NRA Taints Carney Campaign With Transparent Lies
I wonder if murderboy picked up the NRA hotline to get the vermin to come to Delaware?
Now, more special interest money is being dumped into the race, with the National Rifle Association helping to prop up Carney’s failing campaign by using the usual untrue Republican-style attacks. The NRA is spreading the lie that Jack will take away law-abiding citizens’ gun rights.
Nothing could be further from the truth. To quote Jack’s plan from weeks ago: “Markell’s plan focuses on keeping guns away from criminals by making it harder for criminals to get weapons and getting criminals off the street.” The fact is that Delaware has seen significant increases in murders and gun violence this year. We all have a right to safety and to live in our neighborhoods without fear of being caught in the crossfire of illegal guns.
The hundreds of thousands of dollars being funneled into John Carney’s campaign through groups like the NRA are being spent defending the status quo. It’s time for a change. If you have even a spare hour this weekend, please volunteer. And of course, don’t forget to vote Sept. 9.
Sincerely,
Andrew Roos
Campaign Manager
I’m surprised mike w isn’t here yet. What’s keeping him?
YOU ARE SO WEAK! lol
4 f’ing hours with no post. that’s all I’m saying.
that’s some sort of a record too
Iso,
I think he works weekends at Walmart
seee the carney camp pisses me off even more being an intenr on markells campaign this makes me so mad canrey is pushing himself way to far and i totally think he is done vote jack markell sept 9th if you dont want to get in the toher crap thats happening
Jason,
Your post is a bit off the mark. The NRA awards ratings based on a very detailed survey and when they give out negative ratings it usually accompanies a list of the negative answers.
Policy statements do matter but not when it comes to the letter grades.
I do not know John’s answers but they must have been very different than Jack’s answers.
And yet you guys continue to say supporting Carney if he wins the primary is a good thing….
Protractor…so good to see you. It’s interesting how you never comment on pieces directly related to you, like you psycotic phone messages. Please climb into your cock…pit and fly away.
Markell may be an expert bean counter but his recent comments on guns and crime indicate the nature of an idiot savant.
He wants to close a ‘gun show loophole’ but this is merly a slogan. And what power does a governor of a state that has not hosted a gun show in years have over such matters?
He is aghast about the deadly ‘streetsweeper’. When was the last time one of these was used in a crime in this state?
Rather than seek inanimate scapegoats, perhaps prosepective governors should reveal how they would deal with the worst of the worst.
I doubt if any Capano money is being donated to the Lee campaign.
“Please climb into your cock…pit and fly away.”
I see someone is giving DonViti a run for his money in total a-wipe of the year. Way to be intellectual there Arthur.
Protack, you’re an idiot! And this NRA piece being delivered in today’s mail – you don’t think Minner-lite knew this was coming? And it’s on the heals of his misleading mailer about Jack and cancer. I for one will not be voting for Minner-lite if, by some quirk, he wins on Tuesday. And I would hope that the Delaware Liberal editors would reconsider endorsing him if he wins.
Has there been any recent polling on the Carney/Markell race?
Since I haven’t lived in Delaware that long, what is the cause of the Republican hostility to Mr. Protack? Although, his secret nomination by that 3rd party does seemy fishy, with the secret meeting and all.
BUT, “”“Markell’s plan focuses on keeping guns away from criminals by making it harder for criminals to get weapons and getting criminals off the street.”””
What is the PLAN…
Both candidates are deceptive….
1977 NRA LIFE MEMBER…
I have requested an explanation from the NRA, PLUS a report card for BOTH Dem Candidates…
Would you like for me to share the response?
.
As a lifelong hunter and sportsman, I am always appalled by the NRA extremist, and cannot support anyone who seeks and accepts their assistance. I just don’t like wingnut extremist views.
The crime aspects are critical, but just as important to me is common sense with regard to gun access. This is vital to avoid a anti-gun response against responsible hunters that own guns. I have seven. I do not have or thing anyone should own and automatic weapon.
Any deer hunter or responsible sportsman that shooting a deer only takes one shot.
What I find interesting, is that you cannot get a license to hunt unless you go through a formal hunter safety program, which includes gun handling, etc.; but anyone can go to a gun show and buy a gun. NRA wing nuts extremist, and the cronies they support (now including John Crony (Carney), are part of the problem.
This crap with NRA and Rovian tactics really pisses me off, because as Delaware gets more developed and urban, it will just add the to animosity against hunters.
I’m disappointed, but not surprised, the Carney would stoop this low, but we are beginning to see his true colors.
Chris,
Now you know I have no competition! So stop being silly
The ratings are basd on survey questions, if you answer them correctly you get a good rating. If you do not, then you get a low rating.
Detailed policy proposals are not part of the rating system.
The NRA will not release survey results but will point out areas bad for NRA members.
No one is disputing the rating system. The dispute is that the NRA would jump into this race on Carney’s side with this kind of hit piece. And I gotta ask, is Carney getting a high grade from the NRA? (I’m not concerned with the grade itself — I am surprised that these two candidates could be so far apart on this.)
Paul — if you do get a response to your questions from the NRA, we would be interested in seeing that. Feel free to post it here it send it to one of the editors and we’ll put it up for everyone to see. And thinks for trying to get to the bottom of this.
“I do not have or thing anyone should own and automatic weapon.”
Anon – Nor does the NRA- Full Auto weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934. The NRA has not pushed for loosening these restrictions. The “assualt weapons bans” you hear discussed do not refer to full auto weapons, and in fact they ban many hunting rifles and 50+ year old bolt-actions. Saving Private Ryan was on last night. The WWII era rifles depicted in that movie (M1 Garand for example) would be banned under such “assault weapon bans.” Ever seen “Enemy at the Gates?” The bolt action Mosin’s used by the Soviets are also banned under such legislation, since they have scary bayonets.
There is no “gun show loophole” as Art has already noted.
Markell’s plan is pure BS.
“Markell’s plan focuses on keeping guns away from criminals by making it harder for criminals to get weapons”
You can’t “keep guns away from criminals” without keeping them away from everyone else. Keeping them in jail is a great idea however, since it focuses on the criminal and not an inanimate object. The simple fact of the matter is that more gun laws don’t make it harder for criminals to get weapons. Also, if there’s no problem, then there’s absolutely no need for the “solutions” markell proposes (I.E. closing the gun show loophole)
Does anyone know when there was last a gun show in Delaware? They don’t happen often in this state. Any proof that Delaware’s criminals are getting weapons from these infrequent Delaware gun shows? I’m sorry, but Markell is proposing gun control for the sake of looking like he’s doing something.
Gun Control – It’s what you do instead of something.
Markell shot himself with his foolish comments.
There is more than a hint that he will be another would-be ‘gun-grabber and thug-hugger’ that goes by the generic term of ‘progressive’/
Then again, Markell might want to show his closeness to the Obama mindset: slogans over substance.
Gun Control – hitting what you aim at.
Right? I doubt that you realize how vapid and you sound.
Gun Control – It’s what you do instead of something.
…and yet doing something would be gun control, and that would be bad, bad, bad.
Jason – Gun control doesn’t DO anything to combat crime in Wilmington, hence the comment you italicized.
He proposes “solutions” to entirely non-existent problems. That is pure slogan over substance and the sign of someone who doesn’t care if his policies WORK, only that he appears “tough on crime.”
“Nothing could be further from the truth. To quote Jack’s plan from weeks ago: “Markell’s plan focuses on keeping guns away from criminals by making it harder for criminals to get weapons and getting criminals off the street.””
But how does he aim (jajajajaja) to do that? Wasn’t he talking about “the gun show loophole” AKA the right of private citizens to buy and sell firearms.
What’s funny is plenty of folks on the left bash Bush and the Reps. for their “failed policies” but when the left pushes failed policies as Markell is doing here they see nothing wrong with it.
Markell is running on Obama’s “change” coattails, yet on this issue, like Obama, he’s pushing the same old failed, irrelevant gun control policies that history has proven ineffective.
I’d love to see folks here apply their “failed policies” rants to the DEMOCRATS and Obama as well, but they won’t.
Re-trying the same old shit isn’t “change.” Pushing to close the “gun show loophole” when you can’t even identify a problem in need of fixing isn’t the kind of “change” I want, nor does it reflect well on Markell’s judgment. Nor does it reflect well on Obama’s/Biden’s. Both of them push for re-instating the “Assault Weapons Ban” when the cold hard facts tell them such weapons aren’t a problem and that such a ban will not impact crime.
Do you guys have any suggestions for combating the crime in Wilmington other than re-trying the same old failed gun-control policies?
Is this about that postcard DWA posted? If so, I think it’s worth the effort to see if the NRA actually sent it. For all the effort that went into their supposed postcard, there is nothing on their political action web page.
I haven’t seen anything, though I did get a short E-mail about Jack Markell which doesn’t say anything I don’t already know about him. He’s your typical gun-grabber.
Their webpage isn’t always the greatest.
I’m glad to see the only comments about Markell’s gun control proposals are all critical of him. Gun ownership is a lot more prevalent in DE than some of you might think. The range is packed pretty much every weekend.
http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/NEWS01/80826018/-1/DW
Mike w, in #19.
Next gun show.
Fall Show
Saturday & Sunday
Oct 18th & 19st, 2008
Nur Temple Honor Legion
2 Day Gun Show
Shrine Building
7 Miles South of Wilmington, Delaware – DuPont Highway Junction of Rt 13 and Rt 40
=========
Warning: There may be a serious price increase after September 9. And problems with availability after January 20, 2009.
I am always amused by those self-proclaimed ‘hunters’ who hold the NRA in disdain. I am a gun owner who has never put a hole in any animal but support hunters. For some reasons, most folks who post such sentiments prefer a cloak of anonymity.
Perhaps those folks may be elitists who believe that their pigeon-grade shotguns are fine but ‘ugly guns’ are not. They might do well to consider the statements of Pastor Niemoller.
A sawed-off shotgun is a rather effective weapon for a thug and does fall under the restrictions inherent in the National Firearms Act. Would not the same mindset promotes incremental and unilateral victim disarmament have shotguns in their sight. What differs is the place in line.
“Perhaps those folks may be elitists who believe that their pigeon-grade shotguns are fine but ‘ugly guns’ are not. They might do well to consider the statements of Pastor Niemoller.”
Exactly. They believe that their guns are “safe,” when in fact the gun-control folks don’t care what guns they’re restricting. Their disdain is for private gun ownership, whether that be hunters, target shooters, or folks who own a pistol and AR for home defense.
These so called “anti NRA” hunters could learn something from gun-control in the UK. They pushed for bans & restrictions, each time assuring a particular group of gun owners that they were “safe,” that they wouldn’t be coming for THOSE guns. Then, as previous gun controls didn’t work they used each “safe” group as scapegoats. Now even traditional fox hunting that occurred for centuries is now banned in the UK.
History has show that for those advocating gun control there’s no such thing as an “infringement” nor is there any restriction that they’d deem “unreasonable.”
Again, Arthur Downs knows not of which he speaks. A sawed-off shotgun is not a good home defense weapon unless your definition of home defense is to ensure innocent folks are struck by indiscriminant blasts.
There are two primary purposes for a sawed-off shotgun: 1. to conceal it–usually in the commission of a crime. 2. As a breaching gun. Neither reason commends itself as a self-defense weapon.
“Now even traditional fox hunting that occurred for centuries is now banned in the UK.”
That had nothing to do with firearms and everything to do with animal cruelty. Get your facts straight, or at least check up on your NRA sources.
Jade forgets probably the biggest advantage that a Sawed-off or short barrelled shotgun would have for home defense. Manuverability. It’s quite a bit harder to manuver a long gun in the tight confines of the hallways, doorways,etc. inside a home/apartment.
Not to mention they’re much more user friendly for women and small/short men. They’re also lighter.
It’s exactly the reason why carbine length (M4) AR-15’s are popular home defense weapons.
Not that Jade actually knows a damn thing about guns though.
Also, you can make a “sawed off shotgun” with nothing more than a hacksaw. Sure it’s illegal, but that doesn’t stop criminals from doing it to guns they illegally own anyway.
Mikey watches too many Die Hard videos.
He believes violent confrontations always take place between two protagonists who fire multiple rounds at each other on catwalks, fireaescaps, stairwells, tunnels and subterranean burrows. It makes for exciting TV and movies but it isn’t the reality.
AR-15s as a home defense weapon? About as useful as a stapler.
Fox hunting banned in the UK?
Mikey is smoking powerful dope. Or perhaps he’s just inhaling the NRA’s gas.
Mikey, do private citizens own guns in the UK?
Jade I was just thinking the same thing (#33). His imagination seems to have been programed by an over exposure to “Taxi Driver” at a young age.
I’m starting to feel bad for the guy. His worldview seems to cordon off the simple joy of living life without a dark cloud of paranoia hanging over your head.
Don’t they make video games so people like MW can act out these violent fantasies without troubling people who live in reality?
Well, according to a five year study run by the FBI, there is no proof that any criminals anywhere in the country are acquiring firearms at gun shows. (Source) Granted, I wish the researchers had chosen a slightly larger statistical basis from which to draw their conclusions, but I guess time is money and money is time and all that nonsense. Either way, the point still stands:
Of course, the paragraph after that one is equally damning for proponents of “gun control” and “reasonable restrictions” and “common-sense regulations”:
So, please, lie and tell me again that gun-control laws are supposed to hurt criminals, and not the law-abiding folks they actually inconvenience, limit, and restrict.
I pointed out some of the advantages of having a shorter, lighter weapon for home defense and that makes me “paranoid” and means I have “violent fantasies? Man, you folks are nuts.
ARs’ are lighter, shorter, more manuverable than shotguns and their light recoil makes them a good choice for women, the elderly, or someone with a physical disability. AR’s also exhibit less penetration of interior walls within a home than pistol rounds do. I know cops who keep an AR loaded with Hornady TAP as their primary home defense weapon. Plenty of people own ARs’ for home defense.
Personally. I’m not a big guy and I have a bad strong arm shoulder. Given that, an AR is a MUCH better choice for home defense than a shotgun, despite Jadegold’s ignorant and unsubstantiated claim that it’s as useless as a staple gun.
“I’m starting to feel bad for the guy. His worldview seems to cordon off the simple joy of living life without a dark cloud of paranoia hanging over your head.”
Don’t. Keeping a weapon for home defense is no more paranoid than keeping a fire extinguisher in your home in case of a fire. I’ve never had to use the fire extinguisher, but I still have one just in case.
And his fire extinguisher is sized just right for being able to put out fires in hallways and attics. I have this great picture of Mike standing behind a wall and in one fluid motion wheeling around to spray a kitchen fire.
It’s OK, I amuse myself.
On another note, I may have to do some video interviews at the gun show…
Lino – You guys are all the same.
You are so eager to claim that gun control does not work, but you never come up with any suggestions for keeping the guns away from criminals beyond “enforcing the laws on the books” (which the NRA works to make as toothless as possible).
I’d go so far as to ask, “what would you do?” except I’m 100% certain that your response would be some lame variation of “enforce the laws on the books.”
Yes, you amuse yourself and only yourself. A fire extinguisher sits at home and won’t be used unless I have a fire. My AR, or any of my pistols are the same. If I’m not at the range or they’re not being carried they don’t get used. I have them, and I hope I’ll never have to use them at home in the next 50 years or so, just like the fire extinguisher.
“You are so eager to claim that gun control does not work, but you never come up with any suggestions for keeping the guns away from criminals beyond “enforcing the laws on the books” (which the NRA works to make as toothless as possible). ”
Jason – I asked you guys for suggestions OTHER than gun-control in the Markell thread. I was serious. I had really hoped I’d hear your thoughts on combatting violent crime in Wilmington.
Also, since gun control doesn’t keep guns away from criminals nor reduce crime why the eager support for more of the same? It’s not working, so why not push for “change” and try a different approach? (like say, focusing on the criminals?)
You guys understand that the War On Drugs doesn’t work, but you’re unable to apply that same common sense to guns. More and more restrictions on the law-abiding and the legal market don’t impact those who operate on the black market. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Likewise, Jason, on every count. I would bother asking you what you would like to do to cut down on the crime and firearm use in those crimes, except something tells me that your automatic response would be some convolution or contortion of “pass more laws”.
Yeah, because the current laws are obviously working so well!
One has to wonder if you are at all familiar with Einstein’s definition of insanity.
Do I have a solution to the problem myself? No, I honestly do not. But I do know that doing the same thing we have been doing (passing more meaningless laws that no one has any intentions of enforcing) is going to work about as well as it has in the past – i.e. not at all. And, honestly, I find it very hard to believe that the big, bad NRA has made it any more difficult to prosecute (successfully) for murder, assault, rape, burglary, robbery, etc. etc. etc. All of those heinous (sp?) activities have been illegal for quite some time, and yet that never stopped criminals. Making them more illegal is going to do… what, exactly?
Typical BS.
Have a nice day.
*snickers* Priceless, Jason. Simply priceless. I have to admit, you are doing more damage from your end than I could ever hope to do good from mine. Thanks for making my life so easy :).
I guess I’ll ask this again Jason…….
Jason – I asked you guys for suggestions OTHER than gun-control in the Markell thread. I was serious. I had really hoped I’d hear your thoughts on combatting violent crime in Wilmington.
Feel free to address anything else I said in comment #43 as well.
Look at how effective current drug laws are at keeping people from getting weed. Are MORE laws against alreadly illegal drugs the answer? If your answer is NO then you must also accept that more gun laws will be just as ineffective.
Mike W.
Limit the number of guns anybody can but in a single month to five. That should cut down on the straw man purchases. I know, that is an attack on your rights to own as many guns as you want. I really see no reason in keeping this conversation going.
Lino-
Whatever dude. You are a child if you think my blog comment is doing “damage” to anything.
Trust me, Jason, the irony of you calling anyone a child after your “Typical BS,” response is funny enough to hurt anyone’s sides.
So here is another post you can just “Typical BS,” away, and prove that you really are a cute little ironic hypocrite… What, exactly, would limiting people to five legal purchases a month do to control illegal purchases? As that nifty little study indicated (had you bothered to take the time to at least glance at it):
Ok, so you might have affected that one guy who somehow managed to procure a gun legally. What about the other 42? How is a five-gun-a-month limit going to affect people who steal the firearms they utilize? How is it going to stop or limit street-corner-side transactions that are not on any books?
I mean, from a political standpoint, your answer is a perfectly typical one – it makes you look like you are doing something, when, in fact, it will prove to be just as ineffective as every other firearm restriction out there that criminals are ignoring. But from a practical standpoint… it fails on almost every count. And, once again, it is nothing more than another “gun control” law that would only inconvenience and affect people who obey laws. For reference, criminals tend not to.
Here is why Jason is not being childish. He asked our resident gun experts what they would change to gun laws or policy in order to limit criminal access to them.
Instead, you ask us to come up with different ideas that you will attack. Do you have any ideas?
Jason – Again there’s a reason why I said suggestions other than gun control. One gun a month laws haven’t had a positive impact on gun crime in other states. (Didn’t stop Cho either)
How would a 5 gun a month law reduce crime in Wilmington when the same type of restriction hasn’t worked in other States?
“Instead, you ask us to come up with different ideas that you will attack. Do you have any ideas?”
Yes. Lock up violent offenders. No parole. Period. Repeat violent offenders get life. No parole. Prosecute illegal gun possession. Treat juvenile violent offenders like adults. If they shoot & kill someone I don’t care if they’re 15, treat them like adults.
Oh, and quit the failed war on drugs that helps fuel much of this violence in the 1st place. Also, make Delaware a “Shall-Issue” CCW state so that the law-abiding can more easily defend themselves.
And remember. The policies you support directly impact us, therefore we’re asking you for solutions that do not further restrict the law abiding.
Well, according to a five year study run by the FBI, there is no proof that any criminals anywhere in the country are acquiring firearms at gun shows. (Source)
I really wish Linoge would stop waving this as proof. It is not.
The study in his cite was not measuring crime guns obtained at gun shows. Instead, it was assessing police officer reactions to violent situations.
Citing this a s a source is like claiming one can predict the stock market by looking at baseball statistics.
The FBI study is “Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Edward F. Davis, and Charles E. Miller III, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America’s Law Enforcement Officers (Washington, DC, 2006). ”
The study looked at 43 instances of felonious assaults on 50 police officers.
From this, Linoge would have us believe this was a comprehensive study of crime guns from gun shows? No.
True Jadegold, it is a small sample, however it was stated in the study that none of the weapons used in the included incidences were obtained at gun shows. You can choose to ignore this fact, but it’s still a fact. The guns WERE NOT OBTAINED AT GUN SHOWS.
Show me evidence that gun shows are a significant source of guns among Delaware criminals. You can’t.
If you can’t show verifiable proof of a problem there’s no reason to take you and your proposed “solutions” (I.E. closing the gun show loophole) seriously. Not only can you not show me that closing said loophole will be effective, you can’t even show me evidence that it’s a problem that needs fixing.
Mikey: Go take a stats course.
The purpose of the study was to highlight examples where police officers were assaulted. The cases were self-selected; that is, they weren’t random, they were selected because they illustrate an example. Thus, any data about guns, gun types, etc. is extraneous and meaningless.
But let’s suppose for a moment, it isn’t. A sample size of 43? Insignificant.
And all the instances involve police officers? Renders the already insufficient sample size even more insufficient.
Ok, let’s make this simple. You claim that gun shows are a significant source of guns used in crime. Show me proof. Surely if this “loophole” is such a major problem you have data to back up your claim. Right?
Also, regardless of the intent and sample size of the study cited by Linoge, it still remains as fact tht in that sample of criminal use of firearms, none were obtained at guns shows.
The simple fact is that the raw data proves you wrong. There are no facts showing gun shows to be a significant source of illegal guns. In exactly the same way your discussion of the threat posed by “assault weapons” isn’t backed up by any kind of verifiable fact. (in fact, on AWB’s the data proves you’re dead wrong and are simply fearmongering)
You want to impose restrictions yet you can’t offer proof of a “problem” nor can you prove your proposed solutions will have any positive impact whatsoever.
http://www.kintera.org/atf/cf/%7B23E96A35-4C75-41EE-BDDD-4BD3A3B59010%7D/Virginia%20Gun%20Show%20Data%20Paper.pdf
Key graf: “As disturbing as these numbers are, they certainly understate the scope of the problem. According to Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), “these figures do not take into account firearms that may have been sold at Richmond area gun shows by unlicensed sellers, as these transactions are
difficult to track.”2
The rhetorical sleight of hand you’re attempting to use is saying guns purchased, via the NICS process, at gunshows is not that great. Of course, you’re omitting the fact that many guns are sold at gunshows without the NICS process.
“I pointed out some of the advantages of having a shorter, lighter weapon for home defense and that makes me “paranoid” and means I have “violent fantasies? Man, you folks are nuts.”
You quite clearly have violent fantasies — either as the victim or the would-be victim who triumphs over evil. It’s a problem, fella, and it ain’t ours.
Again. Proof is good. That link says that 400 guns sold at VA gun shows over a 4 year period were “recovered in connection with criminal activity.” This could mean any number of things, including that lawfully owned guns were stolen from their owners (who bought them at guns shows) during that period.
Also, it doesn’t give us any information. How many guns were sold total @ VA gun shows during that period? I can bring up stats showing that 1000 people had CCW permits revoked, but that number is meaningless if we don’t know other numbers like say, what that represents out of the total pool of CCW holders.
And again Jade (and everyone else) Guns can be legally bought & sold via private sales anywhere in the state (in VA or DE) and it is irrelevant whether said sale takes place in my driveway or at a gun show.
“You quite clearly have violent fantasies — either as the victim or the would-be victim who triumphs over evil. It’s a problem, fella, and it ain’t ours.”
Sure, that’s why the comment in question didn’t discuss violence at all, only the advantages of a particular weapon. The only person discussing “violent fantasies” is you.
Sure he did. And then he immediately threw out the immediate, logical, and most sound answer of them all, before anyone was able to even give it to him:
Enforce the laws already on the books.
What he did was equivalent to sticking cotton in his ears, following the cotton with his fingers, and then humming very loudly. That, liberalgeek, is the very definition of childish.
Murder is already illegal. Theft is already illegal. Assault is already illegal. Crimals with criminal histories possessing firearms is already illegal. Using firearms in the exection of a crime is already illegal.
So, what, exactly, will making all of those things, and more, even more illegal accomplish? Nothing.
However, if you are as childishly uncomfortable with the answer of “enforce the laws already on the books” as Jason was, here’s a few random new laws (since that seems to be all of your answers… just pass more laws and wish it all away) for you: Minimum required sentencings for crimes committed with the assistance of a firearm with no chance of parole; commit more than one crime with the assistance of a firearm, and you never leave a jail, ever again; upgrade of all juveniles to adults if they commit a crime with the assistance of a firearm (that seems to me to be a rather adult decision… time to treat it as such). I could be wrong, but I am willing to bet a fair number of gun-rights advocates would get behind ideas like that… unlike, say, Jason’s.
Bingbingbing. Give the man a cookie. Like I already admitted, the sample size was annoyingly small. However, even that small, one would expect that if this mythical “gun show loophole” were really so bad, at least one of the firearms owned by one of the criminals would have been from a gun show. Hell, only one of the firearms was procured legally, period. And yet all the gun-control smoke-and-mirrors types constantly talk about is passing laws to restrict legal purchases… like that is going to make a bloody bit of difference.
Anon: Mikey has the delusions of many gunlooons. Generally, they’re folks whose social lives or careers haven’t met their expectations. They feel slighted by society and they believe a gun earns them respect.
It’s like small children; little kids like to dress up as superheroes or soldiers or wizards and the like. Why? Because it alleviates their feelings of being powerless. Similarly, gunloons believe their guns will afford them the respect they believe they aren’t getting.
Linoge: The smaple size was not annoying small. It was insignificant *and* the study was not designed to measure what you claimed.
Again, your claim is bogus.
Did not GT teach you anything?
Let us examine how a study works. First, it must be designed to draw inferences from what is being studied. If you intend to make staistical inferences about, say, female infertility–you should be looking at fertility rates among females, not the caloric intakes of Chinese men.
Second, when you look at female fertility rates–you don’t single out a particular subset.
Linoge RE 62. You are exactly right. If this “gun-show loophole” were such a huge problem and source of illegal weapons there’d be obvious evidence of it for Jade and others to cite………
Again, Arthur Downs knows not of which he speaks. A sawed-off shotgun is not a good home defense weapon unless your definition of home defense is to ensure innocent folks are struck by indiscriminant blasts. Jade Gold
Jade seems to be a bit deficient in reading comprehension. My comment re sawed-off shotguns was intended to show how easily a thug could turn a ‘good’ gun into something rather nasty. This could be twisted into an argument in favor of a prohibition on ownership of such firearms. I do not see how my words could be twisted into an advocacy of such a firearm for home defense. It could do a lot of damage to walls and furniture.
“It could do a lot of damage to walls and furniture.”
Of course ANY effective defensive firearm will penetrate interior walls. Even a shotgun loaded with Birdshot (totally unsuitable for defensive use) will penetrate at least one interior wall.
Unless you are being attacked by geese…
haha……those Canadian geese can get pretty damn aggressive.
Getting back to Jason… Can he answer this, since he proposed this “5 gun a month” “solution?”
How would a 5 gun a month law reduce crime in Wilmington when the same type of restriction hasn’t worked in other States?
See what I mean Mike? I make a suggestion and you come back with nothing.
If guns are too easy to get, what would you suggest to change that (other than “enforcing the laws on the books”)?
You still have yet to make any suggestion that isn’t more of the same.
I’ll ask the same question again in hopes that you get it. (Hint – Why try things that are already proven not to work?)
“How would a 5 gun a month law reduce crime in Wilmington when the same type of restriction hasn’t worked in other States?”
Do you have ANY ideas for reducing violence that don’t involve more of the same failed policies?
RE: Sawed-Off Shotguns. (This also applies to SBR’s, short-barreled rifles, which are also covered under the NFA)
They’ve been illegal under Federal NFA laws since 1934, yet criminals still end up possessing illegal “sawed-off shotguns.” How do you propose we stop this?
Seriously. Should we ban hacksaws, blow torches, anything that can cut a shotgun barrel? Criminals cut down there weapons all the time. Why? The guns are illegal anyway and they’re using them in crime. They’re not the least bit concerned about violating NFA laws by shortening the barrel of their shotgun or rifle.
Cassandra,
sorry, I misssed your post:
Paul — if you do get a response to your questions from the NRA, we would be interested in seeing that. Feel free to post it here it send it to one of the editors and we’ll put it up for everyone to see. And thinks for trying to get to the bottom of this. – cass
====== I Got a NON answer ====
In a message dated 9/8/2008 3:08:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, KCupp@nrahq.org writes:
Dear Paul,
Unfortunately beyond advising people not to vote for Markell, NRA is not endorsing one particular candidate. As the General Election nears, NRA will be getting involved in the majority of races. Please let us know if we can assist you further, and as always, we appreciate your support!
Best Wishes,
Krista Cupp
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
Thanks for sharing this — I think I heard you talk about this on the radio.
Do you think that the piece that was sent out was a legit NRA mailing? I didn’t think so, but really have no idea.
IT was a real NRA mailing. Others got it.
First of all, HOW would someone else get the list?
Even if they did get a NRA list, that would mean NRA support. And I got an NRA robocall. And the email verifies their action against Markell.
I was on WDEL After Markell, after all the AD’s
I commented that a REPORT card for one and not both was patently unfair. Next I presented that Wilmington Confiscated 714 guns. But got no feedback or a study to determine their source, and how they got into Wilmington.
I stand by, No study, No new rules.
My 6th district city councilman, refuses me and others from discussing philosophy. He just wants action. I believe we need to discuss causes and appropriate solutions for the causes, not just blind- do nothing actions.
.
Other than calling me dense, thanks for the dialog. I can handle dense.
.
I actually liked Ms. Kupp’s response. She’s right, one of the job of NRA grassroots is to inform members of threats to their rights, particularly those originating in their own states.
There’s absolutely no doubt that Markell’s proposals are a threat to my rights in the state of Delaware, thus the NRA was right in sending out the mailing.
maybe he refuses you paul b/c you are beyond reason
i kid of course
Huh, I didn’t get this mailing, but then I don’t belong to the NRA. You know, there is an alternative. It’s called the American Hunters and Shooters Association, and it was founded by my old science teacher (and Redskins lineman) Ray Schoenke. the website is http://www.huntersandshooters.com and their underlying premise is that the NRA is just a wee bit over the top when it comes to gun rights, and underachieving when it comes to conservation of hunting lands.
Oh, and when it comes to home defense, I prefer a nice center of mass hit to a shotgun blast, because I don’t have to do any spackling afterwards.
Mike W
#1 Carney was not questioned.
#2 Delaware, at this time is so heavily weighted to electing a Democrat for Governor, that it is Important to compare both. This Dem Gov Primary race was not trivial.
#3 Where was input from Delaware Locals?
—-
Mike W,
Are you really satisfied with one sided evaluations?
[ PS: If so, you get Maggie’s drawers.]
—-
JUST what is CARNEY’s position???
Is it just like Eminent Domain?
.
dmuw,
{ Pouting… }
{ Shows Back, kicks dirt .. }
{ Reaches for a stick of Juicy Fruit gum. }
{lays down gun, sits, reads bible… }
{ Fade out.}
G Rex – Don’t dare be fooled by the AHSA. It’s an anti-gun group. If you research the AHSA you’ll find it’s actually an anti-gun shell group. They masquerade as a “pro-gun” group but are anything but.
Schoenke has actually donated to gun control groups and put up anti-gun billboards.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005/08/democrats-set-up-fake-organizations-to.html
Schoenke and the AHSA endorsed OBAMA for President and touted his pro-gun record! (talk about laughable) They cite his support for the vitter amendment as proof he’s “pro-gun.”
“Obama’s vote for the Vitter amendment proves that Obama is committed to the 2nd amendment. The Vitter amendment prohibits the confiscation of firearms during an emergency or major disaster.”
Obama’s vote for the Vitter Amendment is the ONLY thing that’s pro-gun out of his entire record on the issue.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-endorsed.html