the end of reconstruction to 1900, but they continued to be reinforced and extended and certainly were enforced well into the second half of the twentieth century. Jim Crow laws were a 20th century phenomenon. Probably your co-worker lies about other things as well.

[MrBenchley]

2. The RKBA crowd

has been regularly trying to float this rubbish on the board from time to time...

Under an earlier permutation, one "enthusiast" was claiming that Michigan was a Jim Crow state, but Mississipppi, Louisiana and North Carolina were not.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

4. Hey, you might read this article by Cottrol...

http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-recon.html

[Axman]

6. Thank you...

reading now...

[Man_in_the_Moon]

5. There is most definitly a racist root to gun control

There are many many articles out there that describe it in detail.

The very first 'gun control' laws in the US were expressly written to deny slaves and freed blacks arms.

Here is a synopsis (take it with a grain of salt since it is affiliated with the NRA) of some of the laws, you can use them as a jumping off point easily:

http://www.mcsm.org/racist.html

[Axman]

7. Thank you...

Will read momentarily...

[RoeBear]

8. Try this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=2218

[Axman]

9. After reading the links provided...

I am deeply concerned and upset. I had no idea of the depth of this issue. I've also searched on google for information. I'll get back to you guys later. I need to think.

[demsrule4life]

10. Axman that is what gun control is about

control and nothing else.

[Axman]

13. I'm split now...

I've tried for years to get some reasonable control on guns. Yes for the longest time, my answer was ban them all. I spent nearly five hours last night researching the relevance of gun control and racism. I am deeply disturbed by my findings, I am deeply ashamed at how we've let this happen and I am enraged that we've let this go on.

I don't know how to approach this anymore. My desire to stop the violence is now conflicting with the brutal fact that prejudice against minorities, not just blacks, is the reason gun control came into existance to begin with.

If gun control is indeed a product of racism which I am beginning to believe now, then how can it beget peace? Isn't racism the product of hate?

Please someone help me understand this better.

[hijinks]

14. seems you understand it pretty well

The 'sporting guns' BS is evidence of it.

We don't want to take 'sporting guns' (i.e. expensive shotguns, rifles, and pistols) away from rich white people, but we will take saturday night specials away from the poor.

[MrBenchley]

15. Just Ask Ted Nugent

Or Larry Pratt.

Or Jeff Cooper.

[RoeBear]

27. If Ted, Larry and Jeff are racists, and racists are bad...

...does that mean that all political ideas that they are in favor of are bad?

[MrBenchley]

29. Who are you trying to kid?

IF Ted, Larry and Jeff are racists? You mean you think there's some doubt?

Does it mean that any other political ideas that they are espousing spring from the same ignorance and hate as their racism?
Yeah, very likely. You don't end up Pat Buchanan's campaign manager, the head of English First and Gun Owners of America and guest speaker at the Aryan Nations jubilee because you're an otherwise enlightened and progressive guy.

[RoeBear]

32. Thanks for answering my...

...question.

[MrBenchley]

36. Pratt's and Nugent's hate and ignorance is palpable

and their public positions odious.

[RoeBear]

39. Some racists...

...are usefull fools.

[MrBenchley]

40. But when racists are leading the parade

as Pratt and Nugent are,they don't exactly fit the definition.

[RoeBear]

42. If, and I don't know if they did or not...

...help get shall issue CCW laws in Michigan and other states then they were usefull fools.

[MrBenchley]

45. Are you kidding, roe? They led the charge...

Are you sure this is completely isolated from the rest of their ugly hate-filled agenda? I sure as hell have my doubts...but I'm sure you can vouch for their motives.

[RoeBear]

47. When it benefits me...

...I'm happy and they are usefull fools. And I hope they choke on the fact that I and lot's of honest black men (and women) are packing heat.

[MrBenchley]

48. Gee, so who cares what else goes on in the world

as long as a handful of neurotics can run around with a toy for their Chuck Norris fantasies...

[RoeBear]

50. Mine fantasy is more of a...

... 'Shaft' type thing.

Seriously though. I have been verbally assaulted by white people, I'm now legally able to defend myself if they physically assualt me.
Thanks to usefull fools.

[MrBenchley]

51. Thanks to usefull fools.

I'd bet Pratt and Nugent would return the compliment.

[CO Liberal]

33. I Understand Hitler Treated His Dogs Well.......

Does that make up for everything evil he stood for? Of course not.

The same applies here......

[MrBenchley]

37. So did Nixon...

RKBA "logic," or whatever it is....

[demsrule4life]

111. Only you can take a post where a guys is asking

a very personal question and turn it into a fucking abortion. I guess you had to make up for the post that got locked out.

[Withergyld]

16. I think that

when gun control advocates claim that firearms are the cause of violence they overlook some of the more basic problems in American society.
The goal should be to combat crime/violence in general. If guns could somehow all be collected so that there were NO guns for anyone, crime would still exist. Suicides would still happen. What would be the next step?
Removing firearms does nothing to address WHY the crimes are committed. Yesterday, I linked an article about the extremely high death rate among Native Americans in the Phoenix area. Why is this happening?
From the article:
Humetewa and others attribute the Indian crime rate to socio-economic factors like unemployment, broken families, lost cultural values and the emergence of gangs.

But alcohol and drugs, banned on reservations, are the incendiary ingredients in half of all violent offenses, the report stated.
<snip>
Mac Rominger, an FBI agent for six years in Navajo and Hopi country, said poverty, boredom and alcoholism are compounded by isolation.

"It's all the underlying socio-economic problems, but they're magnified even more," Rominger added. "Ninety-five percent of the violent crime out there is directed toward family and friends."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1007indiancrime.html

Gun Control advocates often overlook these root causes of violence in general and go straight to firearms.
It is like a doctor treating the symptoms of an illness and not treating the illness itself. The patient may fell a little better, but they are still sick.

I have previously posted a link to a National Institute of Justice study that showed enforcement of existing laws combined with a comprehensive effort to combat the underlying socio-economic conditions can be extremely effective at reducing crime. This was achieved without significantly reducing the number of firearms available to criminals.

Anti-trafficking effects. Finally, the degree to which violence reduction in Boston should be attributed to the prevention of illegal firearms trafficking must be questioned. Trafficking was, of course, a principal original focus of Boston’s Gun Project, and attention to trafficking was one of Operation Ceasefire’s two fundamental planks.

Study investigators believe that evaluating the particular contribution of supply-side interventions in Boston is essentially impossible. Anti-trafficking efforts were implemented at the same time as violence deterrence efforts, and both might be expected to influence, for example, gun carrying, gun use, and the mix of illegal guns found on the street. A stand-alone trafficking prevention intervention would not face these difficulties and could lead
to definitive answers on the impact of supply-side interventions. Operation Ceasefire, however,was not a stand-alone trafficking prevention intervention.

Here, as well, the distinctive characteristics of the decline in homicide and shootings in Boston offer the best insight into what might have happened. Two things are certain. First, supply-side efforts cannot be responsible for the abrupt reductions in gun-related violence during the summer and fall of 1996. Most Boston trafficking cases followed that reduction, rather than anticipated it. Second, anti-trafficking efforts in Boston did nothing to reduce the existing stockpile of illegally acquired and possessed firearms in Boston.
The guns held by gang members in Boston in May of 1996 were, for the
most part, still held by them several months later when the violence reached its new, lower level. The change that had occurred was not in the extent of gun ownership but in gun use. The principal impact, therefore,was almost certainly a demand-side, deterrence-based effect rather than a supply-side effect. It may well be that anti-trafficking efforts strengthened and prolonged that impact.Whether any such effects were large or small cannot be independently
established in this case.

page 61-62 of the following pdf file
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/188741.pdf

from page 3 of the above report:
Concurrently, the Streetworkers (a coalition of Boston social service workers),probation and parole officers, and, later, churches and other community groups offered gang members services and other types of assistance.

I see this approach as the solution to combating violence, not the band-aid approach of banning or further restricting firearms.

[iverglas]

17. name that straw fella

Please.

"when gun control advocates claim that firearms are the cause of violence they overlook some of the more basic problems in American society."

"Gun Control advocates often overlook these root causes of violence in general and go straight to firearms."

Some of us have been waiting so long, surely it's long enough. Who are these "gun control advocates" who say this? Anyone we know?


"It is like a doctor treating the symptoms of an illness and not treating the illness itself. The patient may fell a little better, but they are still sick."

Yeah ... but they're also still ALIVE, oddly enough.

Sometimes it really is the "symptoms" that kill you, didn't you know?

.

[MrBenchley]

19. Worth noting that

millions of Americans "solve the problems" of the common cold by taking action against the symptoms until the problem subsides.

By the way, you will notice that none of these whoopsters can ever point to a single action by any politican fighting for gun rights that doesn't EXACERBATE these root causes of violence With is struggling so hard to get us to look at instead of common sense gun control.

[Withergyld]

21. So bench

How will closing the "gunshow loophole" significantly reduce gun crime?

[MrBenchley]

22. For one thing

it will keep criminals and the people who sell guns to criminals from getting their hands on guns as easily as they do now....

Now it's your turn.. What has ANY "gun rights" politican done to alleviate the root causes of violence that you're so het up about?

I find it funny as hell that the "Democrats" of the gun rights crowd is quick to scream they're being driven out of the party by gun cvontrol...but never ever even threaten to withhold support from GOP politicans pushing racism, class warfare, open corruption, etc.

[Withergyld]

23. If less then 1% of armed criminals

purchase fireams at a gunshow, how will this reduce acces to firearms by the other 99% of armed criminals?

"Now it's your turn.. What has ANY "gun rights" politican done to alleviate the root causes of violence that you're so het up about?

I find it funny as hell that the "Democrats" of the gun rights crowd is quick to scream they're being driven out of the party by gun cvontrol...but never ever even threaten to withhold support from GOP politicans pushing racism, class warfare, open corruption, etc."

I'm a Democrat, I have never claimed to be leaving the party because of gun control. I think we as Democtrats have done a great deal of good to make society better. We have pushed for greater equality on many fronts. I think the party line on gun control is misguided and not in the best interest of society. I think the effort of the party to improve society is watered down by all the effort expended passing laws that have little impact on the problem of gun violence. The effects of the AWB has been minimal. The effects of closing the "gunshow loophole" will be minimal. Unfortunatley we do not have unlimited resources. We should carefully pick and choose where we should expend our resources/effort to provide the maximum benefit.

[MrBenchley]

24. Surrrrrre, with

That's why the gun lobby is spending millions trying to keep that propped wide open.

Where do the 80% of family, friends and street sources get their guns, do you suppose? Do you think the gun fairy leaves them under a cabbage leaf?

"I think the party line on gun control is misguided and not in the best interest of society. "
And I disagree.

[Withergyld]

25. How will closing the gunshow loophole significantly reduce

a criminal's ability to get a firearm?

[MrBenchley]

26. Read and learn

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp

[Withergyld]

28. from your source

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill, which requires federally licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on all gun buyers. And the system has worked fairly well - since this law went into effect in 1994, background checks have stopped about 700,000 convicted felons, domestic abusers and other illegal buyers from getting guns. But because the Brady Bill does not apply to private gun sellers, criminals and other prohibited buyers who cannot buy firearms at gun stores can skirt the law and obtain guns from private sellers at gun shows. In most states, these gun sales do not require a background check. That means no ID, no questions asked.

Any private sale does not require a backgound check.

[MrBenchley]

31. Yeah, no shit.

It's called the gun show loophole....and the gun industry spends millions keeping it propped open.

[1a2b3c]

35. So does the gun show loophole

if closed, prevent me from buying a gun out of the newspaper without a background check? Or is it just at gun shows? I havent read anything about the gun show loophole from the anti gun industry. I always skipped reading it because the name alone sounds like a half ass solution to a problem.

[MrBenchley]

38. Gee, bubba...

And this by you is an argument for LESS gun control?

"I havent read anything about the gun show loophole from the anti gun industry."
Just go to any anti-gun store

Or better yet, go to an anti-gun show....you'll find lots of literature as well as the vendors of anti-guns, anti-gun anti-holsters, non-racist T-shirts, and Allied memorabilia from World War 2.

[1a2b3c]

54. like i said in a different post

I never said less gun control. I said less dumbshit gun control. IE> waiting periods, assault weapons bans(cosmetically) and gun show loopholes.

[MrBenchley]

57. And like I said...

I'm supposed to worry that YOU don't take me seriously?
Hahahahahahaha....

[1a2b3c]

34. link isnt working

website not responding.

[MrBenchley]

41. Works fine now....

[1a2b3c]

53. yep now its up. nt

[Withergyld]

20. Take your pick

Why else spend so much time and effort to close the "gunshow loophole" which was a source for less the 1% of firearms for armed criminals.

[iverglas]

44. beep

Sorry. I don't see an answer. I do hope you'll keep playing, though.

.

[MrBenchley]

46. Incidentally

Even though the RKBA crowd's squawking got it closed, my answer for this entire farrago of right wing rubbish is still on the board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15114

[Liberal Classic]

11. Yes, gun control was one aspect of Jim Crow

Jim Crow was one of the primary reasons for the existance of gun control. Virtually all of the "Black Codes" of the day included provisions stripping the rights of black men from defending themselves.

For example, there were laws that prohibited any freedman or mulatto from owning pistols. If freedmen or mulattos were found to have pistols in their possession, they were to be sold. It was also a crime in various southern states to sell, or even give away ammunition to freedmen. Often times taxes were levied on arms or ammunition so that only the wealthy could afford them. Since few freedmen were wealthy this acted as de facto gun control for the poor. In some states in addition to firearms freedmen were not allowed to own bowie knives of any kind, subject to fine. If the fine was not paid, likely given the povery of freedmen, they were subject to imprisonment.

Jim Crow related to gun control in other ways, too. The Klan often went around forcibly disarming blacks, and laws were passed giving indemnification to the Klan for doing so. Many people and groups were given selective privilages and immunities in this way. What the goverment could not legally do, para-military groups could do to achive the goal and the government could shield them from lawsuit and criminal charges.

Under the Dred Scott decision, these types of laws were considered acceptable. In practice, these laws existed to protect Klansmen from their intended victims.

[-..__...]

12. Black man with a gun...

Here's one mans perspective.

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/roots.html

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

43. let me try again

Apparently it is bad form to suggest that a question has been lobbed
by someone who might not actually be in need of an answer.

So gosh, I'm not doing that.

I'll just suggest that anyone with a raised eyebrow, or without,
read replies 1 and 2 in this thread (in response to "A person on
these boards made a really good case on how the implementation of
'sensible gun laws' were racist in nature" -- "Can you link me to
that? I'd really like to read that point of view."):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7625

I won't say that *I* wondered why the same someone might be acting
surprised at this same notion a month later.

Questions abound -- not on my part, of course. Tsk, never.

There's post 29 in the thread linked above ("I'd love to see all
private sales go through a background check. Here is my question.
How would it be enforced?"). I even offered an answer to that one
(post 46) ... but I didn't get a response. Odd.

No details were ever relayed -- although they were repeatedly requested
-- concerning the alleged story in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7719
and I can't find anything at all on the net to support the report of
the incident (serial rapist-murderer caught).

More questions -- posts 23 and 94:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=1353

More strange rumours -- post 3:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=1351

More wonderful tales (post 87 - "I am VERY familar with the DC snipers.
I was present at one of the shootings"; post 57 - "And I even testified in
Richmond in 2001 to try to get them to pass legislation to pass BFD here"):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=394

And way back in July (post 26, in response to "If you are BLACK
and favor gun control then YOU are one step closer to slavery" --
"I'm not sure how to take that. I've never thought about the matter
that way."):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=389

And some awfully un-naive discourse about things in this thread --
together with yet another promise to get back with some substance
that never materialized (post 170):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=8562

And more rumours without substantiation! (post 60 -- "Janet Reno was
mentioning some information on guns and stuff. One of the attendees
asked why her numbers didn't fit with VPC. Her response was that
VPC had skewed data which was deemed unreliable. Somewhere on the
web is a DOJ report concerning the accuracy of NRA, VPC, HCI, and
other sites with statistical information. I don't have time to search
for the link now but if you run across it, you'll be surprised at just
how off VPC is.")
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=13464

Another instance of failure to engage in discussion (post 33):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=8201

(And a cute reference to "gunners", in this case as distinct from "us",
also repeated in the next link in this list.)

We've had the "I used to be silly but then I saw the light" line
(post 20: "I used to think the same thing... Until I attended an
Eddie Eagle class."):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=8201
(post 32 -- "First of all, I used to think no one should have guns.
Not even police or anyone else"):
"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=11698
... "not even the police"??? Gimme a break. Are we really all such
complete suckers here?

And given things like this (post 24 -- "Being black, I suppose I have
a better idea of what is happening in the black community ... . ...
Even at the age of 16, I KNEW that the problem was home grown. We did
it to ourselves. I firmly believe that we as a whole wanted to do it
to ourselves. I for one, could not and did not accept that. So if you
want to do something about us blacks being disproportionately killed
by violence, look for the real solution and not some easy blame
solution that won't make a damned bit of difference" ... plus a little
anti-choice rhetoric just to spice things up):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=13077

... why, could someone be forgiven for feeling like s/he was being set up for a con?


And then there is always the question of what kind of dog to buy ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=54421

...

I'm awfully sorry, but when I think I'm being conned, I think I'm entitled to say so. But hey, I'm not saying so.

.

[1a2b3c]

30. Ive been over the racist gun control laws a time or two

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=8533

Here is the biggest thread i have on the subject. You really dont have to look further than California or New York and their laws on concealed carry weapons permits to see that Jim Crow laws still exist. The last admitance of a gun control law being racist was in the 1940's. Since then it has been hard to prove. If you read between the lines and use your head combined with history, its fairly easy to figure out that there are still racist laws on the books.

[iverglas]

49. and where was Axman??

Your thread was started on 8 September. He'd been right there on 2 September,
really wanting to read about "how the implementation of 'sensible gun laws' were
racist in nature."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7625

(Of course, on 10 July, he'd already been telling us how he'd "never thought
about the matter that way" -- gun control as racist oppression):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=389#609

And he posted here on 10 September at 2:42 pm:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=8201

Since there were posts in your thread at 2:15 and 3:07 pm on that same date,
meaning that it was right up there among the active threads on the board,
and it was headed "How bout we try the classist/racist thread one more time"
... I just wonder how he, with the twice-expressed interest in this issue,
could possibly have missed it all ...

.

[MrBenchley]

52. Fascinating...

You know I was discussing the RKBA crowd with a co-worker and he said something that stopped me cold. Here is his statement... "You do realize that the RKBA crowd's arguments are basically a big steaming pantload, don't you?" Now, as some of you know, I am an honest man. I needed links that will either verify his statement or vilify it, and you've given them.

After reading the links provided, I am deeply concerned and upset. I had no idea of how low they'd sink.

I am deeply disturbed by my findings, I am deeply ashamed at how we've let this happen and I am enraged that we've let this go on.

If gun rights depends on phony rhetorical devices and sham "conversions", instead of fact, then how can it beget peace? Isn't dishonesty the product of corruption?

Please someone help me understand this better.

[Withergyld]

55. I posted in the www.banassaultweapons.com thread

about obvious dishonesty in the promotion of thier cause.

Namely:
1. in their little flash movie they claim 1in 5 police officers are killed with assault weapons.
2. Near the end of the movie they state "assault weapons the choice of cop killers"

http://www.banassaultweapons.org/flashmovie.cfm

How do they get from statement 1 to statement 2?
what weapon type was used the other 4 out of 5 times?

"If gun control depends on phony rhetorical devices and sham "conversions", instead of fact, then how can it beget peace? Isn't dishonesty the product of corruption? "

[MrBenchley]

56. Tell it to Ted Nugent

[Withergyld]

58. the kettle and the pot again

:dunce:

[MrBenchley]

59. Yeah, surrrrrrre....

Tell it to Ted Nugent. You and he can have a good cry about it.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Withergyld]

62. Tell it to Sara Brady

:freak:

[MrBenchley]

63. Happy to

She's not a scummy piece of shit like Ted Nugent or Larry Pratt or John AshKKKroft or Trent Lott or Bob Barr or Tom DeLay or Wayne LaPierre or the others pimping "gun rights" in public.

[iverglas]

64. thick as two short planks?

Who's asking? Not me.

1. in their little flash movie they claim 1 in 5 police officers are killed with assault weapons.
2. Near the end of the movie they state "assault weapons the choice of cop killers"

How do they get from statement 1 to statement 2?
what weapon type was used the other 4 out of 5 times?"


You could try asking a different question. Like: what weapon typeS WERE used the other 4 out of 5 times?

I know it might be hard for people with only a two-party system to understand ... but sometimes there just isn't a "majority". Sometimes there is only a plurality. Sometimes there is no "X" that is more than all the Ys and Zs put together -- it is just more than either Y or Z. It is often useful to know this, and of course it will be a true fact regardless of how useful it is.

Joe Clark was the Prime Minister of Canada even though his party had fewer than 50% of the seats in the House of Commons; he had what is called here a "minority government". My new Liberal member of the Ontario provincial legislature only got 45% of the popular vote last week. He is still the choice of the electorate in this riding, because the other candidates all had even fewer votes. No one has a majority in these cases -- more than all the others put together -- but they have more than any of the others.

So consider the possibility that a wide range of weapons were used to kill cops in the US -- handguns, hunting rifles, knives, boots, I hardly know. If the kind of firearms referred to in the statements you quote killed more cops than any other kind of weapon, I'd call it "the choice of cop killers", myself.

It doesn't have to have been used to kill more cops than all other weapons put together to be the most popular weapon for killing cops, does it now?

Chocolate ice cream might be the most popular flavour of ice cream, even though, if you add up all the other flavours of ice cream that people choose, it might account for only 1/4 of all ice cream choices. I'd still call chocolate ice cream the choice of ice cream eaters. And I'd bet that chocolate ice cream advertisers would do the same.

Maybe more people use the weapons in question to kill cops than any other kind of weapon. That's certainly how *I* would interpret the statement made, in the context.

Getting it, at all?

Did you really not get it when you accused the source you quoted of dishonesty?

Did you maybe actually have the information you would need to establish that the weapons in question did NOT account for a plurality of the weapons used to kill cops?

Did you maybe think that the source you quoted was actually so stupid as to say something that meant something so transparently false as what you're claiming it means? Do you somehow think that you're the only bright spark who might have noticed this?

You can claim to undertand what they said as meaning "more cop killers choose assault weapons than all other weapons put together" if you like. It patently does not mean that, and your claim would have no effect on what it means.

.

[Withergyld]

65. here is the "source" they cite

large pdf file
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2001leoka.pdf
This from page 4 of the report:
From the decade 1992 through 2001, 643 officers
were killed in the line of duty. Of that number, 594 officers
were killed with firearms, and 448 of those victims were
killed with handguns. In addition, 10 officers were killed
with bombs, 8 officers with knives or cutting instruments..."

448 of 643 were hilled with HANDGUNS.

This report does not list "assault weapons" anywhere in it!

[MrBenchley]

67. You mean THIS report?

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officetwo.htm

[Withergyld]

69. your first link

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm

"The gun industry's evasion of the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines continues to put law enforcement officers at extreme risk. Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.(8) Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon."

It references to foot note (8)

This is footnote (8)
"8) The Federal Bureau of Investigation data does not identify the firearm used in some instances, in those cases the type of firearm is listed as "unknown." Therefore, the number of law enforcement officers killed with assault weapons may actually be higher. (This figure does not include the 72 law enforcement deaths that resulted from the events of September 11, 2001. The foreword of the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2001 states, "Because a catastrophe such as the September 11 attacks falls far outside the normal course of police experience, the FBI has not included those fatalities in the 2001 rate, trend, or disposition tables for to do so would skew the data and render analyses meaningless.") The year 2001 is the most recent year for which complete information is available from the FBI."

The source I referenced a few posts ago is the source that they cite.
"Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2001"

The report only lists the types as handgun, rifle or shotgun. It does NOT say that they (the VPC added on edit for clarity) did their own newspaper research.

This shows that they are dishonest and therefore corrupt according to your reasoning:
"Isn't dishonesty the product of corruption?"

[Romulus]

71. see p14

it breaks down by type of weapon per year. There are two five-year groupings: 1992-1996 and 1997-2001.

1997 seems to have been left off of the "1998-2001" timeframe for some reason. That year was the highest number of handgun homicides(50), and about average (12) for rifle homicides during that five-year span.

Why those 1998-2001 dates were chosen? Who knows?:shrug:

If anything, those figures indicate a need for more handgun control or something.

[MrBenchley]

72. What a pantload, with....

Now go cry about it to someone who cares.

[Withergyld]

75. It is nice to see how

logical the gun control people are when they are faced with facts.
:hi:

[MrBenchley]

78. Yeah?

So far we've put out all of them. When are we going to be faced with some facts from the RKBA crowd?

[Withergyld]

81. "what a pantload"

sure make a convincing argument. I wonder what grade my English Professor would give my next paper if I used that argument to prove a point?
:dunce:

[iverglas]

77. and the other one

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officetwo.htm

provides a list of the 41 shot cops and the weapons used.

Do you suppose they made it up?

You know, it's normal to provide PROOF of falsehood before making allegations of dishonesty and corruption ... not just to keep repeating the allegation without proof.


The VPS did *NOT*, as you keep alleging it did, cite that report, "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2001", as authority for its count of officers killed by assault weapons. It plainly cites that report as the explanation for why officers killed in the terrorist attacks were not included in the body count, and for that purpose only:

(This figure does not include the 72 law enforcement deaths that resulted from the events of September 11, 2001. The foreword of the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2001 states, "Because a catastrophe such as the September 11 attacks falls far outside the normal course of police experience, the FBI has not included those fatalities in the 2001 rate, trend, or disposition tables for to do so would skew the data and render analyses meaningless.")

It plainly states that it obtained DATA from the FBI, which it analyzed itself:

Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined ...

Obviously, that data included what is set out in the table I linked to above. If data has not been published in a citable form, it cannot be cited in a footnote -- it is simply the raw data used in doing an analysis of it. This would appear to be the situation here.

Is it reading comprehension that is being a problem?

.

[Withergyld]

79. If they can access the data then they can properly cite it

unless they are trying to hide something. What data did they use? Does the data base have a name? Some of the incidents list the assault weapon as an SKS. The SKS is NOT an assault rifle.

[Romulus]

86. see this part:

Unless otherwise stated, the exact configuration of SKS weapons used in police shootings cited in this study cannot be determined.

[iverglas]

95. which I already quoted

post 85.

Perhaps you could offer some reason why you quoted this bit.

Are you suggesting that the VPC deliberately represented the weapon used in the shooting as something other than what it was?

You know what you need to do, if so.

.

[iverglas]

88. they did "properly cite it", for chrissakes

They said it was data obtained from the FBI. Godamighty, what else are they supposed to do?

IF THE FBI HAS NOT PUBLISHED IT, how the fuck else are they supposed to cite it?

You apparently know nothing about scholarly research. SOMEONE has to do the original research; someone has to collect the raw data. Someone asks the survey questions, does the interviews, adds up the reported incidents, blah blah. The source is the FACTS, not the publication of the facts, for pity's sake. If you want to dispute that the facts used came from the FBI, go ask the FBI.

Why are you making allegations of dishonesty that you refuse to prove?



That's the second time I've seen this pretty picture now.

As I understand it, the SKS that you and your chum are showing is not an assault rifle. Might I correctly think that this does not mean that NO SKS is an assault rifle?

.

[Withergyld]

92. If it is not published data

how did they get it from the FBI? If they don't cite the source so that thier conclusion can be independently verified what good is it?

[iverglas]

100. did you try reading what was posted?

How many times does the same unfounded allegation have to be refuted?

The VPC asserted that 41 of 211 cops killed 1998-2001 were killed by assault weapons.

The VPC published a COMPLETE LIST OF THE 41 KILLINGS.

I provided a link to that complete list for anyone who didn't make the effort to find it him/herself.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officetwo.htm

"Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the line of Duty by Assault Weapons, 1998 Through 2001"

This IS the fucking raw data. It is the data itself -- not just a citation to the source of the data.

Now, do you want to keep saying that they "don't cite the source" when they have PUBLISHED THE ACTUAL RAW DATA?

They also provide descriptive summaries of 15 of the 41 cases -- again, READ THE LINK: http://www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm

If they don't cite the source ...

THEY CITED THEIR FUCKING SOURCE. IT WAS THE FBI. *You* may think that "source" means "thing I can click on", but it doesn't.


If you want to say that the information in that table and those summaries was made up by the VPC, you go right ahead. I'll be sitting over there with Benchley snickering.

.

[Withergyld]

101. If i wanted to get the

raw data from the FBI to verify their claim, how would I do it?
When publishing research the purpose of the citation is so that the data can be independently verified. In this case there is no way to verify the data from their citation.

[iverglas]

104. I give up

"raw data from the FBI to verify their claim, how would I do it?"

Uh ... I suppose you could ask them for it.

I really can't think of any other answer.

If you wanted to know how many kids were enrolled at your child's school, how would you find out? Maybe ... ask the school?

And if you then published an article stating that there were "X" number of children in grade one, and "Y" number of children in grade 2 ... and indicated in your article that you had obtained these figures from the school ... exactly what would you say to someone who demanded that you "cite your source"?

I wonder how close it would be to what I'm thinking of saying to you.

.

[Withergyld]

107. If I asked the school

how many children were enrolled. they would tell me. I could ask then what the figure was based on (lets say student records). I could cite the source as "based on student records at xxxxxx school."
Anyone that wanted to verify my data could call the school and ask" based on the student records how many children are enrolled?" The FBI has many collections of data. If they stated "based on uniform crime report data" or something similar it would be easier to verify. To simply state "based on FBI data" is a B.S. citation.

[MrBenchley]

80. The real problem

is that he's trying desperately to pretend assault weapons aren't the menace they really are...

[Withergyld]

82. the real problem is

gun control advocates pimping laws that will have little effect on crime.

[MrBenchley]

84. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

You keep pretending that.

[Romulus]

83. hmmm

VPC numbers don't exactly match with FBI numbers:

Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.

The FBI report (p.14) lists 224 officers killed for the years 1998-2001. Of these, 49 were killed with all rifles, 144 with all handguns.

The "41 assault weapons" number may include firearms also considered "handguns" (i.e. M-11, Uzi, TEC-9) :shrug:

[iverglas]

70. sources and what they say

From the link provided by Benchley http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm :

Still a Threat to Police—-One in Five Law Enforcement Officers Slain in the Line of Duty is Killed With an Assault Weapon

The gun industry's evasion of the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines continues to put law enforcement officers at extreme risk. Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.<8> Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

Your figures and source --

From the decade 1992 through 2001, 643 officers were killed in the line of duty. Of that number, 594 officers were killed with firearms, and 448 of those victims were killed with handguns.

-- appear to refer to a different time frame.

The VPC specifically states that the ratio was lower in an earlier period:

In 1995, the first full year in which the ban was implemented, police continued to be victims of assault weapons. Approximately one in 10 of the 74 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 1995 was slain with a banned assault weapon.<4>

(It seems that we must also keep in mind that "assault weapon" and "banned assault weapon" are not necessarily the same thing.)


The two statements seem to be:

1992-2001 - 448/643 officers killed with handguns
1998-2001 - 41/211 officers killed with assault weapons

They are not contradictory. What's missing, unfortunately, in order to assess the prevalence of assault weapons in the cop-killing phenomenon, is this:

1998-2001 - x/211 officers killed with handguns


It may well be that more cops were killed with handguns than with assault weapons on 1998-2001. I wouldn't be surprised. In that case, I'd take the "choice of cop-killers" line as a bit of rhetoric, and not get too upset about it.

When I read things like:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/990612.htm

Deputy Riches was sitting in his patrol car outside a 7-Eleven when his police cruiser was riddled with assault weapon fire. The 7-Eleven clerk said that a customer told him he was carrying an AK-47-style assault rifle to shoot a police officer.

-- I'd actually find it reasonable to describe the weapons in question as the things that might well be chosen by someone whom one might tend to characterize as a "cop-killer": someone who sets out to kill a cop, and doesn't just do it in the course of whatever other nasty things s/he was doing.

And of course, there's always that definitional problem:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/010329.htm

When Garcia's husband, Frank, learned of her plans, he drove home and killed both Jessica and Officer Garza—a 25-year police veteran—by shooting them both in the head with an M-11 assault pistol.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/990408.htm

On April 8, 1999, Officer Joyce Carnegie was killed with a TEC-9 9mm pistol.

Handgun, or assault weapon? I guess some consider them both:





You say tomayto, some say tomahto, I guess. Wouldn't make you right and them wrong, as I understand these things.

.

[Withergyld]

74. An SKS is NOT an assault rifle.

:hi:

[iverglas]

85. how odd

Your pretty picture doesn't look at all like the one in the article about one of the deaths that I presume you are objecting to being included in the list:

Colorado - Unknown - SKS - 7.62mm

http://www.vpc.org/studies/980529.htm

On May 29, 1998, one police officer was killed and two were wounded with an SKS 7.62mm rifle. ...

or maybe this one:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/010404.htm

Wells was shot twice at close range with an SKS assault rifle.

I don't know nuttin 'bout shootin' guns, but they sure don't look quite like this one of yours -- it seems to be missing that big piece down below:




Of course, the table did include this footnote, which seems to refer to just that big piece down below:

11) The SKS is not banned by name under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Only SKS rifles that were modified to be defined as an assault weapon under Section (B) of the law were affected by the ban. Section (B) defines a "semiautomatic assault weapon" as "a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine and has at least 2 of — (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher...." Legislation to be introduced this Congress would explicitly ban any SKS able to accept a detachable ammunition magazine. Unless otherwise stated, the exact configuration of SKS weapons used in police shootings cited in this study cannot be determined.

And the reports of the individual cases
(they're listed in the table of contents, http://www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm)
do say:

Each weapon shown is representative of the brand or model of assault weapon and is not a picture of the specific weapon used in the shooting described in the narrative.

But why exactly would you think that the VPC would have included a murder committed using the thing you depict, if it does not fit that description, in a list of murders committed using assault weapons?

Do you imagine that the entire world just goes around making stuff up and hoping nobody notices? I'd have to wonder why you'd think that, or what other reason you'd have for suggesting that the source was pretending that an apple was an orange ...

So, back to my question; what's this one? --

http://www.vpc.org/studies/010329.htm

Handgun, or assault weapon? Or two mints in one?

.

[MrBenchley]

87. By the way...

I guess from this new tack that the RKBA crowd has conceded that this "gun control is racist" claim was the horseshit we said it was....

[Withergyld]

91. no, you changed to a different argument

attacking axman's credability.
I questioned the credabilty of the VPC
so here we are.

It is typical for gun control advocates to change the subject when their lies are debunked.

[iverglas]

103. Axman? Axman who?

Yoo hoo, Axman! Where are you?

Off doing that thinking?


"attacking axman's credability.
I questioned the credabilty of the VPC"

Me, I don't find Axman cred*i*ble. But I certainly have not made any claim, based on an allegation of non-credibility (let alone and nothing else), that he lied.

See the difference?


I do find the playing of the race card so distasteful, though, it's true.

Axman ... you hoo ...

.

[MrBenchley]

105. Oh, there's no credibility to attack

as Iverglas accurately showed.

[Withergyld]

89. deception again

This is NOT an assault rifle

11) The SKS is not banned by name under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Only SKS rifles that were modified to be defined as an assault weapon under Section (B) of the law were affected by the ban. Section (B) defines a "semiautomatic assault weapon" as "a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine and has at least 2 of — (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher...."
The rifle pictured has a detachable magazine and only one other "evil" feature, the bayonet lug. It is not an assault rifle.
Two other listed features are required besides the detachable magazine for it to qualify.

[iverglas]

93. well, honey chile

I guess I just can't tell from looking at pretty pics what all these gizmos have or don't have.

But maybe you could explain what that great big thing that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon might be, if it isn't "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon".

Look carefully now ...



... let your eyes wander around the picture ... and you too may see it.

Or heck, tell me what silly old me is seeing wrong.

This whole discussion actually kinda bores me, but might I assume that the reason for disallowing that pistol-grip thing is that people can shoot one of these babies from the hip, as it were, a whole lot easier? An ability that might come in a lot handier when trying to hit a bunch of people, or even just one, by firing a whole lot of bullets, without having to sit still and aim carefully, than it would when stalking deer?

Just a guess, mind.

.

.

[Withergyld]

97. wrong again

this has a pistol grip and high cap mag the bayonet lug is gone. Whether of not the stock fold would determine if this was an assault rifle or not.

This rifle does not have a pistol grip


Look real close

[Man_in_the_Moon]

98. well honey chile

That great big thing that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon is called a 'magazine', which is totally different than a 'pistol grip'.

It would take someone either:

1- being intentionally dishonest

or,

2- woefully ignorant of firearms

to mistake a magazine for pistol grip in that particular picture.

[1a2b3c]

99. Youre cracking me up

are you trying to tell us gun huggers that the magazine is a pistol grip?

[iverglas]

102. oh dear oh dear

I don't have a clue what any of this shit is, and you know what?

I'm quite proud of that fact.

I'm proud that I spend my time and energy and brain cells knowing a whole lot of stuff that is a whole lot more worthwhile. I only wish that some other people would do the same.

And it's just beyond me why an organization as vulnerable to nit-picking attacks as the VPC plainly is would represent something as an "assault rifle" that ain't. So in these instances, I'd take that little caveat:

"Each weapon shown is representative of the brand or model of assault weapon and is not a picture of the specific weapon used in the shooting described in the narrative."

... as meaning exactly what it says: that the picture is NOT of the specific weapon used.

Funny how somebody else uses that caveat to say that the VPC is lying about the weapon used ... and claims that the fact that the weapon pictured doesn't (according to them) meet the definition of "assault rifle" is evidence of that lie ...

Kinda circular, ain't it?

Me, I start from the assumption that the VPC is quite aware of both the definition of an assault weapon (which it cites in the table of cop-killings) and of how many eyes are upon it trying to prove that it lies, and that it will therefore be rather circumspect about the claims that it makes.

The VPC also says this:

"Legislation to be introduced this Congress would explicitly ban any SKS able to accept a detachable ammunition magazine."

Kinda seems like, assault rifle or not assault rifle, it's well-loved by cop-killers. I count 8 cops out of the 41 in that list killed by SKSs.

Educate me. What else is an SKS with a detachable magazine good for?

I always have room for useless facts in my head.

.

[Withergyld]

108. detachable magazines on an SKS

are pretty much worthless. They have a "duckbill" on the front that makes them a pain to carry. They are slow to change. I can shoot and reload much faster using stripper clips and the standard magazine then one of those POS hi-cap mags.

[1a2b3c]

114. This is why the assault weapons ban is so stupid

It was written by someone with about the same knowledge of firearms as you. From by posts which compare banned and non banned guns you can see, not knowing anything about firearms made the ban quite pointless. So what? Now you just cant make a gun that says AR15 on it and it cant have a bayonet. What a joke.

I'm proud that I spend my time and energy and brain cells knowing a whole lot of stuff that is a whole lot more worthwhile. I only wish that some other people would do the same.
The why the hell do you spend so much time down here?

And it's just beyond me why an organization as vulnerable to nit-picking attacks as the VPC plainly is would represent something as an "assault rifle" that ain't. So in these instances, I'd take that little caveat:

"Each weapon shown is representative of the brand or model of assault weapon and is not a picture of the specific weapon used in the shooting described in the narrative."

... as meaning exactly what it says: that the picture is NOT of the specific weapon used.

Funny how somebody else uses that caveat to say that the VPC is lying about the weapon used ... and claims that the fact that the weapon pictured doesn't (according to them) meet the definition of "assault rifle" is evidence of that lie ...
Too funny. I bet you can see how the NRA would misrepresent something so that the numbers would be in their favor. But its just impossible for the VPC to do the same exact thing. They used rifles that were antiques and NOT defined as assault weapons except in the state of California to inflate the number to 1 in 5. The number 30 kids a day killed by firearm, they used kids up to 24 years of age to get this number. The VPC spins. The NRA spins. Get real iverglas. I would go back and prove this VPC study wrong again but its a waste of time since you will not listen anyway. Search the old DU archives and you will find it.

Kinda seems like, assault rifle or not assault rifle, it's well-loved by cop-killers. I count 8 cops out of the 41 in that list killed by SKSs.
AN SKS is not defined as an assault weapon. Looks like you justed proved yourself that the VPC claim is full of shit. Thanks.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

94. Why?

But why exactly would you think that the VPC would have included a murder committed using the thing you depict, if it does not fit that description, in a list of murders committed using assault weapons?

Because the VPC has a history of distortion and lies. I can easily see them intentionally misrepresenting what version of a firearm was used in a crime if they could then add that firearm to a list such as this. Their failure to include pictures of the actual firearms reinforce my opinion of this.

But is is true some SKSs do fit the definition of an 'assault weapon', but is not the pistol grip that is the determinate factor, that would be the 'detachable magazine' (the greatest 'evil feature'). For you see if a semi-auto weapon does not have a detachable magazine then it is not an 'assault weapon' no matter how many of the other lesser 'evil features' (pistol grip, flash supressor, grenade laucher, folding stock, bayonet lug) it has.

As to the M11, well if it is a true M11, it is neither a 'handgun' nor an 'assault weapon', it would be classified (in the US) per the NFA of '34 as a 'Machine Gun'.

[MrBenchley]

109. What a pantload

"Because the VPC has a history of distortion and lies."
Says who?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

110. Me

and also anyone that would honestly look at what they publish, or have published in the past.

[MrBenchley]

112. Hahahahahahaha....

Nuff said.

"anyone that would honestly look at what they publish"
Yeah, we can tell.....

[1a2b3c]

96. The report is close to correct

Ive checked this out before. Only they list guns as "assault weapons" that are not assault weapons. Ruger mini 14's, SKS's, M1 Garands and so on. Thats how they got the number so high.

[MrBenchley]

66. Bear in mind

that the study is based on analysis of news articles about actual incidents...

Of course many people would focus on the threat to police officers, not whether the weapons gun nuts cream their jeans over are being maligned.

[Romulus]

68. yeah

Of course many people would focus on the threat to police officers, not whether the weapons gun nuts cream their jeans over are being maligned.

That's why when other weapons are being used to kill LEO's more frequently than the targeted "evil" weapons, some people tend to get upset when politics is used to derail addressing the more pressing threat to LEO's.

****
"A" is a problem, therefore we shall attack "B." :dunce:

[MrBenchley]

73. Yeah, rom...

Your concern for police officers' safety is touching...and a pantload.

[Romulus]

76. ROFL

Your concern for police officers' safety is touching...and a pantload.

Yeah - a pantload of . . . concern! :smoke:

BTW, after sifting through all your "gun show loophole" postings, it seems that your "gun show loophole" is no different than my "private sale loophole."

Ain't that great!!!:pals:

[iverglas]

90. hey

That's why when other weapons are being used to kill LEO's more frequently than the targeted "evil" weapons, some people tend to get upset when politics is used to derail addressing the more pressing threat to LEO's.

****
"A" is a problem, therefore we shall attack "B."


Where I come from, we quite sensibly attack both A and B. Neither handguns nor assault weapons are available to the general public.

Do I understand -- since you seem to be saying that handguns ("A") are a problem -- that this is what you want to see where you're at too?

How rational of you!

.

[MrBenchley]

106. Actually you will notice

the same mob of enthusiasts were howling in rage that anybody dared to suggest in public that handgun sales be banned....

So yeah, they donn't seem to be worried so much that cops are getting killed. What bothers them is that their toys are being "slandered."

But, hey, it wouldn't be the RKBA crowd without great loads of horseshit and hysteria.

[Axman]

113. Sometimes things don't sink in and...

I scan the board on and off when I have the chance during the day at work.

Sorry, I miss things, so sue me. It didn't hit home until I got slapped in the face on the issue.

[MrBenchley]

115. Funny how all the racists supporting gun rights

like Trent Lott, Bob Barr, John AshKKKroft, Ted Nugent, Jeff Cooper, Larry Pratt and these swell folks....

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

...don't hit home...but this other rubbish does.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm....."