Guns aren't stupid, People with Guns Are.

I suspect him of intentional, malicious murder.

Another thread consisted of fear mongering children in adult bodies blaming a very small % of the problem, while ignoring the massive % that isn't the problem which monumentally redeems the small % of issues already at 10% benefits of security from firepower.

Need I remind these cowards that will do anything to blame the smallest % of people and bunch that up with the large % of non-issues, that Hitler, himself, told us that if you want to control the people, take away their guns.

So in other words, these cowards already got our people killed in the form of other people's fear mongering practices in historical events that happened in the past (banning guns has lead to more deaths than the guns themselves for ****'s sake). What they don't realize is that their fear mongering practices are taking us away from safety and control - this has already happened before when people thought banning guns was a good idea. The Simpson's episode of this particular subject also covered it well. The Simpsons, a very intelligent sitcom, demonstrated why guns are both safe and dangerous, like anything else - BUT, having no guns is legitimately death walking to your front door with no constraints of its freedom.

Nothing to deter people's incessant need to control other people's lives and their outcomes. Guns are a deterrence to people's need to endanger each other because of their own emotional problems. There's a very small % of deaths by guns. And it's not even the gun's fault. Blame the education system. Blame people for picking ignorance and bliss over intelligence and chaos. Blame the rose-tinted glass wearers and the fear mongering idiots (you probably). Not guns - not atomic bombs - not knives - not bows - not hammers - not any type of tool used for murderous intent. The danger is not in the tools - it's in the PEOPLE.

ARMED 15 YEAR OLD BOY
DEFENDS HIS HOME FROM INVADER

Evansville, Ind. 10/24/14

Posted on October 29, 2014

Brian Hiner was at home in Butler County, Ohio when his dog alerted him
to an intruder. Hiner retrieved a gun, went to investigate, and
apprehended the home invader.

When police arrived, they detained the intruder in a cruiser.
However, the criminal managed to escape the vehicle, ran into a cornfield,
and eventually invaded another house. 15-year-old Justin Kugler was at home
at the time, and responded to the intrusion by retrieving a gun.
When Kugler encountered the home invader he told him, “get out
of the house or I'm going to shoot you.” Police recaptured the intruder
outside the Kugler residence.

When interviewed by a local media outlet, Kugler stated,
“I feel pretty good about it that I could have saved other
people's houses and their property.” (WFIE, Evansville, Ind. 10/24/14)
[ALL emfasis has been added by David.]

*****************************************************************

The criminal was lucky that the 2 victims
allowed him to SURVIVE the event intact.

Jose Canseco accidentally shoots finger-cleaning gun

Yea; I dont think much of automatics.
That kind of thing just can t happen
if we use revolvers, and un-like automatics,
revolvers are RELIABLE and thay need relatively much less maintenance.
With revolvers, u need not be concerned with rotating your magazines
to relieve tension on your follower spring
and thay don t spill shells on the ground at scenes of emergencies.





David

Second Amendment Crushes Gun Control Candidates
in Midterm Elections

Posted on November 5, 2014

As the election returns came in on November 4 one thing
was evident—the Second Amendment crushed gun control candidates
in Senate and gubernatorial races around the country.

In so doing, the Second Amendment annihilated the left's relentless
claim that 90 percent of Americans support more gun control.

On the gubernatorial level, in Arizona, pro-Second Amendment
candidate Doug Ducey (R) beat gun control candidate Fred DuVaul (D)
and in Florida, pro-Second Amendment incumbent Rick Scott (R)
beat gun control candidate Charlie Crist.

These victories were enhanced by the fact that Gabby Giffords and
Mark Kelly endorsed DuVal and Giffords' gun control PAC gave $100,000 to Crist's campaign.
The Second Amendment trumped their endorsement and their money.
In Texas, NRA-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott (R) won.
In Maryland, NRA-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Larry Hogan (R) won.
In Alabama, NRA-endorsed Governor Robert J. Bentley (R) won.
In Wisconsin, NRA-endorsed Governor Scott Walker (R) won.
In Michigan, NRA-endorsed Governor Rick Snyder (R) won.
In Nevada, NRA-endorsed Governor Brian Sandoval (R) won.
In Ohio, NRA-endorsed Governor John R. Kasich (R) won.
In Oklahoma, NRA-endorsed Governor Mary Fallin (R) won.
In Wyoming, NRA-endorsed Governor Matt Mead (R) won.
In Idaho, NRA-endorsed Governor Bruce Otter (R) won.
In Kansas, NRA-endorsed Governor Sam Brownback (R) won and
in Maine, NRA-endorsed Governor Paul R. LePage (R) won
against gun control candidate Michael Michaud (D).

(On August 8, Breitbart News reported that Michaud was supported by Gabby Giffords.)

In Senate races, gun control Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) was defeated
by NRA-endorsed Cory Gardner (R) and gun control Senator Kay Hagan
(D-NC) was defeated by NRA-endorsed Thom Tillis (R).
In Kansas, NRA-endorsed Senator Pat Roberts (R) won.
In Georgia, NRA-endorsed Senatorial candidate David Perdue (R) won.
In Arkansas, NRA-endorsed Tom Cotton (R) won and in West Virginia,
NRA-endorsed Shelley Moore Capito (R) won, marking the first time
that state has sent a Republican Senator to Washington DC in over five decades.

The spotlight was also on the race between NRA-endorsed Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and pro-gun control challenger
Alison Grimes (D). McConnell won handily.

NRA-endorsed Senatorial candidate Joni Ernst (R-IA) also won.

On November 3—the day before the elections took place—Breitbart News
reminded red state and pro-Second Amendment voters to vote
like their guns depended on it. They did and as result,
the Second Amendment won the day, Republicans won the Senate,
and gun control took a beating.

[All emfasis and color has been added by David.]

Congratulations, for all your efforts here you have just been promoted to Senior Ewe rank of your local NRA.


Baaaaaaa.

Thanks for your Congratulations!
We will enjoy our political dominance

Note that we do not have ranks; no need for them.





David

Chicago Taxpayers Again Forced
to Reimburse NRA for Legal Fees

Posted on November 6, 2014

For the second time in as many years, Chicago taxpayers will be
forced to foot the bill for their politicians’ insistence on pursuing
unconstitutional gun control. In early July, the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois ordered Chicago to pay $940,000 to the NRA.

The order stems from an NRA victory in the lawsuit
Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers v. Chicago.
Back in January, Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois invalidated Chicago’s ban on firearm sales in the city.
Chang wrote that “Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers
and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms.”
Under federal law, in certain circumstances, the prevailing party in civil rights cases
is to be reimbursed for the costs of the litigation, a provision which in this case applied to NRA.

Unfortunately, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and the Chicago City Council have flouted Judge Chang’s ruling,
circumventing it with an ordinance enacting onerous rules on potential firearms dealers operating
within the city. The ordinance imposes numerous burdens on would-be store owners, including
severe zoning restrictions, extensive paperwork requirements, handgun rationing,
waiting periods, and a mandate to video-record every sale.

These new restrictions will no doubt lead to further legal wrangling.
In a city that experiences a notorious amount of crime, providing
additional funds to law enforcement, rather than to quixotic legal battles
to curb the rights of residents, would surely be a better investment.

COURT DEFENDS THE RIGHTS OF THE POOR

Delaware Supreme Court Sides with Public Housing Tenants
on the Right to Bear Arms

Posted on November 6, 2014

On March 18, the Delaware Supreme Court struck a blow for gun rights,
and against economic discrimination, when it struck down a Wilmington
Housing Authority policy that restricted the rights of public housing
tenants to bear arms where they live. The court ruled in the case
of Jane Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority that under the state’s
constitutional right to arms provision, policies restricting residents
from carrying firearms in common areas and requiring tenants to
produce paperwork attesting to their lawful ownership of firearms
were not permissible.

The case originated in 2010 when two public housing residents,
identified in the litigation as Jane Doe and Charles Boone, filed suit
against the WHA, contending that the agency’s rules violated both the
U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and the Delaware Constitution.
The NRA provided direct assistance in the filing of the suit.

Article I, § 20 of the Delaware Constitution states, “A person has the
right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home
and State, and for hunting and recreational use.” Both Doe and
Boone’s lease agreements had onerous rules regarding firearms in
housing under WHA jurisdiction. In particular, Boone took issue with
a rule stating that tenants could not, “display, use or possess… any firearms,
(operable or inoperable) or dangerous instruments or deadly weapons
as defined by the laws of the State of Delaware anywhere on the
property of the Authority.”

The case was making its way through the U.S. District Court in Delaware
when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the
Second Amendment binds not just federal actions but those of states
and their localities as well. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling,
the WHA revised the worst aspects of its firearm policy and allowed
for possession of firearms within a tenant’s unit.

The WHA nevertheless continued its approach of not allowing
firearms in common areas. The new policy stated that a resident
“shall not display or carry a firearm or other weapon in any common area,”
and included a provision requiring that residents “shall have available
for inspection a copy of any license, or other documentation required
by state, local, or federal law for the ownership, possession, or
transportation of any firearm or other weapon, including a license
to carry a concealed weapon… upon request, when there is reasonable
cause to believe that the law or this Policy has been violated.”

The District Court ruled in favor of the WHA, with Judge Leonard P.
Stark writing in the court’s opinion that the “Common Area Provision
regulates conduct that is not within the ‘core’ of what is protected
by the Second Amendment.” This action prompted the tenants to
appeal their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In July 2013, the Third Circuit certified the case to the Delaware
Supreme Court. The Third Circuit requested the Delaware court
to rule on whether, under Article I, § 20 of the Delaware Constitution,
the WHA’s firearm policies regarding carry in common areas and
production of documents were permissible. Under the principles
of federalism, state courts are considered to be ultimate arbiters of
state laws that do not implicate the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

In analyzing whether the Delaware State Constitution bars the WHA’s policies,
state Justice Henry Ridgley, writing for the en banc court, provided
background on the right to bear arms in the First State. His opinion
noted that “Delaware is an ‘open carry’ state,” and that “like the
citizens of our sister states at the founding, Delaware citizens understood
that the ‘right of self-preservation’ permitted a citizen to ‘repe[l] force
by force’.” Ridgley went on to explain that although Delaware did not
include a provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms at the
state constitutional convention of 1791, “there was an apparent consensus
among the delegates on an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.”
With regard to the adoption of the right to keep and bear arms provision
in 1987, Ridgley noted that the General Assembly intended to
“explicitly protect[] the traditional right to keep and bear arms.”

The Delaware court also found that “the Delaware provision is intentionally
broader than the [district court’s reading of the] Second Amendment
and protects the right to bear arms outside the home, including for
hunting and recreation.” Thus, according to Ridgley, “Section 20 is not
constrained by the federal precedent relied upon by WHA.”

The Delaware court went on to apply an intermediate scrutiny test
to the WHA policy barring firearm possession in common areas, under
which “the governmental action cannot burden the right more than
is reasonably necessary to ensure that the asserted governmental
objective is met.” Ridgley’s opinion explained that “WHA must show
more than a general safety concern and it has not done so.” It then
found that the burden the WHA policy places on tenants is substantial:
“With the Common Area Provision in force under penalty of eviction,
reasonable, law-abiding adults become disarmed and unable to repel
an intruder by force in any common living areas.” Moreover, the
opinion states, “the restrictions of the Common Area Provision are
overbroad and burden the right to keep and bear arms more than
is reasonably necessary.”

In striking down the policy requiring that residents produce evidence
of their lawful ownership of a firearm, the court reasoned that since
this policy was enacted to enforce the common area ban, which is
unconstitutional, the paperwork requirement is illegal as well.

NRA had been involved with this battle to protect the rights of
Delaware’s disadvantaged through its various stages, and filed a
friend of the court brief with the Delaware Supreme Court in
September 2013. The ruling is an important victory for the residents
of Delaware and represents a triumph over gun control policies that
all-too-often disproportionately affect the poor.
[ALL emfasis has been added by David.]

http://nypost.com/2014/09/28/man-shoots-house-because-he-didnt-know-how-to-unload-gun-cops/

That article is most admittedly singularly well suited to your thread.
Did he explain the reason that he aimed at the other guy 's window ?

Mr. Parados: had this fellow been trained
in the public schools, how to competently handle firearms?? What GRADES did he get???

Please explain.





David

As Democrat postmortem sets in and gun control proponents grasp
for ways to explain the political beating they took on November 4,
the explanation is already evident to voters -- "It's the Second Amendment, stupid."

In 1992 James Carville provided a singular focus for the Bill Clinton
campaign by quipping, "It's the economy, stupid." The Harvard
Institute of Politics reports that this went from being a statement
to an "internal audience of campaign workers" to being the way
Clinton packaged and sold his presidential campaign.

Fast forward 22 years and "It's the Second Amendment, stupid."

The Washington Post admitted that Americans largely agree with
the NRA's views on the Second Amendment, thus they voted for candidates the NRA endorsed.

For nearly two years Democrats and Democrat-run gun control groups
claimed that 90 percent of Americans supported more gun control.
They said this while pushing universal background checks, new gun
show regulations, new rules for online gun sales, an "assault weapons"
ban, high capacity magazine bans, and an easier road to firearm
confiscation via gun violence restraining orders, among other
measures, but in the end Americans were too busy buying firearms
and firearm accessories to listen to the Democrat talking points.

Breitbart News previously reported a Gallup poll showing nearly
two-thirds of Americans believe a gun makes their home safer.

That poll was conducted less than a month before the midterm elections.

When one sees that 81 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of Independents,
and even 41 percent of Democrats think this way the explanation
for November 4 is clear -- "It's the Second Amendment, stupid."
[All emfasis has been added by David.]

I am a natural born American citizen.
I AM THE GUN LOBBY ( or part of it, anyway ).





David

The farmer must think I own a gun factory.





David

Maybe I shud buy one.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/police-child-8-injured-shooting-search-2-questioni/nh6Cz/

That damned gun planned it all along.

Yea, I think the English Webleys are the sneakiest, most devious, of all.

(source)