And what about the "Dead or Alive" poster put out by them? Should they be prosecuted for that also?
If not, then why not?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

How do you feel about Palin's target poster during the Congressional races?

These are questions......don't infer something that isn't there.

the murder of another human. The poster put out by the NBPP stated "Dead or Alive". If Zimmerman had been killed and the reward collected would the NBPP be legally liable, as they did offer the reward? As such was the poster a murder for hire offer?

The NBPP was armed at a polling place, which is against the law, unless you believe that they are above the law and can threaten voters as the wish.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

....although i didn't connect the Zimmerman part. Surprised?

I would add that the solution to bad speech is more speech and Palin's was incredibly bad and in poor taste and she did nothing to further her agenda......gun or otherwise. The speech and imagery was dangerous and inflammatory and unnecessary. With speech comes responsibility. Too bad Palin's can't see that.

armed with shotguns, rifles, and even the dreaded "assault weapons"?
Exercising both their 1st & 2nd Amendment rights - most notably the Texas State GOP convention in 2000. http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2000_3222302

So you're OK with that, right?

I've personally seen them do so, I know the law and I have seen that they are in accordance with the law, so I'm not particularly concerned about it. Now shouldering one of those weapons? That would be a different matter....

But to be polite, I'll answer your question.

No, I am not.

Your turn....go back two posts.

Well, assuming they weren't lynched first . . . . . . unlike Zimmerman protected by special gun culture laws.

Were the TBaggers who paraded around in a show of intimidation prosecuted? Besides I've seen a lot more TBaggers parading around than the few so-called New Black Panthers the gun lovers are afraid of but have likely never seen (I guess kind of like big foot or the Loch Ness Monster).

So-called new black panthers are not a threat to anyone who is rational. That kind of junk needs to be posted on freeper web sites.

that is a real threat to any rational person.

but I did hear it on NPR. Saw it on their website too.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/26/149399082/new-black-panther-party-offers-10k-bounty-for-george-zimmerman

I have a natural inkling to argue against guns at almost every turn ,partially because of that delusional ' Stalinist ' America They fear .

I find it telling that of the original 10, they only changes have been to expand them as to whom they cover.

the simple desire to settle personal grievances with subjective justice.

Aren't you ticked off that orpupilofnature57 stole your Smedley Butler avatar?

drug dealers fight it out in court like every other business.

Pssst. You're going the wrong direction.

Psst, you need new glasses.

Drug dealers are dueling now. That is why parts of Chicago, Newark, and DC are free fire zones.
But verbal volleys from lawyers at 20 paces is a better idea.

Original version with no edits:

"Inequality, poverty and segregation can't compare to the simple desire to settle personal grievances with extreme prejudice."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=31586#edits


Another sharesunited key phrase. - "extreme prejudice":

Lets see what a google search of this website says, shares:

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=414212&mesg_id=414237

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=425726&mesg_id=425763

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=409410&mesg_id=409430

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=410427&mesg_id=410530

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=377371&mesg_id=377502

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=423290&mesg_id=423575

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=417176&mesg_id=418340

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4849867&mesg_id=4850493

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=361566&mesg_id=361735

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x409430

"extreme prejudice" - sharesunited - tombstoned.


And now you're trying to edit away what anyone who remembers you would recognise.

Cool.

Ban everything that causes deaths!!! Ban birth.

Not "Post the most logically-challenged idiotic post you can".

Huh?

No, I know logic. Gun-lovers' logic is "I will say anything that defends my beloved guns, no matter how insane!"

If the non-logic of "cars = guns" doesn't leap out at you, consider yourself a firm supporter of the "guns are my life" philosophy.

"machines that are misused" or "machines that kill people" or "machines that are misused, resulting in death" escapes you, well... Are you really that obtuse?

Oh, I see. You think logic means:

"Cars aren't alive. Guns aren't alive. Therefore they're equal!"

Let me know when they sell a car whose only purpose is killing somebody. Then the egregious "logic" will have at least a tiny tiny chance of being sound.

The ignorance of so many about guns is so freakin ridiculous. Look more people are killed with autos "the falsely claimed not made to kill b.s.". Guns are made for hunting, sport shooting and protection. Not to kill people only. Same as cars. But when someone runs over another and puts it in reverse and runs them over again, the car is a weapon. End of story. That is why in a court of law the auto would be named as a weapon.

> Guns are made for hunting, sport shooting and protection. Not to kill people only.

I love how you can "hunt" with a handgun! Usually humans.

Did you really not know that?

with a 44. Craziest thing I have ever seen. He was good at it too. The only way he hunted.

not a very liberal trait Grasshopper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting
http://www.handgunhunt.com/

of any knowledge on hunting.

The last two deer I took before I moved off the farm to the city were with a .44 magnum revolver. Handgun hunting is popular among many hunters.

You should really do a little research before posting, it'll make you look less foolish.

You got me

I said "usually" in my post, so your attempt to belittle me just backfired on you.

Don't worry, I know you gun-religionists are devoted to worship of your beloved guns.

In Missouri alone, there are an average 250,000 deer harvested every year. Even allowing for only 5% of them being taken by handguns, this comes out to 12,500. Keep in mind that this is only one state, and includes only deer. There are a significant number of other animals that are regularly hunted with handguns also. Some examples include squirrel, rabbit, hogs, elk, even bears and bison.

Now compare that to the number of people "hunted" with handguns. To be fair, the only handgun deaths that could even be considered would have to be homicides. According to the Bureau of Justice, the highest number of handgun homicides in any given year since 1976, was about 14,000. This was in 1993. The last time that the number was greater than 10,000 was about 1996. I daresay that there are most likely far more animals hunted with handguns in any given year than there are people.

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg|]

Perhaps you would have better luck making your point to those "on the fence" with regard to the gun issue if you were to put a bit more effort into making arguments that at least sound plausible.

Your "rebuttal" is a bunch of "maybe this" and "maybe that".



I've learned never to argue with a gun-religionist. Their beloved weapons are sooooo defenseless!

Gun-religionist.

"Anti gun crowd"

Simply supplied information that shows that your comment that handguns are usually used for hunting people is not very likely to b accurate.

As to me being a "gun religionist", I'm actually pretty open minded on the guns issue. It seems that you, however, are the one attacking the subject with all the energy and hatred of a religious zealot.

My post was intended to not only point out the likely fallacy of your statement, but to also encourage better debate. It's pretty obvious that those firmly planted on either side of the debate are pretty unlikely to be swayed to the opposing viewpoint. That leaves the fence sitters to be convinced of one point of view or another. Innaccurate and emotional statements may work on a few, but judging by current momentum on the legislative front, those on your side of the argument need to garner support from more than the few who can be swayed by such (innaccurate) statements. But, you are indeed welcome to argue your case in any fashion you would like.

Cheers.

> are the one attacking the subject with all the energy and hatred of a religious zealot.

Yeah, I guess an item whose main use is dealing death is something to fight.

> hat leaves the fence sitters to be convinced of one point of view or another. Innaccurate and emotional statements may work on a few,

I'm glad you recognize that the gun-religionists' emotional arguments don't win anybody to their side.

I'm glad you recognize that the gun-religionists' emotional arguments don't win anybody to their side

Just as I doubt that it attracts significant numbers to the other side of the debate.

Yeah, I guess an item whose main use is dealing death is something to fight.

I may be convinced to agree if it were true that guns are used mainly for "dealing death." However, even when including hunting in "dealing death", the actual numbers tell a very different story. The vast majority of guns and gun owners kill nothing more significant than paper targets.

I do agree that violence in America is an issue that needs to be addressed. I also agree that guns are misused, either through criminal intent or plain ignorance and stupidity, too often. Once is too often. However, I don't believe that we will reach a zero rate of gun related injury or death within the next 1,000 years, regardless of what laws are passed. It seems to me that your energy, and many others',on both sides of the debate would be better used looking for ways to agree on real solutions rather than insulting one another.

As distasteful as groups such as the NRA may be to many people, they have championed many legislative efforts and ideas focusing on reducing criminal actions with firearms, increasing the efffectiveness of background checks, education and safety programs and much more. Gun owners and 2nd amendment proponents are active within their communities and tend to be quite well organized. Aside from the ranting of people like Nugent and LaPierre, gun owners are very much like the average American. Probably because they are the average American. I have yet to hear any of them demand guns for everyone, the right to kill on a whim or any other of the rhetoric put forth by opposing views. What I have seen and heard is a willingness to teach safety classes, promote safe and legal use of firearms, promote wildlife management and and host of other positive activities.

It seems that the proponents of increased restrictions, almost universally, take an all or nothing stance. They reject any proposal that doesn't go far enough toward their ideal goal, rather than accept a partial victory in the fight against illegal/irresponsible gun use. I think most would agree that I you adopt an all or nothing stance, you are probably more likely to get nothing, rather than all.

> The vast majority of guns and gun owners kill nothing more significant than paper targets.

Oh, I feel relieved to hear that! That makes guns a nice harmless hobby, like stamp collecting!

There are approximately 80,000,000 gun owners holding 300,000,000 guns.

There were 335,000 gun crimes (both fatal and non-fatal - BJS) and 19,000 gun suicides in 2009 (CDC). There were 554 fatal accidental injuries and 14,000 non-fatal injuries that year (CDC). That's 365,000.

Even if every single event were perpetrated by a different gun owner (which is a laugh, but just to show how far you're off..)

99.4% of gun owners are not involved in a gun crime, suicide, or accidental shooting.

99.9% of guns are not involved in a gun crime, suicide, or accidental shooting.

They may not be as safe as stamp collecting but that's a hell of a lot safer than say, biking, hiking, kayaking, skiing, swimming, or many other sports.

> ey may not be as safe as stamp collecting but that's a hell of a lot safer than say, biking, hiking, kayaking, skiing, swimming, or many other sports.

You'll have to prove that statement with facts. Be sure to total up the full number of skis (for example) laying around (not just actively being used, since that is what you are using for gun number) vs. the number of skiing deaths. I'll need to see your evidence.

I deal in facts. Sorry Charlie.

Nice to see verification that you can't support your post. At least you admit that you just throw stuff up and see what sticks.

Now you've got to get an accurate count of the number of basketballs, skis, balls, etc so you can compare them percentage wise like you did with guns. Make sure to include all of the sports items laying around in closets, unused, etc, since the gun numbers include all such "unused" guns.

You've got a lot of work ahead of you. I know that you're just trying to make guns look "safe", so you'll use the max gun number you can to spin the facts around to your side.

> Guns are safe when handled properly

They sure are! The problem is the huge, huge amount of people who aren't doing that. And more guns means more idiocy, and more deaths.

The Founders knew this, their logic about guns is written in Federalist Paper #29.

So all the constitutional scholars, the POTUS, the SCOTUS are all wrong about it being an individual right?
I'll take their opinions over yours, I mean, after all, your specialty is math and statistic.

> So all the constitutional scholars, the POTUS, the SCOTUS

Heller overturned decades of precedents that brought more gun control and kept the militia part of the 2nd Amendment.

Heller was decided by the same super-conservative court that gave us Citizens United & President Cheney. A bunch of right-wing nutjobs.

What SCOTUS decision supports the collective theory?

Miller, Presser, and Cruickshank, to name three.

Miller decided nothing, that is why both sides claimed it a victory. Miller only said a sawed offed shotgun was not a protected weapon. Miller was dead, so counsel did not give argument or file a brief.
Presser was a "states rights" case about private armies.


Cruickshank was also a "states rights". It made the civil rights laws at the time unenforceable. Cruickshank was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions because it made Jim Crow possible.

agreed that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not connected militia service, kinda blows your argument all to hell.
You and your gun control crowd are just pissed off because you see your wet dream of prohibition going to the ash heap of history. Deal with it.

> greed that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT not connected militia service, kinda blows your argument all to hell.

Not in the slightest. The only way your statement could even be remotely true is if you accept 9 people's beliefs as Absolutely Cosmically God-Like Truth, which I don't. I don't think anybody does.

Come on, give me something that isn't child's play to destroy.

You stated that an ultra conservative court gave us the Heller decision and when confronted with the fact that the Liberals also agreed that it is an individual right this is all you can come up with?
Really pathetic and weak.

> You stated that an ultra conservative court gave us the Heller decision and when confronted with the fact that the Liberals also agreed that it is an individual right this is all you can come up with?

Everything I said is true, and logical to boot. THe court is conservative, and if non-conservatives went along with it, it doesn't mean anything other than another erroneous decision.

Heller overturned decades of precedent. Them's the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.

.. wouldn't likely hold air..

https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/industryexpertise/sports/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3g3b1NTS98QY0P3IANzA89QR0t3X0dD42A3c_2CbEdFAJi0a68!/

That's 210,000 sold in 2010, so let's say 1,050,000 basketballs in the last five years.

529,000 injuries (2010) with 1,050,000 balls is 50.3%.

So you're saying all those injuries only occurred with the last 5 year's purchases of basketballs?

I'm beginning to think your self-proclaimed expertise is kinda shaky...

And, AND, you'll have to compare equal injuries to equal injuries. IOW, a minor sprained ankle from a basketball can't be compared to a shooting "accident" that needed hospitalization.

And, and, AND, you'll have to compare equal time with equal time. 100 hrs playing basketball with 1 injury doens't equal 1 minute with a gun and an injury.


Come on digger, at least make it CHALLENGING for me to destroy your "arguments".

Keep adding more "But.. but.. but.."s

The thing about analogies is that "Thing A" is not the same as "Thing B".

If they were, we'd call that equivalence.

Fewer people are injured in the firearms sports, both in number and in percentages, than in basketball.

Even if we *doubled* the number of basketballs, the percentage would still be 625 times higher than with firearms. (25% v 0.4%)

Suck it up. You spoke without thinking about it, and now you've been called on it.

You're the one moving goal posts by trying to compare apples and oranges.

Guess you've never done a statistical study where you HAD to remove all the variables affecting results.

> Suck it up. You spoke without thinking about it, and now you've been called on it.

More of that "I win!" victory self-declaration that you love. It tickles my funny bone!

Then you'd be down to ~65,000 gun incidents. (Which would make the percentages vanishingly small.)

Or I could go to baseball, but add in crimes committed with baseball bats (as a subset of blunt instruments.)

Your alligator mouth tripped over your mosquito ass and got you into trouble.. again.

> Or I could go to baseball, but add in crimes committed with baseball bats (as a subset of blunt instruments.)

Then do it, but make sure you compare apples to apples. For example, consider the total number of hours of all the people playing baseball, vs. the amount of hours spent hitting people over the head with bats. And that's just one factor. Make sure you account for all the baseball bats that are in people's possession, not just the last 5 years worth as you did with basketballs

> Your alligator mouth tripped over your mosquito ass and got you into trouble.. again.

Oh, I know when you feel trapped. It's when you declare victory in two consecutive posts.

You're arguing the law with a lawyer in another thread; you didn't realize how many people are injured in sports, and now you have to heft those goal posts to try to make your argument.

Even if we *quadruple* the number of basketballs, you're still left with a ratio of ~300 to 1, compared to firearms, or if we remove firearm crimes (apples to apples), it's 100,000 to 1. (12% of basketballs v 0.00014% of guns). -- 35,000 accidental firearms injuries compared to 530,000 basketball injuries.

Hell, let me normalize the rate. For basketballs that's 50,000 injuries per 100,000 basketballs. For guns (including crimes) that's 121 per 100,000. For guns (without crimes) that's 12 per 100,000.

He'll say its wrong because of his background in math & statistics

but only tries to ridicule. That usually usually reminds me of "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty."

Reminds me, I need to bookmark that one to laugh at later.

I expect the same from you.


If I really have to make it any more clear... Many, many more people die in automobiles every year than are killed by firearms. If the reason for your indignation truly is the deaths that you attribute to the device then the perceived reason for its invention should be mute. I've heard it so many times, "if it saves just one life..." Well, if that's REALLY the case then we need to be getting people out of cars, too, along with barring access to the host of other things that are instrumental in needless deaths. Swimming pools, baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc. Be honest... The only difference between guns and these other things - the reason you rail against one and not the others - is that you don't own or use a gun.

You have a visceral reaction to guns. You don't like them. Fine, I get it. Nobody here wants to make you own one. That's a fundamental difference between that "anti's" and the "pro's." We don't expect you to live by our values. Stop expecting us to live by yours.

> The only difference between guns and these other things - the reason you rail against one and not the others - is that you don't own or use a gun.

Nope, the difference is that guns are designed for one purpose - to kill somebody. The other items in that list don't have as a primary function the snuffing out of a life.

Funny how the gun-religionists don't even know what their beloved weapons are for!

Please keep it up

Yes, I like to talk about the real 2nd Amendment, not the NRA redefinition of it.

> That is a freakin out right lie. Total thru and thru B.S.!!!

What part? Guns are designed to kill, or that the other items' primary purpose is not to kill?



The "thinking" processes of gun-religionists is something to behold!

That is so illogical it's insane. Although some guns are indeed designed for self defense it is up to the shooter if or not the shot rendered is fatal to a point. Many things are not designed to kill people but are taken off the market because they kill too many.

Animals killed by auto
The Numbing Numbers
Everyday in the U.S., 190 million motor vehicles hit the road, and one million animals get hit by motor vehicles. That's counting cars, buses, motorbikes, and trucks, but not ATVs, snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles. The figure includes mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, but not insects and bugs, who somehow never count. http://www.culturechange.org/issue8/roadkill.htm


Animals killed by gun
TABLE 3.10
Number of animals killed by hunters, 2001–02 deer season and 2002–03 season for nondeer game
SOURCE: Adapted from "Table 1. National Overview," in A Dying Sport: The State of Hunting in America, Fund for Animals, January 2004,http://www.fundforanimals.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=85&table=documents (accessed January 31, 2005)
Doves 22,702,000
Squirrels 22,650,000
Ducks 12,740,000
Rabbits 10,942,000
Grouse, quail, partridges 10,500,000
Deer* 6,400,000
Pheasants 5,900,000
Geese 3,379,000
Raccoons 3,090,000
*Deer number is from 2001/2002 hunting season
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2165/Wildlife-KILLING-WILDLIFE.html

It doesn't matter if it was not designed to kill people if it kills many times more it's worse.

Automobiles are a bigger killer of life in this country than guns. At the top would probably be chemicals and food.
I could give you many examples of this but you seem unable to make this connection so the joke is on you

They do it spectacularly well, especially when in the right hands.

Now, what is at Point B can vary wildly. It could be, as you say, a living creature-a deer, a squirrel, a snake, a rabid dog, or even a human. Or, it could simply be a paper target, a cardboard box, or some old tin cans.

Whatever the target is, the gun's purpose and design was the same: to move a projectile from Point A to Point B with great efficiency.

Your nonsense about guns having ONLY one purpose is just that--nonsense. I have four guns and have never killed anything with any of them, yet the guns work fine and fulfill their purpose like any other tool I own.

> Whatever the target is, the gun's purpose and design was the same: to move a projectile from Point A to Point B



Wild spin! You win the NRA award for "Defending The Poor Widdle Defenseless Gun" award.

Sad, but typical, really.

Gun-religionists love doing that!

it seems to be way over your head and your response is lacking any substance.

Need a lot more substance than " dumb ".

How about deleting any thread that goes over 50 responses without any participation from the OP?

It would limit some of this drive-by nonsense.

Who did it and ran?

I rest my case.

Which means I end up ignoring a lot of the junk from the NRA crowd (e.g. "so I guess we should ban cars", "butthole hurt report&quot .

In this OP, actually, I think that the inane responses from pro-gunners nicely complemented the Guardian article's expose on the loony gun culture.

I'm sorry you don't like my posting style. But my lack of responses doesn't mean I wasn't paying attention.

So out of 95 posts, only one was worthy of comment?

Gary Younge totally missed the point. He should have met with African American pro-RKBA activists like Ken Blanchard and Shawn Gowder, and read constitutional scholar Robert Cottrol's view on the Second Amendment. A little African...-American history wouldn't hurt either, as in Robert F. Williams biography, for sure the original Black Panther party history (not that guy Richardson); Dr. Ossian Sweet's case in Detroit; abolitionist John Brown; and Nat Turner and the slave rebellions. He is quite right on one of his assertions, it is a complex issue, but the Brits have always been too quick to pull the trigger with their judgemental attitudes regarding the Second Amendment in the US. That Richardson guy is a moron.

twisted numbers, pretzel logic.