Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, February 16, 2013

Dramatic surveillance footage out of the Detroit area shows the heart-stopping moment when a gun-wielding couple stormed into a tax business and started shooting -- and a security guard pulled out an AR-15 and drove them away.

It happened Thursday at a converted home business in Inkster, Mich. A man and woman armed with handguns showed up at the door and announced a holdup, despite the security vehicle parked outside, WJBK-TV reported. The receptionist had gone up to greet them, with the business owner sitting in a chair in the corner. Surveillance footage shows the male suspect pointing a gun at the receptionist's head, and the security guard scrambling in the back office for the rifle.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

paneocon

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Security Guard Shoots AR-15 At Gun Wielding Couple Tryna Rob Tax Office

#1 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-16 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

But pols and anti-gun folks tell us that such black rifles are no good for self defense, hunting or any sports. Who woulda thunk!?

#2 | Posted by AKat at 2013-02-16 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Who woulda thunk!?"

"The security guard suffered a non-life-threatening wound to the leg and the suspects got away..."

LOL.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-17 01:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

A shotgun would have been a better choice, but God bless Col. Colt anyway.

#4 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-17 03:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is soon to be typical:

"PRIORITIES: There's a murder every 3 hours in Chicago and Rahm Emanuel's first order of business is locking up law-abiding citizens"

"A University of Illinois at Chicago staffer has been placed on administrative leave after she brought a legally purchased handgun to work because she didn't want to leave it at home while her house was being renovated, a UIC spokesman said.

A judge set bail at $25,000 Wednesday for Kathleen Loviscek, 55, according to the Cook County sheriff's office. She is expected in court again on Feb. 19... Loviscek, of Westmont, was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, said UIC spokesman Bill Burton.

"There was no apparent intent or threat,'' Burton said. "It was never brandished nor was it loaded.''

So a legally purchased weapon, cased and unloaded, is grounds for a felony charge now?"

Also:

"016th District warrior locked up a guy after returning from gun range for having an unloaded carbine in his trunk. Legal, but not in Chicago. Way to go, soldiers of Rahm."

directorblue.blogspot.com

#5 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-17 08:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

So a legally purchased weapon, cased and unloaded, is grounds for a felony charge now?"
#5 | POSTED BY KBM

In Chicago there is. Wait til it's president Rahm Emanuel

#6 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-17 08:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

One more story the media will ignore.

GUNS USED TO SAVE TWO WOMEN FROM ATTACKERS

Two women were saved from mortal danger through quick thinking and the use of firearms this past week.

A Myrtle Beach woman was accosted in The Bagel Factory's parking lot Friday morning. A man opened her car door, demanded her money, and shoved her into the other seat. When she kicked him in self-defense, he told her she was dead.

The victim opened her glove box, pulled out her pistol and pointed it at the suspect. He immediately withdrew from the car and fled. The victim was not harmed, but the suspect did leave behind a silver lock-blade knife.

www.breitbart.com

#7 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-17 08:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you continue posting & linking real-life stories of thinking-citizens who DO NOT accept the make-pretend narrative of "Liberalism"... you gonna get this website in hot doodoo with the powers that pull the puppet strings.

c'mon now, you think it's easy to manage multiple lib screen-names and make-pretend that those multiple identities are real people?

#9 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-02-17 08:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

But pols and anti-gun folks tell us that such black rifles are no good for self defense, hunting or any sports.

The guard didn't hit the armed robbers. The only thing the AR-15 might have done better than other types of guns was scare them more.

Is this the argument for why guns like the AR-15 are necessary for self defense -- that they scare robbers more?

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-17 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is this the argument for why guns like the AR-15 are necessary for self defense -- that they scare robbers more?
#10 | POSTED BY RCADE

No the argument for why guns like the AR-15 are necessary is that they scare our government more.

#12 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-17 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

No the argument for why guns like the AR-15 are necessary is that they scare our government more.

Wolverines!

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-17 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

No the argument for why guns like the AR-15 are necessary is that they scare our government more.
#12 | Posted by paneocon

Swagger, swagger, swish, belch, swagger, swagger.

#14 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-17 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"No the argument for why guns like the AR-15 are necessary is that they scare our government more."

Yeah, you can bet the big brass in the Pentagon are wetting themselves over that.

ROTFLMAO!

#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-17 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#15 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

Seems the British and the Germans were equally as cocky about their invincibility?

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so,
a well organized and armed militia is their best security."
Thomas Jefferson

#16 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-17 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Seems the British and the Germans were equally as cocky about their invincibility?

So the U.S. government is your enemy, Paneocon? Would it still be your enemy if Romney won?

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-17 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | POSTED BY RCADE

At 16.5 trillion the US government is every ones enemy.

#18 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-17 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"No the argument for why guns like the AR-15 are necessary is that they scare our government more."

Yeah, you can bet the big brass in the Pentagon are wetting themselves over that.
ROTFLMAO!
#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Seems the British and the Germans were equally as cocky about their invincibility?
#16 | Posted by paneocon

If you're talking about the American Revolution, you might want to dust off some decent history books and check out the French contribution (massive) - who do you think bottled Cornwallis up at Yorktown? - and the fact that the Minute Man approach was ditched in favor of what eventually became a trained army with uniforms, officers, professional training, and (for the time) heavy duty weaponry. (When the US government allows you to purchase and arm your own BFV, Stryker, and A-10 Warthog let me know.)

This apocalyptic fantasy you guys have embedded in your noggins - y'know, the one where you're going to rise up and defeat the armed forces of the United States - is so off the charts that I'd be surprised it doesn't quality as some manifestation of early onset dementia.

#19 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-17 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, you can bet the big brass in the Pentagon are wetting themselves over that.

ROTFLMAO!
#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

hmmm, the other folks arming themselves on pace with law-abiding-citizens are Dept of ED, Social Security, Parks & Recreation, and the DOT.

these folks are currently equipped to wage a 16 year battle against somebody

#21 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-02-17 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

#19 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

[...] I understand the history of both of the conflicts I posted. In both conflicts there were efforts to disarming the citizens by the aggressor.

#22 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-17 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Only a "useful idiot" would not lose a minutes sleep as to why the DHS needs 1.5 billion hollow point bullets?

#23 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-17 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Only a "useful idiot" would not lose a minutes sleep as to why the DHS needs 1.5 billion hollow point bullets?

#23 | Posted by paneocon

shhhhhh... those rounds are safely secured in broom closets at Fed Buildings located conveniently throughout our country.

IF stuff does break down, at least citizens will have easy access vs trekking all the way to the nearest military base & climbing a 16 ft fence w/razor wire

#25 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-02-17 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

""For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so,
a well organized and armed militia is their best security."
Thomas Jefferson"

Realize that part of the freedom Jefferson spoke of was the "freedom" to own slaves. One of the reasons the 2nd amendment was created was to assure southerners that they could arm militias to put down slave revolts. Whenever you take slavery out of the discussion of the ratification of the Constitution you move into fantasy instead of history. Our founding fathers were not Disney characters, they were business men, many of whom that depended on slave labor to make their businesses prosper.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-17 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Some of these Apocalypse fantasist fools must be flashing because they tripped on bad acid while watching Road Warrior films.

#28 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-17 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Our founding fathers were not Disney characters

Newsworthy flag. According to Glenn Beck, the founders are on par with Jesus himself. That kind of thinking is deranged, at least.

#29 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2013-02-17 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm going to give that a funny flag as well, as I immediately pictured cartoons of Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison traipsing through the woods à la the Seven Dwarfs.

#30 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2013-02-17 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

All these folks who prefer to treat the government as an enemy to be destroyed rather than a system that needs repair are not Constitutionalists at all.

The FFs would want nothing to do with them.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-17 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so,
a well organized and armed militia is their best security."
Thomas Jefferson

#16 | Posted by paneocon

Too bad they couldn't have put that in an amendment someplace instead of our current second amendment---"Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit."

#32 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-02-17 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#32 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

You keep working on that Wayback time machine and you can go back and help write the amendments. We'll know if you are successful because the 28th amendment will be 28) Government is always the answer.

#33 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-17 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

One of the reasons the 2nd amendment was created was to assure southerners that they could arm militias to put down slave revolts.

Link?

I've been hearing some interesting "reasons" for the 2nd amendment on this site.

I'm curious how many actually have historical accuracy beyond some pet theory read on a minority historical view website.

The rest of the post is dead on though. Too often the FFs are treated as a homogenous group of saints.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-17 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too bad they couldn't have put that in an amendment someplace instead of our current second amendment---"Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit."

I see Bob has added yet another layer of ridiculousness to his interpretation.

And no, Bob, I'm not answering any asinine questions you may post in response to this. They've all been dealt with on various other threads.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-17 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too bad they couldn't have put that in an amendment someplace instead of our current second amendment ...

The Heller decision makes clear that our current Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, including universal background checks and prohibitions on some types of guns.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-17 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

including universal background checks and prohibitions on some types of guns.

Prohibition of some types of arms.

en.wikipedia.org

does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

AR-15s are not in common use for lawful purposes?

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-17 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This apocalyptic fantasy you guys have embedded in your noggins - y'know, the one where you're going to rise up and defeat the armed forces of the United States - is so off the charts that I'd be surprised it doesn't quality as some manifestation of early onset dementia."
#19 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I'm curious...how many soldiers by percentage would you estimate will order and/or execute a cordon, draw down on and ultimately fire upon American citizens? As you ponder this, bear in mind that I am an active duty Cavalry Scout myself and have some insight into the mindset of today's combat soldier as it relates to killing Muslims anywhere in the world versus Americans in the USA.

#38 | Posted by libertarian_gi at 2013-02-17 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Heller decision makes clear that our current Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, including universal background checks and prohibitions on some types of guns.

...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

(emphasis added)

#39 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-17 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've been hearing some interesting "reasons" for the 2nd amendment on this site.
I'm curious how many actually have historical accuracy beyond some pet theory read on a minority historical view website. - JPW

The Federalist, and the AntiFederalist both supported the idea of local autonomy, and considered, based upon the philosophy
9( Robert E. Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, 69 J. Am. Hist. 599 (1982) ) of the time that possession of "arms" was vital for the preservation of liberty and a republican form of government.

From link below....

The Federalists, wanting the document ratified, argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the draft Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to infringe on fundamental rights, an enumeration of certain rights may imply a lack of protection for others, and Americans would not allow their rights to be infringed despite the lack of a bill of rights.40 The Federalists responded to Anti-Federalists' concerns about federal tyranny and oppression, arguing that Congress's power to arm the militias was concurrent with that of the states, and that the American population was armed and could resist a federal army if required

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes
ir.lawnet.fordham.edu

Its easy to see today that the Federalist were wrong, that the Federal Government has become a monster.... confiscating tax/time from the citizens, then bribing the states with those dollars.

The Federalist were wrong, we are beyond even their wildest dreams.

Also bearing arms isnt for fighting the government, but the aftermath, when the [bleep] hits the proverbial fan. Why do you think the DHS is buying ammo? Some scenario says they should....

I am not a gun nut, or even own a weapon, but I understand what happens when the government can't protect the people, look up Egyptian revolution and the [bleep] hitting the fan for the average Egyptian.... not good...

#40 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-02-17 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Also bearing arms isnt for fighting the government, but the aftermath, when the [bleep] hits the proverbial fan. Why do you think the DHS is buying ammo? Some scenario says they should...."
#40 | Posted by AndreaMackris

It's important to understand that the average elitist Liberal and average elitist Conservative see the 21st Century America as a vastly superior culture among the world. So developmentally advanced, civilized, refined and intelligent are we that our omnipotent government and our above the global poverty-line citizenry is not susceptible to the human nature of the world's lesser culture's, human history or even basic mathematics. Additionally, in spite of this superiority mindset, they believe that they themselves are not racist nor are they deniers of the events unfolding around them but rather, the real racists and insufficiently educated, sub-enlightened are those who think America could actually fail and descend into chaos.

#42 | Posted by libertarian_gi at 2013-02-17 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

" but the aftermath, when the [bleep] hits the proverbial fan."

Good point, Mackris. I've suggested before that lefties should buy arms and get gun training: there are too many crazy rightwing gun-nuts roaming the streets these days. Both the LAPD and the NRA are still at large, for example.

#43 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-17 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Heller decision makes clear that our current Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, including universal background checks and prohibitions on some types of guns.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-17 02:47 PM | Reply

Agreed. That is our current second amendment. They think "shall not be infringed" means "shall be infringed as government sees fit". Either the Founders were idiots, or the USSC has five idiot judges---your choice.

#44 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-02-17 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

AR-15s are not in common use for lawful purposes?

You're employing a circular argument -- that AR-15s are legal because they're legal. The last assault weapons ban lasted from 1994 to 2004 without ever being struck down. I suggest a new assault ban would survive a court challenge as well, based on Heller.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-17 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Either the Founders were idiots, or the USSC has five idiot judges---your choice.

#44 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

ummm, SCOTUS are merely the best we got-
nearly every time they make a decision about 1/2 of them are wrong

#46 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-02-17 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"ummm, SCOTUS are merely the best we got-"

Same could be said of the "Founders".

#47 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-17 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#44 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
That is our current second amendment.

Nope. It's the same one we always had. Came with limitations then in existence when enacted.

You keep forgetting that Heller was an opinion that said D.C. could not infringe.

Question presented:

Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Answer: Yep, they infringe the Second Amendment.

#48 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-17 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're employing a circular argument -- that AR-15s are legal because they're legal.

No I'm not. I'm asking why you think AR-15s don't fall under the wording from Heller.

The last assault weapons ban lasted from 1994 to 2004 without ever being struck down. I suggest a new assault ban would survive a court challenge as well, based on Heller.

IIRC there wasn't a court challenge to it, so your statement is conjecture at best.

I would say a new ban, particularly one similar to some of the ideas being floated around or passed in the case of NY, would not.

But I'm not a lawyer and I will just have to wait and see.

#49 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-17 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're employing a circular argument...

It's not a circular argument. They were legal before the ban. They are legal now. The argument is a straight up application some of the language of Heller. Some more of the language involves a prohibition on banning an "entire class of arms."

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-17 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're employing a circular argument -- that AR-15s are legal because they're legal.

I'll also add that my interpretation of the wording is that they found it unconstitutional to suddenly declare a firearm or class of firearms in common usage illegal after the fact.

US v Miller is applicable here because that case was over the National Firearms Act, which heavily regulated automatic weapons, sawed off rifles/shotguns ect, ie things that were not in common usage. It's also the reason why the bringing up of nukes, tanks, fighter plane ect is absurd.

But again, not a lawyer so if I'm wrong I'm all ears.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-17 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't get a lot out of Miller. It really was not a Second Amendment case and the Court did very little analysis of that aspect. It was a criminal matter involving the NFA, as you said. Sawed off shotguns are "unusual" weapons. "Unusual" weapons were regulated in the UK where the Second Amendment comes from. So, literalism aside, as with all other "rights" there were limitations when they were enacted.

Criminal cases are not a good metric for general interpretation of constitutional rights.

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-17 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Criminal cases are not a good metric for general interpretation of constitutional rights.

Criminal cases are the basis for SCOTUS cases to determine Constitution rights, no?

Isn't that also why Miller was brought up in Heller, because it was a very specific case that didn't address the larger individual right to bear arms?

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-17 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"ummm, SCOTUS are merely the best we got-"

Same could be said of the "Founders".
#47 | Posted by REDIAL

lol, your logic is broke along with your critical thinking?

re;
the "scotus 1/2 wrong each time guys" YOU place on a pedestal ---
they have been trying to understand those founding fathers you mention for nearly 250 years, AND they volunteered to do so!

Yet in EACH decision, nearly 1/2 are wrong...
so it's no wonder you are so mixed up

#54 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-02-18 06:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The security guard suffered a non-life-threatening wound to the leg and the suspects got away..."

It could have ended worse.

The guard didn't hit the armed robbers. The only thing the AR-15 might have done better than other types of guns was scare them more.

If someone doesn't actually have to die, isn't that better?

#55 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-02-18 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

If someone doesn't actually have to die, isn't that better?

That would depend on whether the armed robbers learn anything from the close call. But if they had shot one of the workers after being missed by the AR-15, no one would regard that outcome as better.

#56 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-18 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

That would depend on whether the armed robbers learn anything from the close call. But if they had shot one of the workers after being missed by the AR-15, no one would regard that outcome as better.

They fled the scene without anyone dying. Regardless of future actions, the situation ended a lot better than it could have.

#57 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-02-18 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Burglars steal Bushmaster rifle from Deltona man's vehicle
December 27, 2012|By Arelis R. Hernández, Orlando Sentinel
Volusia County deputy sheriffs are looking for a pair of burglars suspected of stealing an semiautomatic rifle and video game system from a Deltona man's trunk early Saturday.

A neighbor spotted two men in dark clothing enter an unlocked vehicle about 4:30 a.m. parked at a home on Hayward Avenue and remove several items."

articles.orlandosentinel.com

#58 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-18 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

They fled the scene without anyone dying. Regardless of future actions, the situation ended a lot better than it could have.

That situation, yes. But which of these two scenarios is a better outcome?

1. Armed robber shot and killed.

2. Armed robber shot and missed, goes on to commit another armed robbery where a victim is killed.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-18 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

#59 | Posted by rcade
Number one is the obvious answer but if you like I can point out how the so called experts {police} accuracy is under 20% and drops with every additional officer on scene.

Yet in the end, the bad guys/gal being stopped is the goal, not shooing a bad guy. Also results in gun owners using a firearm to stop a threat by actually pulling the trigger is less than 5 percent of the cases, the simple fact of a gun owner showing it causes the bad guys to run. Don't you agree is the goal is to stop the threat?

#60 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-18 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

CorrectionL:Also results in gun owners using a firearm to stop a threat by actually pulling the trigger is less than 8 percent of the cases,

#61 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-18 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

A shotgun would have been a better choice, but God bless Col. Colt anyway.

#4 | Posted by Diablo

He basically over-gunned himself. If he had used an antenna, no problem. The criminals would be locked up.

#62 | Posted by coyote at 2013-02-18 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't you agree is the goal is to stop the threat?

Apparently, to Rcade, the goal is to kill someone.

I enjoy the days when anti-gun crowd cheer on gun violence.

#63 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-02-18 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently, to Rcade, the goal is to kill someone.

He has been known to refer to an event when the gun was never fired as a "shooting."

About 9 times out of 10 the threat is stopped without the gun being fired.

Number of people killed by guns around here the past two years: Zero
Number of people killed by rattlesnakes around here the past two years: Two
bastropadvertiser.com
Number of rattlesnakes killed around here with guns: More than two.

#64 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-18 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Way more.

#65 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-18 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Realize that part of the freedom Jefferson spoke of was the 'freedom' to own slaves."

And part of the freedom you support with your votes, Danni, is the "freedom" to kill a child in the womb. Same thing. A human becomes a thing.

#66 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-18 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nope. It's the same one we always had. Came with limitations then in existence when enacted.

#48 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-17 09:28 PM |

I missed those limitations in the original second amendment. Do you think "shall not be infringed" means "shall be infringed"? Exactly where do you see any limitations in the original second amendment?

#67 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-02-18 11:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even Scalia, the far right of the SCOTUS, argues that there need to be some limitations to arms ownership. That's how far to the right the gun nuts have gone. Scalia looks like a moveon.org poster in comparison.

#68 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-02-18 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#68

That would make sense if the second amendment was about individual rights. It does not make sense to restrict a well regulated militia formed for the protection of a free State.

The second amendment says no infringements. Where is the confusing part?

#69 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-02-19 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

I missed those limitations in the original second amendment.

I don't see any mention, specifically, of a right to have an abortion.

Or make porn movies.

Or not to have tracking devices placed on my vehicle without a warrant.

Or a litany of other things that were decided based on intent because anyone with two neurons to rub together realizes the founding fathers couldn't possibly list every and all possibility of future issues.

Are you this obstinately obtuse in real life?

That would make sense if the second amendment was about individual rights.

I guess you were asleep during the time in your high school civics class when it was discussed that the Bill of Rights is a list of individual liberties?

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-19 12:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's how far to the right the gun nuts have gone. Scalia looks like a moveon.org poster in comparison.

Nonsense for two reasons.

One, arms is a much broader term than firearms. I don't think you'll find many who'd advocate for private ownership of nukes.

Two, even within the realm of firearms there are classes that are heavily regulated/taxed. I seriously doubt you'd find many who'd advocate for the common ownership of full auto weapons, ect.

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-19 01:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

#67 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

It's been argued ad nausuem. You are a literalist. Also known as a fundamentalist.

#72 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-19 01:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

LOL much as I dislike violence I love a good tale of the crooks being out gunned.

#73 | Posted by Tor at 2013-02-19 01:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

A Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from "street/illegal sources" or "friends or family."
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.

Too logical for the antifreedom nuts.

#74 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2013-02-19 04:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

THESE ARE THE FACTS -- READ THEM -- LEARN THEM -- SHARE THEM


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TALKING POINTS

NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Dealers
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.

Private Sales
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.

Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]

Gun Shows
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.

A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from "street/illegal sources" or "friends or family."
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]

Prosecutions
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4]

"Universal Background Checks"
While the term "universal background checks" may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly "universal" background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of "universal background checks" depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

#75 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-19 08:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

#75

Save your facts Zat, the communists will not rest till they have our guns. And the sheeple said, baaaa

#76 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-02-19 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess you were asleep during the time in your high school civics class when it was discussed that the Bill of Rights is a list of individual liberties?

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-19 12:58 AM | Reply |

If the second amendment is about individual rights then "shall not be infringed" should apply to individuals. That means either the FF's were idiots or you are an idiot for thinking the FF's meant for there to be no restrictions to individuals owning any type of arm available.

You must think the FF's were idiots for not being able to construct our new second amendment themselves simply by saying:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.---if that is what they meant to say.

If that is true, simply tell me that the FF's were dummies.

#77 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-02-19 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement