PHP87

Why are is there never any hysteria over these weapons that kill people all the time?

Line 'em up portray them as the Evil Killing Machines that they are.

I guess guns go "BANG" though, which makes them more scary.

Congratulations on the dumbest question so far. When was the last time you read about someone killing 16 people in a crowd with a machete?

It happens in China fairly often.

You want to ban knives too?

Why do people that know little to nothing about firearms,self-defense and Defensive Gun Uses feel the need to bloviate and post endlessly about their lack of knowledge of firearms and debate those that have a life-long knowledge of the subject and tell them they are wrong?

You are basically embarrassing yourselves.

They are not the ones who used the word bloviate.

Gun nerds blowing each other about technical minutiae is not a very meaningful discussion. Lack of technical knowledge does not disqualify anyone from expressing an opinion on this subject. You have no authority to tell another person they are wrong no matter how many bb guns you had as a sprig.

The racism expressed by US gun proponents is now unfortunately standard fare on social media. It diminishes the user and it diminishes the argument.

In other words, you don't know squat about guns yet feel you are in a position to speak of them on a expert level.

Again, stop embarrassing yourself.

Or not. It's entertaining watching people ignorant about a subject blather on and on as if they know what the hell they are talking about.

I find it amusing. At your expense.

And since when is stating the fact that about 75% of gun murders are committed by about 6% of the population, mainly black males between the ages of 15-32?

Throw out that number and the US has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Homogeneous states like Wyoming and Utah and lower gun murder rates than the UK. Gee, now what could be the reason for that, despite the fact that those states have high gun ownership?

The dirty little secret is that America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem.

But I guess stating the truth is racist. Perhaps the truth has a racist bias.

And if Trump said what he would do, the media would be running headlines like they did in 2008: "Palin wants to go to war with Russia!" (BTW, she was right about Ukraine.)

Trump is too smart to play the gotcha game.

Let me know when Hillary and Sanders are asked the same questions.

In the meantime, it's GOP hit pieces. Ask Jeb the same question, or won't the GOP allow it?

It's fairly obvious he's not playing the media "gotcha" game.

Did that go over your head as well?

Not a Trump fan other than for late night comedy shows but, I watched last night and he was slick, took all questions, was definitely credible in his presentation if not his ideas and plans. He can remain self funded until he possibly wins the GOP nomination at which time the GOP and super-packs will move into high gear. Any GOP candidate or Hillary takes his candidacy

lightly at there peril. Not beholding to special interest money is a huge plus. It will be as always the best of reality television.

Like I said, someone has not been paying attention.

If you are going to try and act like a know all, knowing it all is actually a prerequisite, otherwise you just look silly.

But since you weren't paying attention.....

Donald Trump tore into radio host Hugh Hewitt as a "third-rate radio announcer" on Friday after the Republican presidential candidate struggled to answer a question about the leaders of major terrorist groups the previous day.

The move followed a familiar script for the real estate mogul who has unexpectedly soared to the top of the Republican presidential polls: When backed into a corner, go on the attack and change the headlines.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-2016-hugh-hewitt-fight-213338

It seems that his response to anyone asking him difficult questions is to publicly insult them.

Ask stupid questions, get ripped by Trump.

Again, you haven't been paying attention, just reading internet articles.

That's what happens when you let others form your opinion for you instead of listen to a candidate talk at length about the issues which you obviously haven't done based on your posts like this person did: "I watched last night and he was slick, took all questions, was definitely credible in his presentation if not his ideas and plans."

I guess MSNBC didn't mention that...

Why do people that know little to nothing about firearms,self-defense and Defensive Gun Uses feel the need to bloviate and post endlessly about their lack of knowledge of firearms and debate those that have a life-long knowledge of the subject and tell them they are wrong?

You are basically embarrassing yourselves.

Wrong about what?

Do you want a list?

It's obvious that that may here have little to no knowledge of firearms/firearm training.

If you can't see it, then you are likely one of them.

How may guns have you owned?

Have you had any self-defense training? If so, how many hours?

Can you disassemble and reassemble a variety of firearms?

How much time do you spend at the range?

Can you name the various parts that comprise a semi-auto pistol?

Or a semi-auto rifle?

Do you even know that basic rules of firearm safety?

Are you familiar with the Tueller drill?

Have you ever reloaded your own brass?

It's also obvious that this discussion is veiled America-bashing.

My advice is that if you don't own a firearm and don't wish to do so, especially if you don't reside in the US, perhaps you should stick to subjects you have a clue about.

To put a little different light on the subject.

The following survey results came out today. It would seem not many Americans care what a host of Europeans and Aussies think about the gun issue..

------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll: 60% say gun control won't stop violence, 54% blame social media

By PAUL BEDARD • 8/31/15 1:08 PM

Despite a rash of recent violent gun slayings, the public is not inclined to back more gun control and believes that new restrictions wouldn't have stopped the shooting deaths, according to a new poll.

Rasmussen Reports, polling on last week's shooting of two Virginia TV journalists on live TV, found that just 29 percent of likely voters believe stricter gun control laws would have prevented the slayings. Twice as many, 60 percent, said it wouldn't have helped.

Those numbers are virtually identical to the public's view of gun control in early 2011 following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six others in Arizona.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-60-say-gun-control-wont-stop-violence-54-blame-social-media/article/2571115?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Washington%20Secrets&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Washington%20Secrets%20-%2009/01/15&utm_medium=email

----------------------------------------------------------------

Insuring the medical profession is reporting those individuals to the proper authorities who they suspect of potential violence would be a massive first step towards reducing the FBI recognized mass shootings.

You will always have the gang banger, drug dealer killings. Stiff prison sentences for anybody caught with an illegal weapon would be a sure fire way to get some of the criminals and illegal immigrants off the streets. Lock 'em up.

Now you may bash away...and that's what you are doing. At least be honest about that.

with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, what gun laws would have prevented either shooting?

Why do people that know little to nothing about firearms,self-defense and Defensive Gun Uses feel the need to bloviate and post endlessly about their lack of knowledge of firearms and debate those that have a life-long knowledge of the subject and tell them they are wrong?

You are basically embarrassing yourselves.

Not a Trump fan other than for late night comedy shows but, I watched last night and he was slick, took all questions, was definitely credible in his presentation if not his ideas and plans. He can remain self funded until he possibly wins the GOP nomination at which time the GOP and super-packs will move into high gear. Any GOP candidate or Hillary takes his candidacy

lightly at there peril. Not beholding to special interest money is a huge plus. It will be as always the best of reality television.

Like I said, someone has not been paying attention.

Trump is like an aggressive Romney. He is promising lots of things but underneath there is no substance and very little connection to reality.

And every reporter who presses him ends up being on the receiving end of a Trump Taunt.

I doubt he'll get down to the wire, but if he does, I suspect he's going to blow up spectacularly when people start asking him for details.

obviously, you haven't been paying attention.

Poll: Trump beats Hillary head-to-head

Yes, I posted in another thread that his talk was bluff, but it worked. He got a commitment out of the brass at GOP that they would back him if he's nominated. It first they tried to run him off and didn't take him seriously. That includes Fox News which had to eat a lot of crow to keep from getting boycotted by the #1 news item going.

He got what he wanted and the circus of the US elections continues, on both sides. It would be hard to say that this election is boring, LOL.

No. US elections continue with chaos on the Republican side. The Republican base has shown what they think of the GOP establishment candidates, with foul mouth, ego maniac, businessman Trump and wackadoddle doctor Ben Carlsen, comfortably ahead of the field. All 17 GOP candidates are unelectable with no clear policies for helping or reason for the middle-class to vote for them. All the Republican candidates have professed unpopular positions against abortion, ending social security, health insurance and foreign policy positions. The entire field has gone misogynistic and racist trying to appeal to the wingnutoshere base of the party.

The old GOP fear tactics that have worked so well in the past haven't gained any traction with the independents.

The Republican party is in deep trouble. Their hatred of Hillary Clinton clouds their ability to see just how far behind the thinking of the big majority of the electorate. The far right wing policies of the entire Republican party is not popular with the average American. Of course, when all you listen to is Fox News you have a different view of life in America.

"A Zogby Analytics poll of 850 adults 18-34 years old conducted on August 25 reveals that if Millennials turnout to vote (and they will in a Presidential election), the GOP faces nothing short of a catastrophic election."

It doesn't matter who the nominee is for the Republicans, they're toast. Does anyone seriously think Donald Trump has a prayer of being elected President? Jeb Bush? Who then and why would anyone vote for them?

It's over before it begins. Doesn't matter who the Democrats chose. The lemmings are on their way off a cliff, led by the mouth with a comb over and the crazy black brain surgeon. That's something to LOL about.

http://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/638-zogby-millennials-poll-reveals-depth-of-gop-problem

September 04, 2015, 08:13 pm

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Utter BS, all though I'm sure the Aussie's, Brits and Euro's will eat it up.

My wifes daughter who is 16 and mattyum 5 student goes out every saturday I think she goes drinking all night for many times she doesnot come home till late sunday night and goes durectly to her room no talking nothing. The wife says there is nothing she can do. Wife says if she tries to stop her the daughter will leave home.and not come back. Last weekend she left the house 3 in the afternoon on saturday came home 11 pm sunday. Wife can do nothing so what can the police do the same nothing.

Sounds like more than just drinking going on there.

Either way, the time to get a handle on it is now.

Ann Coulter smacks around the little Chihuahua;

The U.S., Australia Western Europe and other countries are faced with the immigration dilemma.

Could I ask why people are focusing on border fences, walls, etc.? That will not stop the immigration and history will help you understand this fact.

Now ask yourself why all this immigration pressure currently? What is driving people to seek new homes? Got it? You can only stop the immigration by helping solve the reasons they are leaving their homeland.

If it was you and/or your family in economic destitution. If your home and any security of body and property was continuously under attack, what would you do? Sorry, but for me, I would not sit quietly and suffer. I would fight and if that was shown not to be bringing positive results, I would flee. No wall or fence or threat of more violence would be stopping me. How about yourselves?

Mexico and countries further south in Central America need to figure it out for themselves.

In the meantime, the US should secure its borders to otherwise risk further Balkanization of the US

Of course a wall will help stop illegal immigration.

Without it, people are waltzing across the border at the weakest points.

Wild stories about "undocumented immigrants"?

They are "Illegal Aliens" and not "undocumented immigrants"

And these "wild stories"?

They're true.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/23/liberal-study-unintentionally-reveals-nationwide-illegal-alien-crime-spree/

Illegals are committing crimes, including murder and rape and it's a real problem and people are sick of it.

Obama does nothing but talk while people waltz across the border.

That won't happen once a wall is built and laws are put in place to punish employers that hire illegals.

No jobs, illegals will self-deport.

It won't take some massive effort, other than denying them jobs and government freebies.

And no, you can't have your baby here. Go to a hospital in your country.

Illegal immigration is already a criminal act.

Republicans and Trump will enforce those laws and not allow millions of illegal aliens to waltz into the US like some people would like to see.

Sorry, but Trump is not going to allow the Colonization of America if he can help it, despite people like you.

Illegal immigration is already a criminal act.

The statement is wrong as it is presented.

The statement has no context, no distinctions, presents no knowledge of immigration law, ignores "unlawful presence" which is a matter of civil law and not of criminal law. It summarily and arbitrarily dismisses that the history of immigration is almost entirely under civil law.

The statement presents the anti-immigrant and anti-immigration view of the right sector of American society and politics. The statement taken on its own would criminalize all undocumented immigrants, which is wrong, contrary to immigration law and antithetical to the Constitution, immigration precepts, principles, the values of the United States and of the mainstream people of the USA.

The statement is central to the attitude that the "hordes" of immigrants from Latin America need to be stopped by building a wall that turns the United States into a self-destructive Wasp Fortress America (for old male political extremists only).

All of this right sector disrespect of law and the Constitution is very easy to recognize, understand, expose, oppose.

Keep tapping away at that keyboard, but it doesn't change the fact that entering the US without the proper visa is a criminal act.

Also, being in the US without proper authorization is evidence of a criminal act, entering without a proper visa.

Try it in the LOS and see what happens as well.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Balkanization of Europe and America by illegal invaders. Nothing more.

"On Tuesday night, the billionaire developer dismissed a Latino reporter from his press conference"

I listened to a recording of this exchange on the radio yesterday.

Trump was very rude and condescending.

It was out of context , not knowing what was said before, but Trump had just asked, "Who has the next question" ( paraphrased)

When the Latino reporter spoke up and said that he had a question about immigration,

Trump responded ,"No you don't. You haven't been called,"

Telling the Latino reporter to ""Go back to Univision," can not be interpreted as anything but racist.

I am very disappointed that anyone would consider a man like Trump to be the kind of leader America needs.

Hearing it and seeing it are two different things and you missed what happened.

Trump began the presser and called on someone with a question.

At that point, Ramos stood up and started shouting statements; "You can't build a wall!. You can't deport 11 million people!"

Ramos was then removed.

Later, he was allowed back in and had a subsequent Q&A with Trump which Trump owned.

I suggest you do a search on YT and see and hear for yourself.

Trump may have not paid for that microphone as Reagan once famously did, but he sure did own it.

"Come to South Carolina, and I'll beat his brains out," a riled-up Graham told CNN Tuesday. "I know my state. This is a silly season in politics. He is shallow."

Is Linda Graham going to hit him with his purse?

He's not a journalist, he's an immigration activist.

And for those of you who might not be aware of it, Ramos has a daughter.

She works for Hillary.

So?

Unless you're claiming he does not like Trump because of his daughter's political convictions this remark is totally irrelevant. And to be honest, I don't think he dislikes Trump because of his daughter's political ideas.

So he has an inherent bias.

His daughter works for the candidate that may be running against Trump and you don't see how that might skew his opinion and his advocacy journalism?

Ramos isn't a journalist. He's an Immigration activist.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

The post hasn't any depth nor does it have context so let's take a closer look at the federal immigration laws. Specifically, illegal entry or unlawful presence of an immigrant, because an undocumented immigrant is very likely to be one or the other. The following legal presentation even uses the Right's terminology of "illegal alien."

Improper Entry Is a Crime

The most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor. Like all other criminal charges in the United States, improper entry must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime

Some may assume that all immigrants who are in the United States without legal status must have committed improper entry. This simply isn't the case. Many foreign nationals legally enter the country on a valid work or travel visa, but fail to exit before their visa expires for a variety of reasons.

But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal. Chief among these civil penalties is deportation or removal. An illegal alien cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented. (Emphasis added.)

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

The Trump Republicans and the rest of the Right have long declared undocumented immigrants per se to be criminals. This is 100% wrong in the law and the Constitution.The Republican Right has done this regardless of whether the "illegal immigrants" are actually charged with a crime. To the Right, and they are wrong in the law and the Constitution, being an undocumented immigrant is per se a crime.

The law is and always has been that the 'unlawful presence' of an immigrant is a civil violation, not a violation of criminal law or of the Constitution.

After the Trump Republicans and the Right criminalise all undocumented immigrants per se, then the documented immigrants will be set upon. The Republican Right hasn't yet used the term, but they want a Fortress America. To wall out the Latino "hordes."

The post doesn't require any context or explanation as it is self-explanatory.

A child could see that. Sorry you couldn't.

It is in fact a crime to enter the US illegally and not a civil case as you incorrectly stated earlier.

Nothing that your illegal immigration web site links can refute.

Regardless of your spinning, entering the country illegally is a crime as stated in the code listed above.

What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

I dont know what is worst when it comes to the US, the school massacres or this live killing on national TV. All of the tragedies and loss of lifes could have been prevented if US changed their gun laws.

In Europe you can not just show up in a gun store and present your ID and just get a gun , its not that simple. You need to apply to get a special permission and also go through a background check. Sad to see that the US never learns .

Same in the US.

Background check, 10-day waiting period in many states, etc...

It's not simple at all.

Virginia requires two forms of ID and a background check.

http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Firearm-in-Virginia

Stop listening to idiots in the media and listen to actual gun owners.

Same with the so-called "Gun Show Loophole"

It's BS in my State and just about every other one.

I would wager that this guy bought his gun legally.

What law would you propose that would have prevented this shooting, other than 20/20 hindsight?