View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

The tragedy in Isla Vista

Posted: June 2, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 2, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

By now, most of us have heard of the terrible tragedy that happened in Santa Barbara before Memorial Day. A very confused young man committed a series of violent acts that resulted in the deaths of six college students.

There has already been a great deal of ink and talk about this. But, being the parent of a former UCSB student, I feel that a few observations are in order.

I heard the tremendous anguish of the father who spoke at the memorial service regarding the needless death of his son.

Nothing can assuage this pain and suffering that he and the other families are going through.

However, at one point, the father had the group chant “not one more” in reference to stronger gun controls that would have theoretically prevented this tragedy.

I must respectfully disagree. This is not a gun control issue but a mental health issue.

Why? Three of the six victims were killed by stabbing. Are we willing to outlaw knives as well as guns? What if a baseball bat was used? Will we outlaw bats?

The killer also used semi-automatic handguns that were purchased legally. This should tell us something very important. 

There were no assault rifles, sawed-off shotguns, or any other “exotic” weapons. These were common self-defense weapons in the hands of a mentally disturbed individual.

The hole in our system, clearly, is the answer to this question: Why was a person with a known history of mental illness still able to pass all of the background checks and scrutiny from the state of California?

It would seem like a very prudent and easy step for a doctor, parent, peace officer orjudge to simply place a “block” on an individual for a weapons purchase. 

The hold could be removed if a person provides credible evidence that the individual does not pose a risk to the community.

I am a gun advocate, but this hole needs to be plugged. We don’t need more restrictive guns laws. We need to refine what we already have.

Further, I have heard very little discussion about the party, drinking, and drug culture of Isla Vista.

Over the last few months there have been at least three rapes, a riot, and the death of a drunken coed falling off a cliff. And now a mass murder.

Young people seeking an atmosphere with little parental supervision, scant university oversight, and weak law enforcement are drawn to IV like flies.

I was recently in a frat house in Isla Vista. This was a few months after “parent weekend,” before which the place had been sanitized for visiting moms and dads.

I went up an unlit stairwell to the second floor. There was trash coating nearly every inch of the central hallway.Garbage was overflowing in every bin.

And, best of all, the overpowering scent of human urine was everywhere.

I was amazed that the university allows its student to live in such conditions and grants Greek organizations the permission to operate on campus with such squalid living areas.

One little dark secret is that the female sorority houses have a “house mom” who guards the integrity of the residents. Male fraternity houses have no such adult supervision.

Seems like a sexist double standard that the leftist UC system should be held accountable for.

In one visit to UCSB, this author was standing on the cliff that overlooks the Pacific Ocean. Five male and female students were seen stripping naked and going swimming.

This was about 2 p.m. Do you think drugs or alcohol had anything to do with that scene? You tell me.

What happens when it gets dark? One can only imagine.

To make things worse, law enforcement is poor at best. Underage students routinely drink at area bars and are not carded. Complaints to these “law enforcement” departments are routinely ignored.

The irony of all of this is that UCSB is an excellent university. The academic “half” of the school boasts several Nobel Laureates and a fine reputation.

The party “half” is a dark embarrassment that fosters rape, alcoholism/drug use, and death.

In the latest Princeton Review rankings of the top party schools in the nation, UCSB is ranked No. 2. This is not a badge of honor or distinction. It’s an embarrassment.

It is difficult to say what actions need to be taken to prevent another tragedy. But it seems like two prudent steps would be a mental health block on gun purchases and the cleanup of party destinations like Isla Vista that merely attract trouble.

Steve Lunetta is a resident of Santa Clarita. He can be reached at slunetta63@yahoo.com.

Comments

NotSoAwesomeTown: Posted: June 2, 2014 7:15 a.m.

Glad to see someone sharing a sane view of this tragic event. The true issue here was the mental health problems that clearly plagued this kid, yet it seems there were opportunities for intervention that were missed. It's a shame they've chosen this event to evangelize stricter gun control, effectively overshadowing the victims' stories and discussion of mental health treatment in the US.


ricketzz: Posted: June 2, 2014 7:18 a.m.

Get off my lawn.


CaptGene: Posted: June 2, 2014 7:57 a.m.

I have to take issue with the second sentence where the killer was described as a "very confused young man". He wasn't confused, he was mentally ill.


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 2, 2014 8:10 a.m.

"Very confused young man" = euphemism for mentally ill....


projalice11: Posted: June 2, 2014 8:58 a.m.

A tragedy is a tragedy whether the person causing the tragedy is
"a very confused person or mentally ill..

"What difference does it make "

"This is not a gun control issue but a mental health issue."
IT IS BOTH ....


CaptGene: Posted: June 2, 2014 8:59 a.m.

Correct AR, wouldn't want to stigmatize anyone, that might hurt their feelings and then there's no telling what they might do.


17trillion: Posted: June 2, 2014 9:04 a.m.

He was a nutbag and nothing short of a gun ban would have saved those three kids and even then, perhaps not. To the father, I'm sorry but stuff happens and that doesn't give you the right to dump on my rights.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 2, 2014 9:20 a.m.

17trill, a gun ban wouldn't have saved anyone any more than a knife ban would, and he killed half his victims with a knife.

"Bans" are meaningless. We "ban" illegal aliens from entering the country, and we have about 20 million of them anyway.

We "ban" heroin, but if you want it you'll have no trouble getting it.

I've said it before: if anything, this incident shows the need for more relaxed CCW laws in this state, such as exist in about 40 other states. Had there been a responsible adult somewhere on-scene with a legal gun, this bonehead may well have been stopped before the body count racked up so high.

I'll admit, maybe not. But it sure couldn't have been any worse. As it was, these victims were unarmed sheep when a wolf was on the loose.


chefgirl358: Posted: June 2, 2014 9:35 a.m.

Great column.


CaptGene: Posted: June 2, 2014 10:20 a.m.

BB, he may never have attempted this in the first place if he knew that there was a some certainty of an immediate armed response. That having been said, he may have just used a bomb. Oh wait, bombs are banned, right?


BrianBaker: Posted: June 2, 2014 10:54 a.m.

There it is, CG.

I've yet to see one of these loons start their spree at a gun store or range.

The Boston Marathon bombers used kitchen cookware. Ban pressure cookers!


Indy: Posted: June 2, 2014 1:33 p.m.

NotSoAwesomeTown wrote: Glad to see someone sharing a sane view of this tragic event. The true issue here was the mental health problems that clearly plagued this kid, yet it seems there were opportunities for intervention that were missed. It's a shame they've chosen this event to evangelize stricter gun control, effectively overshadowing the victims' stories and discussion of mental health treatment in the US.

Lunetta wrote: “The hole in our system, clearly, is the answer to this question: Why was a person with a known history of mental illness still able to pass all of the background checks and scrutiny from the state of California?”

Indy: Perhaps both of these folks can explain to us beyond their standard ideology positions why the Congress, with what, 90% approval for better background checks from the public, did nothing . . .

Every day see about 32 Americans killed from gun violence, every day! (www.bradycampaign.org/ )

Every day we see on average about 140 people treated in ERs from gun related incidents, every day . . . (www.bradycampaign.org/ )

Yet, the poster writes . . . “. It's a shame they've chosen this event to evangelize stricter gun control, “

Using the word ‘evangelize’ is inappropriate there . . . dealing with reality is appropriate.

In any event, even the Father of one of the killed kids who’s been on TV of late promoting ‘Not one more’ . . . noted that he took little interest or action when he saw the murders of the elementary school kids at Sandy Hook . . . until the reality was ‘effecting him’, even he did nothing . . . just like congress.

Promoting better mental health policy is no question something that needs attention . . . but you make guns available to anyone . . . mentally deranged people will get them . . . even people who for one reason or another, get ‘worked up’, if there’s a gun in house ‘handy’, well, you connect the dots . . .


philellis: Posted: June 2, 2014 1:41 p.m.

Promoting better mental health policy is no question something that needs attention . . . but you make knives [guns] available to anyone . . . mentally deranged people will get them . . . even people who for one reason or another, get ‘worked up’, if there’s a knife [gun]in house ‘handy’, well, you connect the dots . . .


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 2, 2014 1:58 p.m.

We have a hole in our boat.
Most people look at the hole and say "let's plug the hole."
Indy says- "there's a hole in the boat. Let's throw away the boat."

Not a good way of approaching things, sir.


17trillion: Posted: June 2, 2014 2:07 p.m.

What exactly do you want Black Knight? I keep asking this but the libtards never answer.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 2, 2014 3:43 p.m.

Indy's quoting the Brady Bunch as a "source"? That ranks right up there with the times he's used HuffPo.

Anyway, here's Prof. Gary Kleck with some stats:

"The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization."

Another article with sources: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0130/Gun-control-101-Do-Americans-often-use-firearms-in-self-defense

Wikipedia overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

No matter how you slice it, successful defensive use of guns FAR outnumber casualties, by orders of magnitude.


tech: Posted: June 2, 2014 5:56 p.m.

Indy: Perhaps both of these folks can explain to us beyond their standard ideology positions why the Congress, with what, 90% approval for better background checks from the public, did nothing . . .

Non sequitur. California HAS the universal background checks the legislation you mentioned sought. How effective was it? Did you know the deputies that interviewed Rodgers after his mother's intervention request didn't check the CA DOJ DROS (Dealers Record Of Sale) database? And that action still wouldn't have addressed the non-firearm weapons that were responsible for 50% of the victim fatalities.

Stop chanting talking points and think prior to posting. You disrupt rational dialog about a serious societal issue with your political obsession.


PhilJ: Posted: June 2, 2014 6:22 p.m.

Why the cops didn't stop Elliot rodger?

http://uniformstories.com/why-didn-t-the-cops-stop-elliot-rodger?fb_action_ids=10152414502750622&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B518207388302399%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D


stevehw: Posted: June 3, 2014 9:20 p.m.

I particularly like this quote from that site:

"Let me start by saying how tired I am of people on both sides of the political spectrum lobbing names at one another like so many school yard idiots. Do you think terms like “Libtard” and “Fascist” is supposed to jump start a well-thought out discourse about what the **** is going on with our society? Knock it off, it’s stupid."


tech: Posted: June 3, 2014 11:10 p.m.

Indeed. School yard taunts aren't the basis for rational discussion. I didn't care for them in grade school and time hasn't improved my opinion of them.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 8:15 a.m.

I'll stop using "libtard" when the libtards stop calling me racist for objecting to the unqualified idiot we have in the Whitehouse.

Tech, that's all fine and good but we aren't dealing with rational people. The high road has gotten us nowhere.


tech: Posted: June 3, 2014 8:44 a.m.

There are rational people among the cohort that actually decides elections, 17t. They can be reached and persuaded by reason and facts. Ideologues are driven by emotion.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 9:00 a.m.

"There are rational people among the cohort that actually decides elections, 17t."

Really? As far as CA is concerned, I adamantly disagree with you. Rationalism has left the state and very few of us remain. While CA is stuck in man made drought with the 5th highest unemployment in the country and the highest taxes in the country and the highest poverty rate in the country not to mention home to 25% of the illegals in this country, our legislature is passing laws mandating condom access in prisons even though sex in prison is a felony. The US is not that far behind. They have won Tech and unless and until something radically bad happens, it's not going to change. Besides, them using the same techniques that you're deriding me on hasn't hurt them has it?


tech: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:03 p.m.

My statement was national, rather than CA specific. In this state, critical mass in the urban centers are invested in redistributionist/collectivist ideology in their single party enclaves.

I'm well aware of the double standard. For example, the misogynistic rape fantasies hurled at conservative women are easily revealed in an online search. Most of the media are willfully blind to the rage filled invective from the Left. "War on Women" indeed.

I'll turn this around as an exercise. Show me an example where similar tactics have been a winning strategy for conservatives, libertarians and independents.

Here are two example of what I consider a winning approach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=kp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ9Si5pkAqg --edited.


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:32 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: We have a hole in our boat. Most people look at the hole and say "let's plug the hole." Indy says- "there's a hole in the boat. Let's throw away the boat." Not a good way of approaching things, sir.

Indy: Can you be a bit more precise on the issue . . . (PS – I was not in the Navy . . . contrary to the Village People’s request that I enlist . . . ‘we want you, we want you, we want you as a new recruit’!!!)


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:38 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Anyway, here's Prof. Gary Kleck with some stats:

"The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization."

Indy: Yes, I see this survey quoted often by conservative advocates for more gun deaths but I find it interesting we see ‘NOTHING’ in the news where someone has ‘defended’ their home . . .

Using the statistics above for the 6 year period and the 2.5 million incidents, we would have over 1,000 incidents ‘PER DAY’ . . . yet there’s nothing in the news . . . made interesting by the severity of the gun control debate . . .

But please, give us some links to the substantiation . . . even from Fox!!!!


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:42 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Perhaps both of these folks can explain to us beyond their standard ideology positions why the Congress, with what, 90% approval for better background checks from the public, did nothing . . .

Non sequitur. California HAS the universal background checks the legislation you mentioned sought. How effective was it? Did you know the deputies that interviewed Rodgers after his mother's intervention request didn't check the CA DOJ DROS (Dealers Record Of Sale) database? And that action still wouldn't have addressed the non-firearm weapons that were responsible for 50% of the victim fatalities.

Indy: Interesting that the poster chooses as congress to ‘DO NOTHING’ . . . even though the reality supports that keeping guns out of the hands of even the mentally ill can prevent gun deaths.

No single incident should determine causality but indeed the statistics show that about 30% of gun sales are done through ‘shows’ with no background checks. Is plugging that ‘hole’ unreasonable consindering the US sees about 32 people KILLED ‘each day’ from gun violence?

Tech wrote: Stop chanting talking points and think prior to posting. You disrupt rational dialog about a serious societal issue with your political obsession.

Indy: Yes I can see why libertarian market fundamentalist don’t like having their failed ideology dissected to show its failures . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: June 3, 2014 2:15 p.m.

Indy: "Using the statistics above for the 6 year period and the 2.5 million incidents, we would have over 1,000 incidents ‘PER DAY’ . . . yet there’s nothing in the news . . . made interesting by the severity of the gun control debate . . ."

Of course there's nothing in the news about this. It doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream press, which is nothing but a mouthpiece for leftist causes.

Further, if "the news" ran a story for every time guns were successfully used defensively, your newspaper would be as thick as a phone book each day.

Interestingly enough, you're not the first one to point out the lack of coverage; we gun owners do the same thing constantly. Even when an event IS reported, if a citizen uses a gun to stop the attack, that aspect will typically be left out. Here's an example: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

"But please, give us some links to the substantiation . . . even from Fox!!!!"

I gave SEVERAL links. Can't you read?



tech: Posted: June 3, 2014 3:36 p.m.

Using the statistics above for the 6 year period and the 2.5 million incidents, we would have over 1,000 incidents ‘PER DAY’ . . . yet there’s nothing in the news . . . made interesting by the severity of the gun control debate . . . - Indy

Sourced links from news media here:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx


tech: Posted: June 3, 2014 3:38 p.m.

"No single incident should determine causality but indeed the statistics show that about 30% of gun sales are done through ‘shows’ with no background checks." - Indy

Source please.


stevehw: Posted: June 3, 2014 4:06 p.m.

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

A good description of what is normally called Base Rate Fallacy.


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 3, 2014 4:43 p.m.

Looks like there are now Federal and State efforts to stop mentally disturbed folks from buying guns.

I'm crossing the line here. I agree with this. Guys, its time. This is not a slippery slope. This is common sense.


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 4:48 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Indy: "Using the statistics above for the 6 year period and the 2.5 million incidents, we would have over 1,000 incidents ‘PER DAY’ . . . yet there’s nothing in the news . . . made interesting by the severity of the gun control debate . . ."

Of course there's nothing in the news about this. It doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream press, which is nothing but a mouthpiece for leftist causes.

Indy: Then why not simply give me the links to Fox?

BrianBaker wrote: Further, if "the news" ran a story for every time guns were successfully used defensively, your newspaper would be as thick as a phone book each day.

Indy: Sorry, no evidence of your assertion . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Interestingly enough, you're not the first one to point out the lack of coverage; we gun owners do the same thing constantly. Even when an event IS reported, if a citizen uses a gun to stop the attack, that aspect will typically be left out. Here's an example: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

Indy: 1999?

BrianBaker wrote: "But please, give us some links to the substantiation . . . even from Fox!!!!"

I gave SEVERAL links. Can't you read?

Indy: Again, the study you noted is often cited for nonsupport of the conclusions . .

The lack of any media coverage even by Fox weakens the study further.


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 4:52 p.m.

Tech wrote: Using the statistics above for the 6 year period and the 2.5 million incidents, we would have over 1,000 incidents ‘PER DAY’ . . . yet there’s nothing in the news . . . made interesting by the severity of the gun control debate . . . - Indy

Sourced links from news media here:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Indy: I expect that some folks will use a weapon to defend themselves . . . and indeed this site at least have some evidence of same . . . but we’re looking for on average, over a 1,000 PER DAY?

In any event, I’m not advocating ‘confiscation’ of guns . . . just the removal of weapons that are ‘militarized’ like the assault weapons . . . and ‘semi auto’ handguns.


BrianBaker: Posted: June 3, 2014 5:00 p.m.

"Indy: Again, the study you noted is often cited for nonsupport of the conclusions . . The lack of any media coverage even by Fox weakens the study further."

Yet again proving your inability to read simple English.

The links I originally posted had other links and sources within... as I CLEARLY stated.

But OH YEAH........ You're the guy who knows so much about everything you NEVER bother to read any source material, other than whatever fantastical mush you cite to attempt support your dogmatic socialist agenda.

Okay, you're the one claiming that the data is false. PROVE IT. Cite something. Anything.

I really can't waste any more time on your inane nonsense. I get more intelligent responses from my four-year-old granddaughter.


tech: Posted: June 3, 2014 5:26 p.m.

In any event, I’m not advocating ‘confiscation’ of guns . . . just the removal of weapons that are ‘militarized’ like the assault weapons . . . and ‘semi auto’ handguns. - Indy

Why? What, specifically, does your appellation "militarized" mean? Why semi-auto handguns vs. say, semi-auto shotguns?


projalice11: Posted: June 3, 2014 5:31 p.m.

Fox News was mentioned in a couple of the post above:

By the way Fox News Ratings have dropped significantly..

" Keep up the good work Fox"


tech: Posted: June 3, 2014 6:25 p.m.

projalice11: By the way Fox News Ratings have dropped significantly..

Source?


stevehw: Posted: June 4, 2014 10:57 p.m.

I found this very interesting article, although a bit old, which goes into great detail about the difficulties of gathering data and doing any meaningful statistical analyses on gun use, concealed carry, etc.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Crime_and_Justice_gundefense_2000.pdf

It's a bit long, but a very good explanation of how researchers have to deal with confounding factors in analyzing data in social science research. It doesn't take any position either way, but is a good read for those interested in how surveys, samples, and studies have been and should be conducted to try to "tease out" the real relationships which exist, and not just rely on sloganeering like "an armed society is a polite society", etc.


ricketzz: Posted: June 4, 2014 6:53 a.m.

Not that anyone important would watch any cable TV channel for anything other than a clown show, here's the sad story of a dying medium (TV) and their dying viewers.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/05/29/Fox-News-hits-12-year-low-in-ratings-with-important-demographic/1541401386313/


CaptGene: Posted: June 4, 2014 10:33 a.m.

projalice11: "By the way Fox News Ratings have dropped significantly.."

UPI: "Fox News is the highest rated 24-hour news channel."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/05/29/Fox-News-hits-12-year-low-in-ratings-with-important-demographic/1541401386313/

HuffPo: "Fox News maintained its cable news dominance over competing networks in both the demo and in total viewers."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/28/may-cable-news-ratings-fox-news-lows_n_5405773.html

Forbes: "Fox News Sees Continued Growth In Ratings And Subscription Fee"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/04/17/fox-news-sees-continued-growth-in-ratings-and-subscription-fee/

Who ya gonna believe?


Nitesho: Posted: June 4, 2014 1:35 p.m.

3 killed by knife....no calls for knife control
3 killed by gun....everyone is losing thier minds
Unknown hit by car.....no calls for car control


Hypocrites.....


Indy: Posted: June 4, 2014 1:55 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: Again, the study you noted is often cited for nonsupport of the conclusions . . The lack of any media coverage even by Fox weakens the study further."

Yet again proving your inability to read simple English. The links I originally posted had other links and sources within... as I CLEARLY stated.

Indy: The problem that faces you is that being a ideologist, you can think beyond it.

1,000+ a day and nearly zero coverage on a topic that has been seen by the public to the point that 90% of same want better back ground checks?

BrianBaker wrote: But OH YEAH........ You're the guy who knows so much about everything you NEVER bother to read any source material, other than whatever fantastical mush you cite to attempt support your dogmatic socialist agenda.

Indy: Another problem you face is similar to the above in that once the ‘premise’ you support is shown to be faulty, it matters little that ‘thousands’ of conservative sites that parrot same are of little value.

You struggle to grasp, for example, that the Constitution is ‘as written’ . . . doesn’t include extraneous references and if the Founding Fathers were so intent in including your ‘conservative’ ideology beliefs, they would have included same . . . BUT THEY DIDN’T

BrianBaker wrote: Okay, you're the one claiming that the data is false. PROVE IT. Cite something. Anything.

Indy: Again, with over a 1,000+ reports assumed in this study, you should be the one providing the support . . . and it looks like YOU CAN’T.

I give credit to Tech for at least finding a site that does show some results but these are nowhere close the study you noted.

And again, I'm not for removing all guns, just the 'militarized' versions that are designed to KILL PEOPLE . . . specifically assault rifles and semi-auto handguns.

BrianBaker wrote: I really can't waste any more time on your inane nonsense. I get more intelligent responses from my four-year-old granddaughter.

Indy: I’ve noticed that this next to last sentence (is it copy and paste?) is the same EVERYTIME you can’t support your ideology positions . . . and I’m not the only one here that sees that . . .


Nitesho: Posted: June 4, 2014 4:21 p.m.

Define militarized Indy...for both rifles and handguns.

I wager everything you will quote will be cosmetic. And if you say lethality, I can point to at least to 5 models of each that are more powerful and won't fit you militarized narrative.


tech: Posted: June 4, 2014 4:24 p.m.

"And again, I'm not for removing all guns, just the 'militarized' versions that are designed to KILL PEOPLE . . . specifically assault rifles and semi-auto handguns." - Indy

And again, why? What, specifically, does your appellation "militarized" mean? Why semi-auto handguns vs. say, semi-auto shotguns or revolvers?


CaptGene: Posted: June 4, 2014 5:42 p.m.

Tech, Nitesho, as usual, Indy Nile/Black Knight hasn't a clue about the subject at hand. Unless the pre-packaged answer is available from someone that he can plagiarize, he will simply apply a label of some sort to you and then stammer on with some talking points he's found.


emheilbrun: Posted: June 4, 2014 6:17 p.m.

Indy writes, "You struggle to grasp, for example, that the Constitution is ‘as written’ ..."

Wrong. It is subject to interpretation and application. Can you find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the first amendment?


Indy: Posted: June 4, 2014 7:09 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: Define militarized Indy...for both rifles and handguns.

Indy: Militarized basically is the ability to shoot bullets quickly thus semi-auto and auto, both rifles and handguns.

Hunting rifles and hand guns can have manually loaded bullets without quick change magazines.

Shot guns already have I believe a 3 round limit.

This allows people to have ‘deadly force’ without enabling them to completely control a situation where innocent and unarmed bystanders have no ability to respond.

As I saw here yesterday, the link that Tech provided on protective incidents, lots of this was accomplished with a hand gun, most of which can hold 6 rounds and provide for individual protection without getting into a full blown shoot out which is where we’re seeing the mass murders.

Nitesho wrote: I wager everything you will quote will be cosmetic. And if you say lethality, I can point to at least to 5 models of each that are more powerful and won't fit you militarized narrative.

Indy: Yes, I don’t know if the public for example, needs a 50 caliber rifle . . . that would completely obliterate any ‘game’ for a hunter.

Other than that, many hunting rifles are of larger caliber but limiting the ability to reload quickly gets us away from ‘militarized’ weapons.

I personally don’t need to know the hundreds of makes and model of guns other than at a high level, allow their use but restricted to hunting, target shooting and self-protection.


Indy: Posted: June 4, 2014 7:12 p.m.

C(omdey)aptG(old)ene wrote: Tech, Nitesho, as usual, Indy Nile/Black Knight hasn't a clue about the subject at hand. Unless the pre-packaged answer is available from someone that he can plagiarize, he will simply apply a label of some sort to you and then stammer on with some talking points he's found.

Indy: Notice this poster hasn’t really made any contribution to the thread topic or discussion.

Notice that he hangs onto nonsense like it’s his ‘lifeblood’. . .

But again, it’s comedy gold!


Indy: Posted: June 4, 2014 7:23 p.m.

Emheilbrun wrote: Indy writes, "You struggle to grasp, for example, that the Constitution is ‘as written’ ..."

Wrong. It is subject to interpretation and application. Can you find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the first amendment?

Indy: I think most folks realize the vocabulary and diction used in the late 1700s is different than today.

But even in the 2nd Amendment, does the first three words ‘A well regulated . . .’, well is that a difficult concept to grasp?

As far as the establishment clause, let’s let Thomas Jefferson answer your question about ‘church and state’:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

In any event, the Founding Fathers did allow the Constitution to be ‘amended’ realizing change would occur.

Likewise, the reference to the ‘Federalist Papers’ does indeed make Jefferson’s clarification of the 1st Amendment ‘apart’ of the actual document go against my criticisms of ‘external documents’ that the conservatives here like to assert as to which the Founding Father really mean for the interpretation of the Constitution.

My point all along is to accept the document ‘as it’ with the understanding interpretation will be done as well as amendments.

My biggest concern is that we don’t make the Constitution a ‘party specific’ or ideology based document that ignores the reality that the Founding Fathers look to ‘compromise’ as a primary factor in governance. Where some here advocate the ‘my way or the highway’ is my greatest concern and violates the basic tenet as I’ve cited here from the Founding Fathers.

I would think that the preamble of the Constitution which includes the words ‘promote the general welfare’ is clear to me but argued against by most of the conservatives here.

I don’t expect the ‘debate’ on the Constitution will every end . . . but citing contrasting viewpoints in such a debate is what can reasonably be expected without getting ‘worked up’ that the ‘my way or the highway’ approach is preferred.


emheilbrun: Posted: June 4, 2014 8:24 p.m.

Indy writes, "My point all along is to accept the document ‘as it’ with the understanding interpretation will be done as well as amendments."

So how are the tap dancing lessons coming along?

The Supreme Court rendered their interpretation of the 2nd ammendment via District of Columbia v. Heller.


tech: Posted: June 5, 2014 11:30 p.m.

Repetition, Black Knight.

I'm curious about your dismissal of the Federalist Papers as irrelevant to the Constitution in light of your repeated quotation of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Are you a contortionist as well?

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html


Nitesho: Posted: June 5, 2014 6:02 a.m.

Indy,

Your ignorance on firearms is alarming. Shotguns with a 3 round limit? Semi-automatic is your definition of militarized? Handguns with single shots? Do you consider revolvers semi automatic?

Learn what you are talking about...wow...just...wow.

I'm guessing the only people you feel should have guns is government which of course can be trusted 100%


ricketzz: Posted: June 5, 2014 6:46 a.m.

Capt Gene; The target demo Men 18-49 isn't big on watching TV news.
Fox's biggest audience is dying off. The 18-49 year olds watching Fox News are not normal. The biggest part of the potential TV viewer universe typically never turns on the traditional TV except for a few times a year. The younger the "viewer" the less likely they are to watch TV, period.

TV News is no different from the show where people get knocked into a mud puddle, over and over. With the exception of Democracy Now, all American TV News has conflicts of interest that affect their reporting; including PBS and NPR. If an oil company underwrites your position you are not going to report fairly on excess carbon dioxide. Aljazeera is better than any US cable network, but they too are pro-petroleum. Russia Today is counterpoint to fascist channels like MSNBC and Fox News and highly informative as well as funny, at times. One must always consider the source. We can all learn from each other. We just need to keep talking.


CaptGene: Posted: June 5, 2014 7:20 a.m.

racketzz: "One must always consider the source"

On this we can agree, which is why I did my research to debunk the source of the quote.


17trillion: Posted: June 5, 2014 9:19 a.m.

"Shot guns already have I believe a 3 round limit."


Laughing.....Tiss but a scratch!


emheilbrun: Posted: June 5, 2014 10:16 a.m.

Get back! He's got a MBA!


17trillion: Posted: June 5, 2014 10:28 a.m.

This is an example of the intellect of people proposing more gun control laws.

For the 100th time I ask: What exactly do you gun control people want in addition to current laws?


tech: Posted: June 5, 2014 11:10 a.m.

"As I saw here yesterday, the link that Tech provided on protective incidents, lots of this was accomplished with a hand gun, most of which can hold 6 rounds and provide for individual protection without getting into a full blown shoot out which is where we’re seeing the mass murders." - Indy

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with speed loaders. By the way, the majority of handgun sales are semi-auto pistols, not revolvers.

Keep the amusement coming, Black Knight!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

"Shot guns already have I believe a 3 round limit." - Indy

LOL! Tell us, Black Knight, which of these shotguns has greater lethality?

http://www.benelliusa.com/m2-field-shotgun

or

http://www.benelliusa.com/m2-tactical-shotgun


ricketzz: Posted: June 6, 2014 6:34 a.m.

All you need to know about the Fox News' audience demographics is look at the commercials. What the heck is a catheter? ED? Low T? It's pretty clear that the audience for angry news-like substance is rapidly approaching the great Town Hall in the Sky.

Gun control is what people argue about when they feel the need to waste time and energy. Gun control means a tight group at 50m to some of us. Any of us can turn into a craven murderer; we just haven't had the right buttons pushed at the wrong time.


17trillion: Posted: June 6, 2014 7:56 a.m.

"It's pretty clear that the audience for angry news-like substance is rapidly approaching the great Town Hall in the Sky."

We already went over this Ricketzz, you're slipping! Fox news average age is 60, CNN is 59, and MSLSD is 56. MSLSD would kill for Fox's advertisers.


emheilbrun: Posted: June 6, 2014 8:09 a.m.

I don't know, seems a bit early to start shopping for a Fox News coffin.

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2014/03/26/pew-report-msnbc-lost-more-viewers-revenue-2013-fox-news-cnn-combined


tech: Posted: June 6, 2014 11:03 a.m.

"Any of us can turn into a craven murderer; we just haven't had the right buttons pushed at the wrong time." - ricketzz

Here you make an extrapolation error. Speak for yourself and don't presume to do so for others.


Indy: Posted: June 6, 2014 1:41 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: Indy, Your ignorance on firearms is alarming. Shotguns with a 3 round limit? Semi-automatic is your definition of militarized? Handguns with single shots? Do you consider revolvers semi automatic? Learn what you are talking about...wow...just...wow.

Indy: Yes, shotguns have limits but I must admit having them with more round capacity does make them militarized.

Why should the public have weapons that are designed specifically to ‘KILL PEOPLE’ and have large capacity magazines?

I think guns were for hunting . . . and self-protection. In the vast majority of cases, people using guns in self-defense don’t even fire them . . . the threat is enough.

Even ‘staring down’ a ‘double barrel’ shot gun would be motivation for me to leave . . .

But what we see here in your ignorance is advocating semi-auto weapons that allow you to kill others in great quantity . . . why?

Nitesho wrote: I'm guessing the only people you feel should have guns is government which of course can be trusted 100%

Indy: Do you trust the military here in the US?

Are you one of the conservatives that believes the ‘white militias’ are going to overthrow the US government?

What are you afraid of?


Indy: Posted: June 6, 2014 1:46 p.m.

Tech wrote: "As I saw here yesterday, the link that Tech provided on protective incidents, lots of this was accomplished with a hand gun, most of which can hold 6 rounds and provide for individual protection without getting into a full blown shoot out which is where we’re seeing the mass murders." - Indy

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with speed loaders. By the way, the majority of handgun sales are semi-auto pistols, not revolvers. Keep the amusement coming, Black Knight!

Indy: Yes, that’s one of the areas where we need to change things . . . as the 10,000 or so people KILLED each year from gun violence attest.

Again, why does someone need more than 6 rounds in a revolver?

Tech wrote: "Shot guns already have I believe a 3 round limit." - Indy

LOL! Tell us, Black Knight, which of these shotguns has greater lethality?

Indy: Same question, why does a shot gun need more than 3 rounds?


tech: Posted: June 6, 2014 4:39 p.m.

Amateur. :-D

I'm not answering any of your questions until you respond to mine, Black Knight. You're the one proposing restrictions on law abiding citizens. Justify them or quit.


Nitesho: Posted: June 7, 2014 9:15 p.m.

I'm speechless at Indy. I am literally speechless,,,

I cannot fathom the ignorance that must be floating around in his head....


tech: Posted: June 7, 2014 10:08 p.m.

It is appalling, Nitesho. You'd expect a rational person would comprehend their ignorance in a field and take advantage of an opportunity to learn from those with expertise. Indy's ego won't allow that.


Nitesho: Posted: June 7, 2014 3:18 p.m.

Right on tech

What these bed wetting liberals don't understand is..if someone is he'll bent on killing someone, they will find a way.

Fact.
3 were killed by gun
3 were killed by knife
Unknown attempted murder by car

What is being focused on? Guns

Why not ban knifes?
Or cars?

Becuase is doesn't fit the nanny state narrative that these pro government gun liberals love to sprew

Oh and Indy...I served in military so you can speak your ignore dribble so spare me your indignation. It's not the military I worry about having guns, it's the BLM,IRS, FDA, USPS, etc. You see, and you won't understand is...the government cannot legally use the us military on domestic soil. So, over the past 20 years, there has been a build up of interal para-military units within the government.

Those are who I fear having guns...and you should too. Regardless of the reasons, we saw the first use of this in NV a couple of months ago.

Oh and by the way, I saw a really sweet Remington 870 shotgun today at oak tree. It's a 6+1. Same weapon the police use. 6+1 means 6 shells in feeder and one in the chamber. Indy, and you provide your source for your 3 round max comment? Dailykos or the onion....lol


Nitesho: Posted: June 7, 2014 3:20 p.m.

Indy....source please for this..."10,000 or so people KILLED each year from gun violence attest"

Post the same figures for those killed by a hammer, and knife and a baseball bat.

You can have your own opinion, just not your own facts. --edited.


therightstuff: Posted: June 7, 2014 8:52 p.m.

Indy....source please for this..."10,000 or so people KILLED each year from gun violence attest"

Indy? Source? Good luck with that.


Indy: Posted: June 8, 2014 8:31 p.m.

Tech wrote: Amateur. :-D

Indy: LOL

Tech wrote: I'm not answering any of your questions until you respond to mine, Black Knight. You're the one proposing restrictions on law abiding citizens. Justify them or quit.

Indy: Hey, I don’t mind if you evade my questions . . . . just proves you can’t debate them in a supporting manner . . .


Indy: Posted: June 8, 2014 8:36 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: I'm speechless at Indy. I am literally speechless,,, I cannot fathom the ignorance that must be floating around in his head....

Indy: I feel your pain . . . it’s painful to realize that your ideology is a failure.

And it’s even more disturbing that white supremacist militia are being ‘saved’ by conservatives to allow the use of militarized assault weapons.

Don’t you watch the news? Who do you think was supporting Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy?

And these folks were pointing their weapons as authorized federal Marshalls . . .

It’s bad enough that malcontents get their hands on these assault rifles but even worse that we have small groups of empowered conservatives that think they are going to overthrow the US government.

Our military would eliminate them quickly . . .

But more important what is fueling the hatred toward the federal government, a government a lot of Americans have died to protect?


Indy: Posted: June 8, 2014 8:42 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: What is being focused on? Guns Why not ban knifes?
Or cars?

Indy: It’s sad to realize that this poster can’t grasp the nature of using militarized weapons like semi auto handguns to kill people versus someone trying to do the same think with knife.

And comparing to cars? It makes you wonder if conservatives have really lost the ability to reason any topic . . .

Nitesho wrote: Oh and Indy...I served in military so you can speak your ignore dribble so spare me your indignation. It's not the military I worry about having guns, it's the BLM,IRS, FDA, USPS, etc. You see, and you won't understand is...the government cannot legally use the us military on domestic soil. So, over the past 20 years, there has been a build up of interal para-military units within the government.

Indy: Yes, I’m not surprised that nationalistic based conservatives distrust a lot of the divisions of government.

The BLM protects our wildlife areas from destruction from over use . . .

The IRS is there to fund the ‘military’ to the tune of what, about $700 billion per year?

Wow, the FDA protecting our food chain . . . how dare they!!!!!!!

And the USPS? Hard to believe that any American is so far ‘out there’ . . . but again, not surprised.

And indeed, the military protects us around the world while we have, wait for it . . . here it comes . . . ‘trained’ police, homeland security, and the FBI here in the US. Do you reject their authority as well?


Indy: Posted: June 8, 2014 8:45 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: Indy....source please for this..."10,000 or so people KILLED each year from gun violence attest". Post the same figures for those killed by a hammer, and knife and a baseball bat.

Indy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

Nitesho wrote: You can have your own opinion, just not your own facts. --edited.

Indy: Sounds more than fair to me . . .


Indy: Posted: June 8, 2014 8:45 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy....source please for this..."10,000 or so people KILLED each year from gun violence attest"

Indy? Source? Good luck with that.

Indy: LOL


tech: Posted: June 9, 2014 11:37 p.m.

That graph is 10 years out of date, Indy.

More current statistics here:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:01 p.m.

Indy Wrote: Don’t you watch the news? Who do you think was supporting Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy? And these folks were pointing their weapons as authorized federal Marshalls . . .

Indy: Well, it appears two of the ‘freedom fighters’ or whatever else they call themselves decided to EXECUTE two Las Vegas police officers as party of the defiance and rejection of ‘government’.

No matter that these two jerks decided to kill two people protecting us nor their families, these clowns took it upon themselves to kill others for their ultra conservative based ideology views.

And it appears both were at the ‘Bundy Ranch’ as part of the ‘anti-government’ demonstration to keep a tax cheat, Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy, ‘protected’ from law enforcement.

I’m not surprised that these two simple minded jerks, no doubt listening to the hyperbola of right wing conservative media, decided to ‘act’ out their fantasy beliefs.

In any event, I’ve noted that many of the extreme right wing militias want militarized assault rifles and other semi auto weapons to fulfill their ambition to ‘overthrow’ the government.

As we see from here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-extremism-sovereign-citizen-vegas-20140609-story.html

“The Vegas couple held similarly extreme anti-government beliefs, and told neighbors they had spent time as part of the defense militia at Cliven Bundy’s ranch. Police said they found documents indicating that the couple — Jerad Miller, 31, and Amanda Miller, 22, from Indiana — also planned to attack a courthouse. While the motive for executing the officers as they ate lunch remains unknown, the killers covered the bodies with a “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden flag — the banner of many in the tea party movement — and a swastika, and left a note that read, “This is the beginning of the revolution.””

What I don’t understand is why these people want to forcibly put forth their narrow minded views by force, killing innocents, and rejecting the government that the rest of us use to protect our individual liberty, protect us from criminals (the police), ‘promote the general welfare’ (preamble of the Constitution), and use our military to protect from foreign threats.

In any event, it's all well and good to have some grievances against the government, noting that the government is ‘we the people’, but to act as ‘COWARDS’ and execute two police officers in ‘cold blood’ shows the depravity of these types of ‘anti-government’ fanatics as if ‘we the people’ are going to support such horrific acts of violence against our government including the police offices sworn to protect it.

As the right wing media continues to ‘work up’ these simpletons with nationalistic rhetoric that goes against the very foundation of our nation, the same media should be held accountable for their rhetoric and the consequences it creates.


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 9:34 p.m.

Keep trying to connect criminals and kooks with your rational opposition, Indy. It's amusing because it's so strained.

I wouldn't group you in with Floyd Corkins. That would be stupid. One wonders why you don't exhibit similar restraint.

http://lgbtweekly.com/2013/02/06/update-dc-shooter-wanted-to-kill-as-many-as-possible-prosecutors-say/ --edited.


Nitesho: Posted: June 10, 2014 5:44 a.m.

Semi automatic does not mean Militarized.

Using your definition, a revolver would be a militarized weapon but I assume you feel that the only would who should have a gun is your beloved nanny.

Put up a gun free zone sign in your front yard and call it done.


Nitesho: Posted: June 10, 2014 6:07 a.m.

"And these folks were pointing their weapons as authorized federal Marshalls . . . "

Wrong. They were agents of the BLM. Not Federal Marshall's. All federal agents now have para military units. FDA, IRS, USPS all have groups that are training in swat style tactics and armed just as well as the military.

Educate yourself. Stop being sheep to the left wing media.


stevehw: Posted: June 10, 2014 10:31 a.m.

'"And these folks were pointing their weapons as authorized federal Marshalls . . . "

Wrong. They were agents of the BLM. Not Federal Marshall's. All federal agents now have para military units. FDA, IRS, USPS all have groups that are training in swat style tactics and armed just as well as the military.'

Well, then, that makes it totally acceptable, I guess.

How about you try pointing a rifle at a government agent sometime and see where that gets you? Right...precisely where it *should* have gotten these people...in JAIL.


Nitesho: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:05 p.m.

ugh..Steve...Really? Twisting words when it doesn't fit your narrative...

I was correcting Indy on what the agency was...Not if it was right or wrong.


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 9:32 a.m.

So do you agree that people pointing weapons at federal agents should be arrested and prosecuted?


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 5:34 p.m.

Tech wrote: Keep trying to connect criminals and kooks with your rational opposition, Indy. It's amusing because it's so strained.

Indy: Dude, you’ve got me confused with Sean Hannity that placed Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy on Fox news ‘DAILY’ until Sean ‘FINALLY’ did his homework and realized he was ‘PROMOTING’ an ‘tax cheat’ not to mention a ‘racist’.

Then we find out that the two radicalized conservative terrorist that shot and killed two Las Vega police offices in ‘COLD BLOOD’ were ‘hanging around’ the Bundy Ranch . . . with the other white militiamen that were aiming their rifles at US Marshals there to, hold on . . . . wait for it . . . ‘UPHOLD THE LAW’.

I would have thought somebody in your profession would have a grip on that . . .

Tech wrote:: I wouldn't group you in with Floyd Corkins. That would be stupid. One wonders why you don't exhibit similar restraint.

Indy: I’m not a conservative terrorist so you conclusion is correct.

In any event, we should see more investigative reports on conservative militias and their back stories . . . but we did get a glimpse at the Bundy Ranch . . . including the ‘air time’ Hannity gave to Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy.


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 5:41 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: Semi automatic does not mean Militarized.

Indy: Your absolutely free to make that assertion, I just disagree.

Nitesho wrote: Using your definition, a revolver would be a militarized weapon but I assume you feel that the only would who should have a gun is your beloved nanny.

Indy: Yes, we’ve seen mass killings by people with semi auto handguns with clips holding more than 10 rounds.

I believe the shooter of Congresswoman Giffords used such a weapon and the shooting stopped only when he tried to reload the gun with another clip.

Nitesho wrote: Put up a gun free zone sign in your front yard and call it done.

Indy: That doesn’t work . . . our elementary schools are ‘gun free’ but that didn’t stop the mass murdering young man that summarily ‘EXCUTED’ school children and their teachers with a militarized semi auto assault weapon with 30 round magazines . . .

And now since Sandy Hook, we’ve had more than 70+ other shootings on public school campuses.

They all were ‘gun fun zones’ as well . . .

Source: The 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook
http://news.yahoo.com/us-school-shootings-list-134025238.html;_ylt=A0SO805ASJpTnxUAZaJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0cTQwYmdvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDI4MV8x


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 5:52 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: "And these folks were pointing their weapons as authorized federal Marshalls . . . "

Wrong. They were agents of the BLM. Not Federal Marshall's. All federal agents now have para military units. FDA, IRS, USPS all have groups that are training in swat style tactics and armed just as well as the military.

Indy: Correct . . . the BLM is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
“is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior that administers American public lands, totaling approximately 247.3 million acres, or one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[1] The BLM also manages 700 million acres (2,800,000 km2) of subsurface mineral estate underlying federal, state, and private lands. Most public lands are located in western states, especially Alaska. With approximately 11,600 permanent employees and close to 2,000 seasonal employees, this works out to over 21,000 acres (85 km2) per employee. The agency's budget was US$1,129,000,000 for 2012 ($4.59 per surface acre).[2] The 2014 budget request is expected to increase the Bureau's budget by approximately three percent.
The BLM's Mission is: 'To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.'

And I’m glad you pointed out this mistake since it appears that Clive Bundy can’t grasp the concept that the BLM is authorized to complete in their mission statement above.

So I’ll rephrase: And these folks were pointing their weapons at authorized federal BLM agents . . .

Nitesho wrote: Educate yourself. Stop being sheep to the left wing media.

Indy: Yes, so you are in support of while militias pointing guns at ‘as authorized federal BLM agents’, as they did at Bundy’s ranch?

Do you think Sean Hannity likewise supported those militias as he paraded Bundy on his show many times?


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 7:13 p.m.

"And now since Sandy Hook, we’ve had more than 70+ other shootings on public school campuses." - Indy

Another of your statistical analysis failures, Indy. You and media outlets parroted uncritically assertions by Bloomberg's propaganda front group.

"CNN determined that 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Newtown or Oregon -- a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school. That works out to about one such shooting every five weeks, a startling figure in its own right."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 7:19 p.m.

Professor: Statistics show mass shootings not on the rise

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/12/professor-statistics-show-mass-shootings-not-on-the-rise/


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 7:27 p.m.

COPS in Schools (CIS)

"The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law enforcement agencies hire new, additional school resource officers (SROs) to engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence."

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=54


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 8:09 p.m.

"Then we find out that the two radicalized conservative terrorist that shot and killed two Las Vega police offices in ‘COLD BLOOD’ were ‘hanging around’ the Bundy Ranch . . . with the other white militiamen that were aiming their rifles at US Marshals there to, hold on . . . . wait for it . . . ‘UPHOLD THE LAW’." - Indy

Association fallacy. I'll demonstrate below.

While living in Lafayette, Jerad and his wife Amanda took part in last November’s “Million Mask March” – a gathering of protesters from the Occupy movement, anarchists, and hacktivists.

Nick Wertz, one of the organizers of the Lafayette march, said it attracted many people upset over a lot of issues.

“Everyone there just seem kind of like normal people. At least they were going to stick up with what they thought was right,” he said.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/couple-responsible-for-vegas-shooting-spree-recently-lived-in-indiana/ --edited.


tech: Posted: June 14, 2014 10:52 a.m.

Lying About School Shootings
By Charles C. W. Cooke
June 11, 2014 11:58 AM

And that, of course, is precisely what the map’s creator is doing. The point here is not to tell the truth, but to get out the “74 school shootings since Newtown” figure and to turn it into conventional wisdom before anybody can check if it’s actually correct. This is why, on its website, Everytown for Gun Safety introduces the map with the simple claim that,

Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 74 school shootings in America. How many more before our leaders pass common-sense laws to prevent gun violence and save lives?

This is why it hides its disclaimer at the very bottom of a long and detailed page. And it is why it includes no such qualifications at all on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media, on which Everytown merely mentions “the 74 school shootings since Newtown,” claims that “Reynolds High School is the 74th school shooting since Sandy Hook,” and puts out misleading graphics such as this one:

Alas, the ruse appears to have worked. Yesterday, these claims were widely repeated — and almost always without context or clarification. When you can’t win honestly, I guess you just lie.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380108/lying-about-school-shootings-charles-c-w-cooke


CaptGene: Posted: June 14, 2014 12:01 p.m.

They did the same thing with the "97.1% of scientists consensus on AGW", as well as the "Obama ended water boarding" nonsense. Only the intellectually weak take any of this at face value.


tech: Posted: June 14, 2014 12:20 p.m.

The tactics have changed due to losses legislatively and judicially. Those venues include processes that are weighted to rational analysis.

To strip citizens of rights, an appeal to a emotion and a rapid reaction without due process is the methodology.

Everytown's tactical plan is media and market manipulation backed by Bloomberg's anti-2nd Amendment funding. What Indy parroted is an example of the former. Watch this to examine how market manipulation works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT9AANEER-k&list=PLyaSPxNidLLs62gp-k17xao9YU67o1C4O&feature=share



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...