Build it and they won't come

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:59:44 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/13/2017 9:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:45:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:07:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Slow! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

You notice there's no target there. Spraying bullets all over the place doesn't have enough effect. I was told that on D-Day landings there wasn't enough rifles to go around and the second wave had the older bolt action rifles and a very limited number of rounds so that they would AIM for effect.

History of Operations research in the U.S. Army, Volume I, 1942 - 1962
http://tinyurl.com/ybac5t75

Strange as it may seem the U.S. Army does make studies to attempt to
determine the effectiveness of various weapons and squad level
weapons, rifles, produce in the neighborhood of 2 - 5% of enemy
casualties. In addition, aimed rifle fire seems to be no more
effective in producing casualties then un aimed volume of fire and
that most casualties were at less then 100 yard range.
--
Cheers,

John B.


As in bicycle racing, the exceptional actor is not your
average guy:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...sniper+taliban

Sure. I had a good friend who was a certified Bad Ass - Airborne,
Green Berets, 3 tours in Vietnam, wounded three times in combat, etc.
I once asked him about snipers. He commented that, "they never mention
the times they miss".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:53:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 11:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade
English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for
style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious,
intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over
interpretation for hundreds of years.


Actually, given the conditions that existed in the Colonies, I suggest
that the 2nd amendment made a great deal of sense at the time it was
written and likely was perfectly understandable to the writers.

There were was no standing army, defense was, excepting British
troops, provided by the militia and each colony had laws requiring the
male citizens to provide their own firelocks, bullets and powder.

Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of
the duty to own a gun: "That all persons that are above the age of
sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare
arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said
age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn,
fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band...."

A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations
in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741. v

"Fines varied between two and ten shillings for lacking firearms or
for failure to appear with firearms, compleat and well fixt upon the
days of training...."

And, the states were all jealous of their own rights and were worried
about the federal government infringing on Their rights.

All true. And despite the defective language in the 2nd Amendment, that
is doubtlessly what the Founders were thinking of. They were certainly
not endorsing an UNregulated collection of yahoos with closets of
science-fiction (to them) rapid-fire, people killing arms.


My point was that at the time the amendment was written it was not
defective language and I'm sure that the writers and everyone that
read the amendment understood perfectly what it meant.

I don't call for a total ban on firearms. That would be one extreme
position in this argument.

But ISTM that many others are arguing for absolutely no restrictions on
ownership and use of firearms. That is the other extreme position, and
just as unreasonable. Yet many pretend it is a reasonable position,
mostly based on a historically ignorant view of the second amendment.

As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition
of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. I've
mentioned, for example, that the legal definition of "machine gun" is
any weapon that fires more then once with a single pull of the
trigger. So the bump stocks are a perfectly legal addition.

The Federal government passed what was called "Public Safety and
Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" a subsection of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which stated in part:

The definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific
semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic
firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or
more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel
designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

As for magazine capacity:
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines
capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The Public
Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called
the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban,
including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds
of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset
provision. Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level.

In addition WDC and 8 other states currently have magazine bans.

From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns
used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:46:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 10:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:45:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:07:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Slow! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

You notice there's no target there. Spraying bullets all over the place doesn't have enough effect. I was told that on D-Day landings there wasn't enough rifles to go around and the second wave had the older bolt action rifles and a very limited number of rounds so that they would AIM for effect.

History of Operations research in the U.S. Army, Volume I, 1942 - 1962
http://tinyurl.com/ybac5t75

Strange as it may seem the U.S. Army does make studies to attempt to
determine the effectiveness of various weapons and squad level
weapons, rifles, produce in the neighborhood of 2 - 5% of enemy
casualties. In addition, aimed rifle fire seems to be no more
effective in producing casualties then un aimed volume of fire and
that most casualties were at less then 100 yard range.

Wait - you mean the Army uses data???


Of course they do :-)

By the way in reading up on all this gun stuff I came across something
about the loss of life, estimated 617,000, during the Civil War which
is usually attributed to using "musket tactics" when faced with
rifles, isn't accurate at all. It seems that about an estimated
413,000 actually died from disease.

Those guys who already know everything might be disappointed! :-)

Quite often those who "already know everything" weren't actually
there, didn't do it, and don't have the tee shirt :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/13/2017 10:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 6:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 4:57 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 11:39 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4,
Frank
Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be
soldiers.
But
I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile
pretend
games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most
citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular
troops in
a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should
argue
for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet
there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

The second amendment is a terrible piece of
writing. My
10th
grade English teacher would have had red marks all
over
it,
and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning
was so
unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial
readers
have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of
years.

So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an
amendment, and
it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution
have
been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment
seemed
like a good idea. When the effects became apparent,
the
21st
corrected the situation.

We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly
written
2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any
other
modern industrialized country. We should amend that
amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun
nuts.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time
limits
for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure
Joerg's
life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round
into a
mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far
more
deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per
second
with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my
practice
has
been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would
never
have
inconvenienced me.

So how do you propose to enforce the five second
limit?
It would seem
to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and
almost
all breech
loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders
would
be ok, as long
as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to
reload
in four seconds.

Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss
specific firing rates.

But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back
purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what
Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were
impossible
to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to
limit
fire rates.


Reading the legislative history of it, besides The
Federalist (Hamilton, Madison & Jay) the intent,
that the
nation would do well to be armed, to a man, is clear.

"well regulated militia." What does "well regulated"
mean?


Similar to optimal 'gun control' which is, 'all ten
inside
the little circle'.

So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug
selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the
founders
envisioned.

An effective citizen militia are able bodied armed men
with experience, skill and their own ball & powder.

How about discipline, self control and a respect for the
orders of their superior officers?

I (and many others) think it's very likely the founders
envisioned something like the national guard or the
military
reserves. I doubt very much that they would approve of nut
cases wanting to secede from the federal government, or
crazies shooting kids and other citizens in churches,
schools or concerts. I strongly suspect that in the
current
context, they'd think it was a good idea to do background
checks and keep suspected terrorists from buying high
powered guns. And I suspect they'd be willing to
control the
ownership of mass murder tools, whether they were bombs or
guns. Most other Americans seem to agree.

The practice at the time was to select officers by
election.

Fine. Make that happen in the National Guard, and pass
a law
that if a person wants to play with people-killing tools,
they have to join the Guard and periodically report for
intense training.


So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug
selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the
founders
envisioned.

Well, there's crime and there's crime.

In the unlikely event that something like Mumbai happened
in your neighborhood, he may well be more valuable than an
unarmed traffic warden or a retired academic telephoning
911. We spoke of France earlier- Even a French street
thug may well have saved lives at Bataclan but, again,
there was no immediate armed response to foreign invaders
vs civilians.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-attack.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ms-escape.html



I'm not defending career criminals or felons in possession
(who ignore all the 'sensible' rules now) but even they
may well defend their family and neighborhood in extreme
events.

"When seconds count, 911 will be there in about 20 minutes"

I just wonder why a "good guy with a gun" didn't immediately
save the day in Las Vegas. Hell, it was a country music
concert in a state with very few gun laws!

I also wonder where the "good guy with a gun" was at that
baseball practice outside D.C.

And in Orlando.

Oh, and in San Bernadino.

And at that college in Oregon.

And that church in Charleston.

And at Sandy Hook. And so on.

Where are all these members of the "well regulated militia"?
What happens to the God fearing, gun toting heroes when the
lead actually starts flying? Why are they failing us over
and over?

Hint: I can quickly think of four people I know who
definitely carry handguns all the time. And I do mean all
the time. Some of them are rather nice people, at least one
is ex-military, but each one is a paranoid coward. And I'm
choosing those words very carefully.

I think all of them would pee their pants if a situation
arose where they might really need to shoot. At least two of
them would be dumb enough to shoot an innocent person
instead of a bad guy. They're a far cry from the cops and
agents I know, let alone from the heroes they imagine they
might be.


There's one in the national news every other day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RoPL-l0_bo

So that's the solution? A pistol in every pocket? "Wild
West" shootouts daily?

I'd prefer the Canadian solution. It means handguns are very
rarely carried by the bad guys; therefore the good guys
don't have to carry handguns.


Up by Canada, eh? They're so darned nice!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmr8gZIRcTE

To posit one utopia or another is a different discussion.

Meanwhile, in reality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jgI0Hn5Gnk

There's a fundamental individual right to self defense,
i.e., life itself, and a duty to one's dependents as well.


[I had several links to fatal machete and knife attacks in
Canada but they aren't all that necessary to the argument]

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/14/2017 12:20 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:53:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 11:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade
English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for
style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious,
intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over
interpretation for hundreds of years.


Actually, given the conditions that existed in the Colonies, I suggest
that the 2nd amendment made a great deal of sense at the time it was
written and likely was perfectly understandable to the writers.

There were was no standing army, defense was, excepting British
troops, provided by the militia and each colony had laws requiring the
male citizens to provide their own firelocks, bullets and powder.

Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of
the duty to own a gun: "That all persons that are above the age of
sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare
arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said
age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn,
fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band...."

A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations
in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741. v

"Fines varied between two and ten shillings for lacking firearms or
for failure to appear with firearms, compleat and well fixt upon the
days of training...."

And, the states were all jealous of their own rights and were worried
about the federal government infringing on Their rights.

All true. And despite the defective language in the 2nd Amendment, that
is doubtlessly what the Founders were thinking of. They were certainly
not endorsing an UNregulated collection of yahoos with closets of
science-fiction (to them) rapid-fire, people killing arms.


My point was that at the time the amendment was written it was not
defective language and I'm sure that the writers and everyone that
read the amendment understood perfectly what it meant.

I don't call for a total ban on firearms. That would be one extreme
position in this argument.

But ISTM that many others are arguing for absolutely no restrictions on
ownership and use of firearms. That is the other extreme position, and
just as unreasonable. Yet many pretend it is a reasonable position,
mostly based on a historically ignorant view of the second amendment.

As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition
of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. I've
mentioned, for example, that the legal definition of "machine gun" is
any weapon that fires more then once with a single pull of the
trigger. So the bump stocks are a perfectly legal addition.

The Federal government passed what was called "Public Safety and
Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" a subsection of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which stated in part:

The definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific
semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic
firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or
more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel
designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

As for magazine capacity:
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines
capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The Public
Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called
the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban,
including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds
of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset
provision. Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level.

In addition WDC and 8 other states currently have magazine bans.

From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns
used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons.


Thanks for bringing that up. I was puzzled when that odd
phrase popped up years ago, apparently from someone trying
to Anglicize 'sturmgewehr' which, being German, would be all
too scary for the desired effect. But _assault_ weapon hit a
nice audience, didn't it? Sounds so violent and all that.

But I knew a guy who was killed by a baseball bat to the
head. Make that an _assault_ baseball bat, as the prosecutor
called the event a 'criminal assault' in court.

I don't know of any case where a man was dispatched by a
scary warlike folding stock, but you never know. And bayonet
deaths seem rare, less common than machetes, even after
2004. Grenades were already illegal BTW. Pistol grip makes a
firearm scary how? I just don't get that at all.

And evil scary suppressors? WTF? A running meme around
firearms owners is a hand cupped to one ear while saying,
"pardon, what was that again?" otherwise known as 'the NRA
salute'.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:46:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Wait - you mean the Army uses data???

Those guys who already know everything might be disappointed! :-)

It is apparent who is the one disappointed. The urge to grab guns is in the mind of all who would be slaves. To not give away your own freedom but to throw that of an entire nation away.

The NAZI regime started with Hitler claiming that a Jew was involved in a gun murder and no Jews should be allowed to own guns.

That sounds just like a Krygowski law doesn't it - the first thing Germany did rolling into Poland was to seize all weapons from it's citizens. With a racial history like that you still haven't learned.

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:50:55 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:59:44 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/13/2017 9:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:45:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:07:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Slow! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

You notice there's no target there. Spraying bullets all over the place doesn't have enough effect. I was told that on D-Day landings there wasn't enough rifles to go around and the second wave had the older bolt action rifles and a very limited number of rounds so that they would AIM for effect.

History of Operations research in the U.S. Army, Volume I, 1942 - 1962
http://tinyurl.com/ybac5t75

Strange as it may seem the U.S. Army does make studies to attempt to
determine the effectiveness of various weapons and squad level
weapons, rifles, produce in the neighborhood of 2 - 5% of enemy
casualties. In addition, aimed rifle fire seems to be no more
effective in producing casualties then un aimed volume of fire and
that most casualties were at less then 100 yard range.
--
Cheers,

John B.


As in bicycle racing, the exceptional actor is not your
average guy:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...sniper+taliban

Sure. I had a good friend who was a certified Bad Ass - Airborne,
Green Berets, 3 tours in Vietnam, wounded three times in combat, etc.
I once asked him about snipers. He commented that, "they never mention
the times they miss".

At 500 yards under perfect conditions it is difficult to hit someone because people, especially in war zones, do not stand still and say, "Just try and hit me." You can imagine these stories of getting hits at a kilometer.

On 10/14/2017 9:01 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:46:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Wait - you mean the Army uses data???

Those guys who already know everything might be disappointed! :-)

It is apparent who is the one disappointed. The urge to grab guns is in the mind of all who would be slaves. To not give away your own freedom but to throw that of an entire nation away.

The NAZI regime started with Hitler claiming that a Jew was involved in a gun murder and no Jews should be allowed to own guns.

That sounds just like a Krygowski law doesn't it - the first thing Germany did rolling into Poland was to seize all weapons from it's citizens. With a racial history like that you still haven't learned.



http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/1938jews.gif

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:06:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2017 9:01 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:46:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Wait - you mean the Army uses data???

Those guys who already know everything might be disappointed! :-)

It is apparent who is the one disappointed. The urge to grab guns is in the mind of all who would be slaves. To not give away your own freedom but to throw that of an entire nation away.

The NAZI regime started with Hitler claiming that a Jew was involved in a gun murder and no Jews should be allowed to own guns.

That sounds just like a Krygowski law doesn't it - the first thing Germany did rolling into Poland was to seize all weapons from it's citizens. With a racial history like that you still haven't learned.



http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/1938jews.gif

Despite pulling Frank's leg a lot guns are a subject that was talked to death by the founders. They well knew that drunken bums would shoot up places, that criminals would use guns for criminal purposes and that the very fabric of a government could be threatened by an armed citizenry. They decided the later was a good thing and the former were things that could not be stopped guns or no.

Do you want to stop gun crimes? The most effective means is to have a homogeneous population. And yet this is the very thing that the USA was founded to prevent.

Secondly you can prevent a large part by eliminating civil unrest. But liberals have no intentions of doing that. The founding of the Democrat party was due to civil unrest - the south against the north.

Thirdly you can reduce fear of one group for another. But things like civic leaders these days USE fear to gain and retain power.

You just saw Jay make blatant fake accounts of what Trump said and then when corrected by the very tweets used to make false charges we saw no apologies. Rather even worse reactions. He doesn't think that it's important that members of Congress have Alzheimer's or Dementia. Well maybe he would be against it if it only pertained to conservatives.

So, I see no way of reducing gun crimes significantly in the present atmosphere. And especially not when liberals have decided that there is nothing too low to do if they can defeat Trump.

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:06:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2017 9:01 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:46:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Wait - you mean the Army uses data???

Those guys who already know everything might be disappointed! :-)

It is apparent who is the one disappointed. The urge to grab guns is in the mind of all who would be slaves. To not give away your own freedom but to throw that of an entire nation away.

The NAZI regime started with Hitler claiming that a Jew was involved in a gun murder and no Jews should be allowed to own guns.

That sounds just like a Krygowski law doesn't it - the first thing Germany did rolling into Poland was to seize all weapons from it's citizens. With a racial history like that you still haven't learned.



http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/1938jews.gif

Despite pulling Frank's leg a lot guns are a subject that was talked to death by the founders. They well knew that drunken bums would shoot up places, that criminals would use guns for criminal purposes and that the very fabric of a government could be threatened by an armed citizenry. They decided the later was a good thing and the former were things that could not be stopped guns or no.

Do you want to stop gun crimes? The most effective means is to have a homogeneous population. And yet this is the very thing that the USA was founded to prevent.

Secondly you can prevent a large part by eliminating civil unrest. But liberals have no intentions of doing that. The founding of the Democrat party was due to civil unrest - the south against the north.

Thirdly you can reduce fear of one group for another. But things like civic leaders these days USE fear to gain and retain power.

You just saw Jay make blatant fake accounts of what Trump said and then when corrected by the very tweets used to make false charges we saw no apologies. Rather even worse reactions. He doesn't think that it's important that members of Congress have Alzheimer's or Dementia. Well maybe he would be against it if it only pertained to conservatives.

So, I see no way of reducing gun crimes significantly in the present atmosphere. And especially not when liberals have decided that there is nothing too low to do if they can defeat Trump.

Say Tom, since when is posting an exact quote of a Trump tweet a "fake account?" All I do is re-post your links with the actual language cited in the link. It's like you post a Webster's Dictionary link claiming "black" means "white," and all I do is post to the same link and say, not suprisingly, "black" means "black." It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Your accuracy rate is about .05%.

But it is true that I don't believe your tin-foil hat websites, probably because the world for me exists beyond the Breitbart conspiracy mills and what I see on the internet. At least in this state, I know a lot of the decision-makers personally. It doesn't mean that I agree with their politics, but I know they are not engaged in some grand, liberal conspiracy to subjugate the good Americans like you. I also know a lot of pharmacists. My father was a pharmacist. They don't run around talking about other people's medications and whether they are taking them -- something they wouldn't know in any event.

What is striking to me is that the leaders of the tin-foil hat brigade claim to be Christians. What ever happened to Christian civility and charity? Being Christian these days means toting a gun, calling people faggots and telling the down-trodden to get a job -- and maybe occupying a federal bird sanctuary or two. I mean its really fun to do all that stuff, but is it Christian? Is it Christian to call me or Frank liars when its not true or to make claims with no factual support? Really, Tom, what would Jesus do? Jesus would love me and Frank -- unconditionally. How come you don't love us? Aren't you a Christian? Are you a MUSLIM?

-- Jay Beattie.