which means they can not and do not sell assault rifles or any other machine gun. That requires a class three.

What difference does it make what type of gun?

That is my constant point that ALL guns should be stopped, because it is simple handguns that inflict damage, and the gun control needs to be totally redone

And the million dollar sound byte answers the NRA provides for any anti-gun thought of anyones to be overridden with stupid minutia is mindboggling.

No wonder the NRA hates Mayor Mike. They are sweating bullets knowing the Equalizer is around the corner to drown the minutia that has nothing to do with anything(like wgas if it is an assualt rifle or machine gun or hand gun.

guns are guns are guns are guns are guns

guns are a technical in nature. Like those other items, guns regulations should be based on technical knowledge. That includes knowledge of current laws. Ignorant people should not rule.

OWS hates mayor Mike. The unions hate mayor Mike.

And ready to respond to anti-gun comments. This is a discussion forum, and that's how it works.

The difference between an "assault weapon" and an automatic is on par with the difference between a Ducati and a Schwinn.

I agree with you, though - gun control should be completely redone. Repeal the NFA, regulate machine guns the way semi-auto's are currently regulated, and allow nationwide constitutional carry of handguns.

Guns are guns are guns, and none of them are the root cause of violence.

that the controllers constantly tell. Ring any bells?

with the million dollar suits concise paragraphs of sound byte answers relayed like clockwork

(I figure they have a way to instantly know code or something to alert the bosses, who pass down orders to the groupies.)

Paranoid much?

Sadly, your naked, greedy Authoritarianism is quite disturbing to the rest of us.

It is gun violence which is a tyranny, which keeps us from being free.

Walmart sells guns, ammo, related equipment; it is a big addition to their profit bottom line.

Therefore they go to great lengths to be welcoming to guns and gun owners, and they don't appear to give a damn if those are legal or not legal gun carriers, so long as they make their money.

People get hurt? Doesn't bother them so long as they get their money.

People do something illegal? Doesn't bother them, so long as they make that big $ bottom line.

WalMart will always look the other way when it comes to guns, no matter what harm is done -- kind of like the extremists among pro-gunners. Reasonable people want to see background checks on all sales, mandatory NICS compliance, maintaining convicted drug users in the data base for more than a year, and limitations on things like expanded capacity magazines and assault style firearms, which have a high rate of use in mass shootings.

Many also favor insurance, similar to owning a car, for damage to others, but also that would compensate the owner if something happened to the firearms -- but that would probably require a compliance with the owner for secure storage, both to manage the risk of accident, but also to reduce the chances of theft. The upside would be that if something went horribly wrong, not only would the person harmed by it be better compensated, but the gun owner would be protected from loss and would have some assistance if needed with legal defense. It is an idea that has a lot of potential upsides for the responsible gun owner. For those who aren't, not so much.

If we went to drug testing and mental health testing as a per-requisiite to gun ownership we could also potentially screen out in advance those who like Jared Loughner or James Holmes, or that guy who wanted to shoot up another theater AND A WALMART. That would make everyone safer from schizophrenic mass shooters (including gun owners), and give greater credibility to those who passed the screening as safe. It has a significant potential for reducing violent gun incidents.

I'm sure WalMart would have no problem with setting up testing services; they are already in some cases providing flu shots, walk in clinic services, etc. so long as it could make them money with gun sales.

WalMart as part of ALEC with the NRA works this with the NRA as a business opportunity in conjunction with the gun manufacturers -- and shootings or other gun incidents, are just the cost of doing business, wracking up those profits. A few customers being hurt or killed, well, hey - they're just expendable, like all of you are, to them.

Are you claiming that WalMart doesn't care about criminals robbing a bank on their premesis? How do you come to that conclusion?

And how, exactly, do you propose that WalMart seperate "legal or not legal gun carriers"?

Every place I been, the dealer writes a confirmation number on the form.

I would worry about you and the other gun board person doing the same on that thread
more than you worry about me.

The amazing thing is what a good, benevolent man Abraham Lincoln was giving 100% amnesty than citizenship back then.

(maybe Lincoln should have done that after 20 years of having the loser traitors working a chain gang in prison in chains, like the treatment they gave the slaves, belittling of course the constitutional rights of blacks in the south who had NONE even though Tommy Jefferson said all were created equal)

That is why those that defend the 2nd are laughable, because what meaning did the Declaration itself have when fraught with such hypocracy by Jefferson the Idol.

It is like hearing Rush's words the next day on that board stocked with rightwingers.

The thread you were on. You and at least one other group gun member, can find your words by doing a search on your own posts in your threads. You don't need me to do it (click on the "my posts" part on the right tab above all posts and it is easy to find the posts from yesterday or the day before for any posts one makes.)

(c)graham4anything 2012 (wouldn't want to not credit the above 3 lines without giving proper copywrite requirements and run afoul of the rules). wink wink wink

You can see which side was on the side of Lincoln, and which side was not.
neat and pretty as the public domain slogan goes.

If not, how about providing one where he stated as you claim.

You accused a DU member of supporting the confederate battle flag in some way. That's a serious accusation, but so is lying about things like that.

Now you've been challenged to prove it and you fall back into some "well, anyone can find it, blah, blah" shit. You said it, your find it and you prove it asshat.

Provide a simple link or other supportable proof so the rest of us can judge for ourselves if what you say is true..

FWIW, my part of Florida was a favorite destination for draft dodgers in Alamaba and Georgia. North Texas and Appalachia was another. Many of the 99 percenters were loyal to the US, and the Davis administration was full of loyal Americans who was stuck behind enemy lines, and served as spies. As the CSA became more repressive and increased taking of private property by the military and conscriptions (especially since slave holders were exempt from the draft), people became more pissed off at the CSA government.

Unless you can cite to such a specific statement, of course. We eagerly await your evidence.

(Edit: I only seem to have three posts in that thread, unless I'm missing some under someone I've blocked. And I'm not unblocking anyone to do your homework for you. So a specific citation to a comment should be quite simple to do. Have at it.)

Your additional insinuations are also false, and quite irrelevent, as they have nothing to do with me.

I am not reposting posts that are already posted in the thread within.
that is a separate thread and it is a vile thread, and don't wish to delve into it again ad hoc.
You can argue the posts on that thread over there, should you wish to continue that discussion. (and if you have posts blocked, well, I have no idea how you would see them, and the whole thread needs to be in context of that thread.)

the words you wrote are there.
I guess John Q. Reader needs to make up their mind as to what you wrote.

danke.

the other words I wrote, no where does it imply you- I was just shooting the breeze with dear readers.

do you have a guilty conscious?

btw-this is not a trial. Your constant bullying me is amazing.

And I am Jewish. I deal in realistic fact that after WW2, anyone who fought for the Nazi side, was considered a Nazi, and that to this day, even 90 year olds are still tracked down and punished for their war crimes. One saying "they were drafted and had to serve the bosses" was not an acceptable answer then or now, as everyone makes a choice, and no, not everyone fought.
Valued Patriots in America were those with conviction, who did not serve when they felt the war was not to their liking, and made the choice to move to Canada or overseas, or simply not serve and await being arrested.
They did not just say "we were forced to". Noone is forced to do anything.
I myself think President Lincoln was overnice on what he did after the war.
He should have had his cute little toes kissed by anyone and everyone who took advantage of his benevolence and in effect pardoned them and ...

and it makes me think how the same people today are so anti-other people.

When when one thinks about it,
lincoln gave 100% amnesty and then 100% citizenship
yet in 2012
the same people in the south
do NOT want the immigrants to get 100% amnesty then 100% citizenship(even though those people to me have more right to it than in the aftereffects of the war.

in WW2, things were done different in Germany.

People should kiss President LIncoln's toes with thanks that he was such a great man.
imho of course, I am sure you must agree.

You called Pave a Confederate sympathizer, stated he defended the Confederacy/flag, refused to back up that assertion and when shown that you are wrong, you say "Stop bullying me!"

You're playing the victim card poorly.

It appears we are not actually having the same conversation.

Support your lie with evidence or go away.

...(because it doesn't exist), thus I can not logically discuss the issue with you. I can not defend, explain or retract something that I did not say.

As long as you tell lies about me, I owe you no courtesy beyond the chance to prove yourself or retract and apologize. You have a final chance to do so before I add you to my Ignore list. Your call.

The poster seems to have a cartoon level of understanding of history.

Coupled with a very unhealthy admiration for Bloomie, based on no actual facts beyond a fantasy that Bloomie will use his personal wealth, all gathered on Wall Street, to further the poster's fantasies about gun control.

They have had multiple chances to correct their untruth, but it's apparent this one doesn't have the truth in them when confronted with their lies. Just lots of "wharfgarble".

IIRC Patton, before his fatal accident, actually argued to let some former Nazi's continue to run the railroad systems and public utilities, since they knew how to do it and most had been pressed into the party to keep their jobs. But he was over ruled by Ike.

Serious men everywhere rely upon citation. Your contempt for it speaks volumes.

I examined the link you offered and found only a few posts from Pave. Of those posts, none came remotely close to defending the Confederacy or the Confederate flag. Your claim is false, and you may want to apologize.

there are only 2 sides
the north and the south.
the blue or the grey

President Lincoln or Traitor Davis.
Winner Grant or Loser Lee.

I guess interpretation is in the eyes of dear readers.
But someone who is defending Lincoln would make it obvious.
Someone who is not would make it obvious.
There is no fuzzy center ground.

And Lincoln deserved to have his Presidential toes kissed by those who he instantly granted 100% amnesty to, and then 100% citzenship.
odd thing is

(and the following rest of this is not poster specific, just general rambling conversation(LOL) on my part)-

the same locations now do not want to grant 100% amnesty and 100% citzenship to people (the immigrants here), all of whom never committed any crime in their life, nor fought against the United States of America.

what an oddity it is.

I thank Mr. Lincoln every single day (and Mr. FDR, and Mr. Lyndon B. Johnson, and Mr. Jimmy Carter and Mr. Obama and will thank Ms.Hillary in four years).
(I have one of those pictures of all the Presidents located in my bedroom, and to get in or out of the bedroom(or even for that matter to go to the can), I need to pass that picture and look at it.
You want to know something funny?
I had a hard time finding a new one after the 2008 election that included President Obama on it.
The stores around here that carried it (it is one of those placemats) alwyas had it prior with Bush being the last one.

I even searched in the dreaded WalMart, and guess what?
I asked them when they are getting the new one.
And they point blank (and this is the store that donates 99.9% money to the republicans, and is the single largest seller of guns in the world), told me they (at least that branch) were discontinuing the item now that President Obama was the president.
Told me everything I ever needed to know.

I went online and found it, and of course, they sell it in all the gift shops in Washington DC itself.

You know another oddity?
I was in DC in October and went to all the memorials. And counted buttons/shirts/hats, etc. for either the loser or for President Obama. NOT ONE republican button/shirt/hat were there,
and at the Lincoln Memorial, I would say 90% of the people had some sort of item stating they were for President Obama.
Not one for anyone else.
What does that tell you?

Same with the other memorials.

It tells me that one side does not go to DC because that is not relevant to their lives.
Not even the Vietnam Memorial.

They must hate DC and not consider Lincoln/Washington/Roosevelt/Dr.King to have enriched their lives at all.

Isn't it odd?

And Walmart does NOT sell the placemat of the 44 (actually only 43 different presidents, one is counted twice) Presidents of the USA now that one of them is black.

Odd.

(the majority of this post is not specific to you personally nor about you or criticizing you.
I just write as I think in the order it comes out and jot it down. No offense meant to you or anyone else, it is MY opinion and I am sticking to it
(and for copywrite purposes, lest you say it is someone elses and no link is provided, let me add
(c)g4a 2012 (that's me).

History is not black and white, or in this case, blue and grey. A historian acknowledges and embraces the myriad of in-betweens, as history may be declared by the winner but is experienced by all. As a history buff, your exclamation that "there are only two sides" is a mark of your ignorance and lack of proper instruction by either your parents or your teachers, or both, at your young age.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the conversation and has been disregarded as such.

In short: Pave did not defend the Confederacy. It would be civil and appreciated if you apologized to him for your blatant lie.

As it matters little except for semantics, I will apologize for what you are saying is a mis-interpretation of his words defending the south during wartime. So I apologize if I mistook the meaning of their words.

I wish though you would(as you demanded of me), piece by piece word by word say how they were not defending it. Especially as your first paragraph is berating me for being rigid.
You seem to be saying it is what it is but it isn't what it is

As for anyone flying the Dixie Flag, it would be like flying the Nazi flag, because anyone who sees it would indeed be insulted by it, especially if that person were a black person.
Like the words "states rights" it has a meaning that is unmistakenable.

And you have to admit in 2012 terms, with the tea party/libertarians/republicans IT is what it is what it is is.
Their meanings are NOT 1/2 and 1/2 but whole.
They ARE racist and their belief that only the 2nd amendment applies and no others especially later ones (even though their beloved Jefferson himself wrote it was a living document to be added to and #1zillion amendment is the same as the 1st or 2nd) but they are trying to negate the 13th and all the others for their racist reasons they imply.

Now we should all kiss the feet of President Lincoln.

(and to add- I know Ralph Kramden did not write that line in the title, it is a joke, and Ralph Kramden is a fictional character (c) at that played by Jackie Gleason, who late in his career played the fun loving Sheriff in Smokey and the Bandit and supported Richard Nixon
The phrase "Youth is wasted on the young" was (c) by George Bernard Shaw, whom I believe also was the writer of Bobby Kennedy's "Some men see things as they are and say why,
I dream things that never were and say why not" (c) George Bernard Shaw

BTW-if a fictional poster in effect actually should have meant what seemingly had been implied, why the need not to admit it. Why say it then immediately fess innocense and not admit it?
I see that alot, the backing off.

If only John Kerry had said, damn right, I said it and meant it, when caught not knowing the mike was on when he said something about W being a (so and so).

If you write it, be proud of it. (again I am talking a fictional poster here, no one in general meant or implied).

Otherwise, perhaps clarrify it, though I myself would never demand military style someone do something like that. It's too bossy and too bully. And I am not a bully nor a boss.
Nor do I own a gun, nor ever will.

I read your "youth" statement wrong.
I see you meant "WHEN" I was young, not that I am young now.

that leads to another story, another one I am sure you are not interested in, however
my favorite teacher of all I had back in highschool taught Civil War to the present, from Lincoln to the current at that time.

And he presented an unbiased warts and all about Lincoln that was not the regular taught
stuff kids learned about Lincoln.
Pretty progressive for that time period in a NYC public school.
And he is the teacher I always remember too.

anyhow, just wanted to pre-correct my post above.

Regurgitation gets you through tests. Substance gets you through life.

You state that your teacher taught you about Lincoln while being "unbiased". History is -always- biased. Unless your teacher was giving lessons like "Abraham Lincoln was born in America. He became a President. He had a beard.", there is bias. I am, for the sake of this argument, using hyperbole to better help your understanding of my point.

Now, if your teacher taught like that (which is unbiased and simple declaration of fact), then he taught regurgitation: Solely designed for test-taking. If, however, your teacher offered lessons more along the lines of the sociopolitical impact on the far north New England states of Lincoln's election prior to the active state of the Civil War and how it directly affected the Norths influence on wartime production, it'd be more of an unbiased approach.

My guess is your teacher simply taught you moralistic but otherwise stagnant "Facts". Your ignorance at the time would see this as a great thing (when approached from a moralistic angle) in contrast to other teachers potentially offering drier fare (Algebra, physics, what have you), and would be more receptive to appreciation of the subject matter.

ON EDIT: You, of course, have the right to your opinion. I can't make you right; I can only point out when you're wrong, "Opinion" or not.

If you are saying the North had the fundamentally better ability to win a war, then the south should not have bothered to fight.

In my view, the north had the better soldiers

Now, if you say the south had the better smarter general, well, that could be an opinion, however, like in football or baseball, having a great manager like say Dick Williams is/was was great. But he did not win every single year. Some years he came up a loser.
Casey Stengel is one of the greatest ever, yet he managed the 1962 Mets.

As enevitable as it was that President Obama was going to win the 2008 primary, election and 2012 reelection, so it was that the North would win.
forget issues, just on what was available to each side

But then the south knew that going in

Now WW2, I don't know what Hitler was thinking, but he was a one man force who without him there was no force at all. If they had unmanned bunker busting drones back then, the world could have saved 6 million Jews, and all the millions others.
Now, that begets the question- what if Hitler were an American General and fought in the Civil War (which side? )
Hitler was a great tactician, but in WW2 maybe he didn't count on America becoming involved.
Who really knows.

But if Hitler were in a civil war, who knows what would have happened.
Who would Hitler have hated back then? Would he have hated at all? or just fought the war, like some claim Lee and Jefferson Davis and the confederates did?

What would Jefferson Davis have done about 9-11?
What would Lincoln have done about Bin-laden?


history is fascinating, but of course, we all here can only guess what it was like then and everyone (yourself included) has a biased view of the past.
It is like I love LBJ for everything he did (but Vietnam). Many hate him solely because of vietnam

You insinuated Pave defended the Confederacy without offering proof of said insinuation.

Pave requested you provide proof.

You initially refused to offer proof, and when you did supply a link that you state supported your assertion, said link was devoid of proof.

You are asking that I word-by-word breakdown something that isn't there; That is an impossible task, and you know it is. If you -don't- know said task is impossible... It is. You can't prove something -isn't- there.

My comments about your youth were ill-phrased, and I will rephrase them here: Either your parents or teachers (or both) failed you when it came down to teaching you history when you were young, given your borderline elementary understanding and crude, rudimentary grasp of historical analysis and dialogue.


Just so you know: A bully is one who emotionally or physically abuses another person. You have done just that by blatantly lying about PavePusher. You have accused him of something, and yet will neither prove it nor answer to requests that you own your words. You are, by definition, the bully in this argument.

You do realize that, don't you?

Please present your evidence of your claim about me.

I guess ignorant and rude is no way to go through life.

It just takes some folks longer to catch on.

But we can recall this thread the next time they bring the stupid again, and they will.

is locked out?

where he knows little to nothing and contributes less.

Firearms like cars, computers, and airplanes are a technical topic. Types matter, especially since people like the OP make major mistakes in their posts since they know nothing about what they screed upon.

Any one who opposes you or corrects your numerous errors is automatically a right wing NRA member and supporter. Some you repeatedly claim without proof.

Still looking for why you post here with your slavish devotion to one of the worst 1%ers out there...and many people hate him including unions and OWS. He doesn't care, the 1%ers never do care about the people.

You are engaging in ad hominem. I brought up a fact that you don't like - that there are a lot of problems with people carrying guns in WalMarts.

You haven't disproved the fact that WalMart attracts gun owners, and makes a lot of money off of doing so.

You haven't shown any facts that despite the high frequency of gun carry in WalMart, that no one has stopped a crime by using their personal weapon.

What I have shown is that WalMart marketing and security policies have created a dangerous environment, proving they are bad corporate citizens in this regard. And I have shown that when you have a lot of people who are carrying guns in large retail shopping facilities they are dangerous to the employees, customers, etc.

There is nothing extreme about that, nor is there anything prohibitionist about it either.

The facts are not your friend here. Period.

that WalMart attracts gun owners more than any other big box
have not shown any evidence that people carry guns in WalMart more than any other place.

(2) It is your responsibility to show some dynamic of "attraction" other than the same force field that by your reckoning must snag shoppers at Academy Sports and Outdoors, Cabelas, and other big box retailers. And you certainly haven't stated the significance of this: "You haven't disproved the fact that WalMart attracts gun owners, and makes a lot of money off of doing so." Remember: It is your responsibility show how (if true) it is significant. (You may want to investigate what the rates of crime are at these other big boxes; perhaps WalMart has other characteristics which make it pop up on the controller-prohibitionist radar screen, such as social or ideological prejudice.)

(3) As well, what is the significance of: "despite the high frequency of gun carry in WalMart, that no one has stopped a crime by using their personal weapon." Again, you must provide the facts to support a commonly-used straw man that self-defense is some kind of social policy. No, gun carrying is eminently an individual choice.

(4) You may have something with WalMart's security problems, though you aren't specific. As to marketing, gun sellers are like anyone else who sells: They market. What's your point?

(5) You need to provide something in the way of evidence when you state: "...you have a lot of people who are carrying guns in large retail shopping facilities," and further how this is a "danger" to others.

Facts are neither friend or foe, it's the significance one draws or strangles from them.

"We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

You have made it clear, several times in fact, that you would willingly give up all your personal liberty to "feel" safe. And you do a great job of "licking" the hand of your mayor that took over a week to get your power back on. But somehow he's magically protecting you all the time.

Thankfully we don't make, or ajudicate laws based on how anyone "feels".

You can "Feel" anyway you want, but in the meantime, while you and a shrinking handful of people think they are somehow gaining ground on gun control by getting handful of people banned over a few months here on a web chat board, we are going to continue to roll back restrictive gun laws in the real world.

This guy just doesn't get it and he never will.

Samuel Adams was speaking about war, not private self defense, and he most certainly had no vision of the kinds of gun incidents or WalMarts, which renders this ridiculous as a comment or argument.

You do not appear to have a very good grasp of history if you fail to include that as context.

You are not rolling back restrictive gun laws in the real world. The United States is the only place that has these kinds of insanity, and it is only a matter of time before the U.S. rejoins the rest of the world in gun policy.

Switzerland didn't give women the vote until 1970, fifty years after we did here in the United States. But they did do it.
The UK got rid of slavery roughly 50 years ahead of the United States doing so. But we did it eventually.

We are not immune to or outside the world trends; we will join them, eventually, on weapons as well, because they are right and you are wrong. Freedom is not measured by firearms. Personal lethal force is not enhancing our safety or security; otherwise we wouldn't have the number of deaths and injuries from firearms that we have.

Adams was talking about his countrymen that were willing to trade the false perception of safety in return for their individual freedoms, just like you and our resident Bloomie worshipper.

"Stop all those citizens with concealed guns in Wal Mart so I feel safer."

Then you cook the books and misstate a handful of events in the parking lots to make Wally World sound like the frickin streets of Beirut. Nobody wit two brain cells to rub together is buying it. I mean hate on 'em for their imported goods and bad labor practices all you want, but man, the gun thing is an over reach and a half.

Look, your appeal to emotion is pathetic, poorly phrased and falling on a nation with deaf ears to it. I guess according to your judgement the same nation that overwhelmingly elected Obama twice, is just too stupid to appreciate insight from people like you.

After crying wolf for over a decade, with the help of the Joyce Foundation and Brady, America discovered that their message of imminent death and destruction and skyrocketing crime rates was full of shit and nothing bad happens when you allow CCW.

Not a single state is even considering repealing their CCW laws, Illinois is only 3 votes in the legislature away from making it 50 states. In 2012 alone, states have loosened the previous restrictions 29 times when the streets never got around to running red with blood. (But I guess all those shooting moved to the housewares aisle in Wally World, huh?)

But if all those guns make you nervous, and you don't want to wait for the US to "smarten up" and become another UK, why not just move to gun free Mexico, with only one gun store in the whole country? I bet we could get folks to chip in, if you promise not to get internet access.

Fuck the NRA and Bloomberg. The whole bunch of them probably agree on more than not.

One would think they would see in their sleepless days and nights the bankruptcy of prohibitionism.

And yet they do sell semi-auto assault rifles in many of their stores. Here's video of it:

AR and AK pattern semi-auto rifles are not assault rifles.

which means assault rifles are legally machine guns. In order to be an assault rifles, it must be select fire both semi auto and automatic.
In other words, yet they don't.

... people try to rob the world's largest retailer.

Film at 11 ...

the magic word GUN is in the OP. Jeeeeeez

GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS

It's a fact that if you say GUN enough times their heads explode.

Very simple; it is possible for someone to buy a gun at the store, and then use it at the store for a robbery.

More to the point, anyone intending to commit a robbery blends right in; WalMart differs from other major retailers in allowing concealed, and in some cases where it is widely legal, open carry. WalMart is notorious as the first place people with newly issued carry permits go to try out wandering around armed in public.

A bank robbery per se is not linked to gun sales; but it informative that with all those carrying guns present, they did not stop a crime in progress, despite all of the hype we get from the pro-gunners about how their having guns makes us all so much safer and is a crime deterrent. People with guns at WalMart do not raise a red flag, as they should in the case of a robbery, the way they do at other commercial establishments.

Rather what is instructional about this web site - including this article - is that WalMart, as a corporation that has 1 or more incidents in an average week (this is now the beginning of the 47th week of 2012) while being so pro-gun has a far higher risk of accidental or intentional harm or threat of harm to customers and staff, while having no apparent advantage in greater safety or crime deterrence.

In other words there is a significant down side in gun carriers presenting a danger to the public, but no apparent up side to it.

I probably should have spelled that out earlier, but I thought connecting those dots was pretty obvious.

very slim probability, and very stupid if you plan on getting away with it. Besides, how many people go from clean record to bank robbery?

To buy a gun in a store you have to pass a federal background check and present identification. Bank robbers don't intentionally leave ID at the scene of the crime. Nor do they stand around and converse with the staff before the robbery. Not unless they have a place reserved in the police line up.

as they aren't in the same book, let alone on the same page.

permits go to try out wandering around armed in public." Do you have a link to your source for this statement? Or is it more fantasy?

By the way, although somebody COULD buy a shotgun at Walmart and then use it to rob the store on the same visit, the likelyhood of such a crime is radically small. Do you have a link to a story where such an incident occurred? Also, Walmart does not sell handguns (except in Alaska).

You do the "Wall Mart walk" The boxed rifle/shotgun is carried by a manager to the exit door. They hand you the box OUTSIDE the store.

Not being rude, I just don't understand what you're trying to communicate here.

"Three years ago management conducted a survey that looked at crime statistics for a one year period on Wal-Mart properties. The survey showed that 80% of crimes at Wal-Mart were occurring in the parking lot.
"A quick review of reported cases reveals that Wal-Mart parking lots are a virtual magnet for crime"
http://www.jrrobertssecurity.com/articles/wal-mart-parking-lot-crime.htm

If you don't want to DIE FASTER carry a weapon to protect yourself I do.

+1
:

And why are gun people always thinking someone is after them, then shoot themselves in their privates accidentally?

I have never known anybody to accidentally shoot themselves in the privates. I HAVE known 3 people who used weapons to prevent crimes against themselves - 2 attempted robberies and one burglary. Miraculously, none of them had to actually shoot the criminal - merely producing a weapon had the desired effect.

I guess they should have their right to bear arms revoked for failing to gun down innocents in the process...

[img][/img]

Their use of a weapon prevented the commission of crimes in which they would have been the victim.

I hope this helps you to better understand my original post. Let me know if you need more assistance with grammar.

never thought once about buying a gun or needing one

Like in the song "where were you when the world stop spinning" Alan Jackson asked
did you go buy a gun or watch I love Lucy reruns instead

I watched I love Lucy reruns

I hope things are looking up for you. How close are they to getting things back to normal?

As for personal defense, I submit that playing "I Love Lucy" episodes in public could be classified as employing an antipersonnel weapon...

only internet was at libraries, and an iPhone during the time
2 nights spent in car for heat and charging

but again, never felt the need for a gun.

And on my computer using first batteries/ and/or sitting in our car with the car charger in
and occassionally having the car on to provide heat.
Some of the days/nights it was very cold

Again, people are much worse off than we and still without, and it has gotten colder in the days since.

... a strident defender of 2nd Amendment rights!

Lucy herself in real life though was someone much admired, and she and Joan Crawford were two women pioneers in Hollywood and in business itself, way ahead of the times.

but that has nothing to do with the line in the Alan Jackson song
(which btw showed Alan to be a progressive and was a bold step at the time himself for being outside the typical stereotyped country singer that has to at least appear rightwing conservative to get country radio airplay. Especially as Alan was singing that LOVE is the greatest thing to conquer prejudice, violence(guns) and fear.(people with guns because they fear something...

Since the last few years more and more country singers are attempting to be quite the opposite what say Hank Jr.'s southern jingoism is.

BTW-there were NO riots by minorities in either Katrina or Sandy.
Except in the minds of Fox and other racist or paranoic people.
It has been proven.

Did you actually watch the movie? Because it sure as hell wasn't about robbing himself, it was about getting out of a bad situation.

with one of the very best endings in the history of motion pictures
(when they galloped a few feet and got off the horse into the limos)

had nothing to do with the "old west mentality" which you know nothing about.

that you don't see it, hear it, feel it is your problem, not mine.

And of course his satire is eternal, still resonates today.

BTW-Mel Brooks is also like Bloomberg a NYC Jew.

some people see more in lit and movies than the writers put in or thought about.
good satire always does
So?

There are lots of cases of men shooting themselves in the penis/ testicles, and backside.

Here is a relatively recent one of the former:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/michael-smeriglio-accidentally-shoots-own-penis_n_1871984.html

and here is a recent example of the latter
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/15/man-accidentally-shoots-self-in-nevada-movie-theater/

They not only failed to defend themselves against others, they failed to defend themselves against themselves, and endangered others.

It is a major flaw in the rabidly pro-gunner thought process that they give too little weight to these real incidents, and too much weight to what are all too often bogus favorable gun incidents.

But they are far more rare in countries with more restrictive gun regulation.

Most bogus gun incident claims are not reported to police and not investigated by police.

The WalMart incidents are all documented very publicly, and are usually investigated by both the police and the media.

NONE of you have yet to refute that they reflect badly on people with guns at WalMart, and reflect badly on WalMarts.

Even though we have more gun crime than Europe, they have more machine gun crime than we do. It isn't that hard to get an illegal gun in Europe.

has successfully disputed that people carrying guns in WalMart are a problem, as reflected in the frequency of these problem gun incidents.

No one here has successfully refuted that this reflects bad retail policy by WalMart.

And none of you has shown where a gun carrier in a WalMart had a positive, constructive, or defensive use of a firearm to stop a crime, or make anyone safer from these gun incidents.

So there appears to be no significant up side to WalMart policy, other than their greed for profits at the expense of safety, if that is an upside. And the usual assertion for carrying a firearm - protection and self-defense - is shown to be wrong, mistaken, not true.

successfully shown that people carrying guns in Wal Mart is a problem, nor that their policy is any different than Kmart's.

but when I do I feel so ashamed I shoot myself in the balls just to teach myself a lesson.