pageok
pageok
pageok
Gun-related data for criminals who shoot police officers:

The FBI recently completed a major study of shootings of police officers. Titled "Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers," the document is not currently available on the web. The publication Force Science News, which comes from the Force Science Institute, of the University of Minnesota, Mankato, has reported on the study. Regarding firearms, FSN writes:

"Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available 'was the overriding factor in weapon choice,' the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun 'because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.'
Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was 'hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.'"
The summary of the study also provides information that many of the criminals who attack police officers are fairly skilled at gun use, and, unfortunately, diligent in their training.

The FBI website says that "Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers is available from the UCR Program Office, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or by calling 888-827-6427." I tried the 888 number once, and got a recording.

Steve P. (mail):
Surely they were 'hindered' in some way -- it must be at least slightly more difficult to obtain a handgun illegally than legally. If it wasn't, they'd be cheaper on the streets, right? Are they?
2.16.2007 5:22pm
gab:
I always thought it was "predominantly." When did it become "predominately?"
2.16.2007 5:45pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts.

And this is supposed to demonstrate what? Is there some magical source of illegal firearms separate from legitimate ones? Of course not. Practically nobody is manufacturing firearms specifically for criminal purposes. They are manufactured legally and at some point diverted into illegal commerce--either by theft or by resale to criminals after legitimate or straw purchases. Everything you believe in and advocate would do absolutely nothing to prevent, and just increases the potential for firearms to end up in the hands of criminals. Anything that would enable law enforcement to more effectively track firearms in commerce or detect gun dealers that may be selling firearms to criminals is an absolute anathema to you.
2.16.2007 5:50pm
Houston Lawyer:
Hand-gun control is all about making the possession of weapons a crime, but not the illegal use of them. The most ardent gun rights advocates have no problem whatsoever locking up or putting to death those who use guns for criminal purposes. Gun control laws have proven to be about as effective as drug trafficing laws.
2.16.2007 6:04pm
Bob Leibowitz (mail) (www):
What's truly amazing is that this was a study of 800 events, in only one of which was the weapon acquired legally. That works out to a little more than 1/10th of 1%. All of the rest, 99.875% were acquired illegally.

That means, for those who have difficulty understanding the train: 1.) Bad guys went out of their way to illegally acquire a gun, and then 2.) departed the straight and narrow to commit another crime in which they were "caught" by an officer, 3.) who they then illegally shot.

These are people who have no compunction against breaking whatever laws stand between them and what they want.

While there are a number of things we can do to immediately and dramatically reduce the number of officers shot, specifically including better training, such as Move, Cover, Shoot, it should also be apparent to all that there are no "gun control" loopholes nearly as large as the loophole the bad guys walk through when they repeatedly get out of jail, free to prey on society, again.
2.16.2007 6:48pm
AppSocRes (mail):
Let's assume, argumendum ad absurda, that the manufacture, sale, and possession of all firearms and ammunition were made universally illegal and that all firearms and ammunition were immediately and effectively confiscated and destroyed by the government. It would still be trivial to build an extremely deadly multi-shot, sawed-off shotgun type device and supply it with ammunition made from commonly available chemicals. There'd be plenty of criminals willing to make and sell these and plenty of others willing to buy and use them. At that point it would truly be the case that only criminals would have guns and any store-owner being robbed, man being beaten, or woman being raped would be foolhardy to resist.

That gun control nuts don't understand this is hard to believe. That they ignore the situation in Britain -- where a gradual slide towards gun control almost this severe has been accompanied by the predicted increase in violent crime and fear of citizens to resist -- suggests that gun control nuts are unprincipled, idiotic, and insane.

Apropos the study, this appears to be a follow-up to an earlier NIJ-sponsored study that interviewed cop-killers. Two of the chief findings then were that these offenders invariably had long records of violent criminal behavior and that they invariably killed police only when police let their guard down and violated standard police procedures. Follow-up secondary research suggested to some that a third factor was that almost all these offenders met one or another clinical definition of a psychopathic personality. I look forward to reading the new research.
2.16.2007 7:46pm
wooga:
Surely they were 'hindered' in some way -- it must be at least slightly more difficult to obtain a handgun illegally than legally
Steve, everything I've read says street price for illegal guns is around 70-80% more than the legal gun stores. But you can still grab a gun on the street for $250, and there is no waiting or paperwork to fill out. Plus, no registration or permit fees!

So it really is going to vary by state. The more restrictive the state, the the less 'difficult' (relatively) an illegal gun would seem to be (as the laws do not actually reduce illegal gun availability).
2.16.2007 7:57pm
Colin (mail):
AppSocRes, if the result of a rapture-style disappearance of all guns would be a wave of illegal zip guns, why don't we see that in places where weapons are tightly controlled? The difference between factories churning out mass-produced products and homespun weapons would be pretty drastic, no matter how you analyze the issue. That being said, it's a completely moot point, since guns aren't about to get raptured up any time soon.

I get that you're frustrated, but comments like "gun control nuts are unprincipled, idiotic, and insane" just make me think that you're just blowing off emotional steam, rather than thinking the issue through. If that's all that you want to do, terrific, but if you're trying to actually persuade people to see the issue as you do, you're failing. After all, do comments about "psycho gun nuts" strike you as incisive or worthwhile?
2.16.2007 7:57pm
Robert Lyman (mail):
I'd be surprised if zip guns were big in post-gun America. Smuggled guns are more reliable and if you can ship a container of human beings from China, you can ship a container of AK-47s, no? Ditto with a hundred kilos of cocaine on a speedboat and a packet of handguns. Jack up the street price and it becomes a reasonable idea.

I suppose illegal guns might be more expensive/tougher to get in that imaginary future, but the question no one seems to ask is: what is the (criminal) elasticity of demand for guns? Sure, there are some minor punks who worry about gun laws (because they fear prison time) and some unsuccessful hustlers who can't afford it. But among those who make a good living selling illegal products manufactured thousands of miles away and who must fight for turf with other psychos, the utility of a gun is probably pretty high.
2.16.2007 8:10pm
bud (mail):
J.F Thomas:
"They are manufactured legally and at some point diverted into illegal commerce--either by theft or by resale to criminals after legitimate or straw purchases. Everything you believe in and advocate would do absolutely nothing to prevent, and just increases the potential for firearms to end up in the hands of criminals."

Ahhh, the tautology of "If nobody had guns, the criminals would not have guns," dressed up in seductive words about order, LE safety and motherhood and apple pie.

This only works as long as you can divert your audience from considering these facts:

1) There are more than 200 million firearms in the possesion of the hoi polloi, and increasing as we speak. Even under the most "optomistic" realization of Diane Feinsteins' wet dream of "Turn 'em in, Mr. and Mrs. America," tens of millions would remain. Since less than 15K homocides and 170K weapon assaults occur per year, even under the rather ludicrous assumption that each gun is used only once, we would have a pool of guns sufficient to handle criminal needs into the next century.

I can hear you now - "But eventually, they'd be gone."

Which brings me to point-
2) Firearms are not rocket science. They're 19th century technology, and any competant machinist, using tools available at Sears, can turn out an excellent weapon. In Pakistan, where firearms manufacture is a cottage industry, decent copies of the feared AK-47 are created with hand tools. They'd be replaced faster than they can be removed.


3) The experience of the UK, where an island nation, which has banned every handgun and regulated the hell out of the rest has had nothing but increased gun violence since each new gun control measure.

and
4) You completely ignore any offsetting factors, such as crimes prevented by gun holders.

Sorry, your post is not a reasoned argument.

P.S. 10 minutes with a hacksaw will convert that innocuous rabbit-hunting single shot shotgun into one of the most deadly concealable firearms known.
2.16.2007 8:22pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
That they ignore the situation in Britain -- where a gradual slide towards gun control almost this severe has been accompanied by the predicted increase in violent crime and fear of citizens to resist -- suggests that gun control nuts are unprincipled, idiotic, and insane.

Gun control in Britain has been severe for a long time (certainly since WWII). Private ownership of handguns, or even long guns, for self protection was almost unheard of (practically the only way you could own a handgun was if you were a member of a shooting club--now even that is almost impossible). Even if you owned long guns for hunting you could expect frequent visits from the police to ensure that both your guns and ammunition were locked up separately. As recently as fifteen years ago you would never see an armed policeman, not even at the airport.

I remember listening, with extreme confusion, listening to a debate on BBC radio in the mid 1980's (when I was living in England) about whether armored car drivers should be "armed". I couldn't figure out why the hell armored car drivers should be armed when even police didn't carry guns. Finally, I realized the "arms" they were talking about were billy clubs.

Any rise in gun violence in England has nothing to do with the recent almost complete ban on private ownership of handguns.
2.16.2007 8:32pm
juris_imprudent (mail):

Is there some magical source of illegal firearms separate from legitimate ones?

That is quite nearly what has been alleged in lawsuits against gun manufacturers - that they know the size of the "legitimate" market and make more guns then are needed to satisfy that demand.

To which I ask the good person on the point of civility - is that not insane? If it is, then what is wrong with saying so?
2.16.2007 8:33pm
juris_imprudent (mail):

Gun control in Britain has been severe for a long time (certainly since WWII).

Actually, the first gun law rode in on the fear of Bolshevism in the wake of WWI. Never had a damn thing to do with crime.
2.16.2007 8:38pm
wooga:
Any rise in gun violence in England has nothing to do with the recent almost complete ban on private ownership of handguns.

J.F., are you saying that there weren't many legal guns before the ban, so the ban has not had a significant effect on the number of guns in England? I assume you are, and implied in your argument is that Mr. UKCriminal would not say "Now that the gun ban is in place, I can more confidently burgle," because he knew his victims were unarmed even before the ban.

I actually believe Mr. UKCriminal would think such a thing. If I were going to burgle 100 homes, the decrease from two armed homes to zero armed homes would be quite important.

I admit that statistics are too readily misused. But I do think they are telling when the English robbery rates rise disproportionately to English crime overall. I don't even have to reveal my gun to rob someone, but having it on my person would certainly reduce the danger posed by entering the burglar profession.
2.16.2007 8:59pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
4) You completely ignore any offsetting factors, such as crimes prevented by gun holders.

Contrary to what John Lott may say (or who he may sue to shut them up) or how many cute "Armed Citizen" stories the NRA may print in its various publications there is absolutely no evidence that citizens packing heat affect crime rates one way or the other. In fact if you look at crime statistics, violent crime rates tend to be higher in states with higher gun ownership rates. And before you point out the exceptions, e.g., D.C., Detroit, etc., note I said "tend".
2.16.2007 9:09pm
Brett A. Thomas (mail) (www):
Look, I'm a second amendment absolutist. And I *do* think the legal:illegal ratio is pretty interesting, and the mix of particular weapons is interesting, as well. But the supposedly remarkable finding:


Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was 'hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.'


Really isn't all that remarkable. It's called selection bias. This is a study of people who shot police officers. People who, by definition, had guns. This provides us absolutely no information about how effective or ineffective gun control is at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals who were unable to acquire a gun (due to gun control laws) didn't have a gun and (consquently) never shot a police officer and were not included in this study. How is that even vaguely noteworthy?

Unfortunately, it's impossible to do a study that includes "people who would've shot a police officer if they could've but were prevented from buying guns". But this result ("criminals with guns were able to acquire guns regardless of the law") doesn't really tell us much about how hard it was to acquire them, or if, e.g., more police officers would've been shot had gun control laws been more lax.

Again, this is not to say this study is not interesting. But highlighting that "criminals who have guns are able to acquire guns" doesn't actually tell us anything about whether gun control laws are effective in preventing criminals from acquiring guns.
2.16.2007 9:15pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
J.F., are you saying that there weren't many legal guns before the ban, so the ban has not had a significant effect on the number of guns in England?

What I am saying that before or after the ban, the concept of using a firearm in self-defense was an alien concept to an Englishman, the ban did very little to change that. Even before the ban, keeping a handgun in your house for self-defense was strictly prohibited (they were only permitted for sporting purposes). As a condition of possessing a handgun for sporting purposes the police could and would stop by your house without notice and ask to see your guns. If they were not unloaded, in a locked cabinet, with the ammunition in a separate, locked cabinet, you were in serious trouble. I remember reading that for long guns the police would stop by at least once a year to inspect your guns. I imagine they did it much more frequently for handguns.

And your assumption that 2% of the homes in Britain owned handguns prior to the ban are probably way off. 162,000 handguns were turned in after the ban took effect. That's about a .25% ownership rate (and of course you would expect most owners to own more than one gun).
2.16.2007 9:35pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
> there is absolutely no evidence that citizens packing heat affect crime rates one way or the other.

Then why is there so much vehement opposition?

Shouldn't we threaten folks with imprisonment and otherwise restrict their choices only when said choices actually cause harm?
2.16.2007 9:39pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
How about the stats on what fraction of police were killed with guns taken from police?
2.16.2007 9:39pm
Too Lazy To Log In:
How about the stats on what fraction of police were killed with guns taken from police?

About 9%

Click here.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table14.htm
2.16.2007 10:01pm
whit:
steve p...

they ARE (often) cheaper on the streets.

i've seen stolen glocks for sale for $150.

that is cheaper than you will find one used.

as for the "gun show loophole" - this is a favorite of liberal politicians, but the facts are that almost no criminals ever get their guns there.

the (liberal) seattle police chief (political appointee) was in olympia testifying on proposed law to get rid of the gun show loopholes (he's a big proponent - no surprise). a smart person asked him if he could name ONE case wherein a gun purchased at a gun show was diverted or used for illegal purposes.

he couldn't.
2.16.2007 10:51pm
33yearprof (mail):
"Surely they were 'hindered' in some way -- it must be at least slightly more difficult to obtain a handgun illegally than legally. If it wasn't, they'd be cheaper on the streets, right? Are they?"

Yes. Around here, at least according to various news stories and anecdotes from Robbery/Homicide detectives, handguns are available for ILLEGAL purchase 24/7 at prices well below 1/2 retail. The criminals' taste in guns are "pedestrian" and they often buy them "loaded or partially loaded." Indeed, sometimes they can "rent" them in return for a portion of the take from the expected crime.

Our criminals have no trouble at all in acquiring firearms through the illegal marketplace. The sale "retailers" who stock drugs, stock guns. There is no waiting period or bothersome paperwork.
2.16.2007 10:58pm
Elliot123 (mail):
The crimnal prefers to buy a gun on the street, and is quite willing to pay a premium for the superior product he receives on the street.

First, the gun is worth more to him than to the average person because he is more likely to use it either to save his own life or secure what he wants. So, the return on his investment is higher than average.

Second, there is no record of his purchase. This decreases his chance of going to jail.

Third, there is no waiting period for the gun.
2.16.2007 10:59pm
eric619:
Whit-

Again, as seems to happen in these debates, self-selected data is used. Of course there are no clear cases where guns purchased from gun shows are used in crimes. The loophole is that these sales don't get reported, so there is no evidence that a gun is from an unregistered sale at a gunshow. That is why no one can show that this loophole will stop a flow of guns to criminals or it won't - there is no way to trace guns back to a sale that isn't reported.
2.16.2007 11:50pm
Randy R. (mail):
I guess the conclusion of this study is that we should do away with gun laws altogether. That way, it would be even easier for criminals to get guns.

No wait, if we got rid of guns laws....Okay. How about this: If you have ever committed a crime, or ever plan to in the future, you can't get a gun. But if you have never committed a crime, and never will, you can get all the guns you like.

No. That doesn't work. See, it's hard to predict. Every criminal was once, however far back in their life, a law abiding citizen. Heck, even Dick Cheney is supposedly a law abiding citizen, but then he shot a man in the face. Accidently, of course. But guns don't shoot people in the face, only vice-presidents do.

Oh, it's late and I don't know who to root for anymore.
2.16.2007 11:54pm
Randy R. (mail):
Better yet -- let's make it so that only registered Republicans can own guns. They're the only ones who want them anyway. None for Dems. Wouldn't that make everyone happy? Then the criminals would probably all register as Republicans so that they can get the guns. And so you guys will have to deal with them, and it won't be our problem at all.

Problem solved!
2.17.2007 12:03am
glangston (mail):
Of one thing there is little doubt. Drug dealing and it's ancillary activity account for the majority of violent crime and firearm related deaths. If anything is a trend, this is. Check the FBI statistics.

How this relates to laws that mostly only affect only the average gun owning citizen is a mystery. I suppose the premise is that he or she is only a step away from crime and violent acts.

I, for one, welcome the Officials of Pre-Crime.
2.17.2007 1:37am
Just a Nut (mail):
Randy R. said

Better yet -- let's make it so that only registered Republicans can own guns. They're the only ones who want them anyway. None for Dems. Wouldn't that make everyone happy? Then the criminals would probably all register as Republicans so that they can get the guns. And so you guys will have to deal with them, and it won't be our problem at all.

A very informative discussion and a funny but insightful comment to boot.

Maybe criminals are already more likely to register as Republicans, if only to maintain favorable gun laws, as long as they can vote (i.e., before being convicted in many jurisdictions). This seems a logical course of action for most criminals if other issues do not dominate, such as a strong support for easy access to abortion, a deep-seated desire to let others burn the flag, or a conviction about balancing the budget, and basic disagreements over the teaching of evolution in schools. There must be more compelling reasons for criminals not voting Republican other than not having the vote at all.
I wonder if Scooter will have to give up his guns once he is convicted?
2.17.2007 4:28am
Nick Good - South Africa (mail):
it must be at least slightly more difficult to obtain a handgun illegally than legally. If it wasn't, they'd be cheaper on the streets, right? Are they?

Well in South Africa it's alot easier and way cheaper to get an illegal firearm than a legal one.
2.17.2007 10:45am
Nick Good - South Africa (mail):
ppSocRes, if the result of a rapture-style disappearance of all guns would be a wave of illegal zip guns, why don't we see that in places where weapons are tightly controlled?

you see both, here in SA home made guns are constantly recovered. In Northern Ireland during the troubles - Sten guns (9mm sub-machine guns) were made in machine shops, quite good copies too. Factory produced guns are more common though.
2.17.2007 10:52am
wooga:
Maybe criminals are already more likely to register as Republicans, if only to maintain favorable gun laws, as long as they can vote (i.e., before being convicted in many jurisdictions).
Just a Nut,
Wow, that must be some top quality stuff you're smoking...
2.17.2007 1:33pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Then the criminals would probably all register as Republicans so that they can get the guns. And so you guys will have to deal with them, and it won't be our problem at all.

Considering the Republican Congressmen and CEOs who have been recently indicted or already in jail, I think it's safe to say that many criminals are already registered Republicans.
2.17.2007 1:40pm
Mike McCann (mail):
I have been a Police Officer for over 6 years in a violent city. I am a Patrol Supervisor and an Asst. Team Leader on our SWAT team. As a street cop I can attest to one fact. Gun laws DO NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun laws DO NOT make it any more difficult for crooks to get guns. Gun laws ONLY take guns out of the hands of good, law abiding citizens. If all guns were outlawed do you really believe the criminals would turn in their weapons. Do you think our communities would be safer if only crooks had guns. I know better. Our good citizens would simply become easier targets for the people who wish to do them harm.
2.17.2007 10:23pm
WHOI Jacket:
I live in MA and recently moved behind what I later found out was a half-way house for addicts. I have a snub .38 Special that was previously my uncle's. I had thought about bringing it back up during my last trip home, just in case some meth-head falls off the wagon one night. If I'd brought it up from GA, where I'd owned it legally, I'd be the criminal. Turns out there's a ~$50-100 re-training fee, since I became stupid and lost all previous safety training when I crossed the state line. Then, there is a $100 application fee. Not a license fee, an application fee. I can pay it, and then still be denied a permit. I then have to alert the state within in 14 days if I ever purchase another gun, or if I change addresses. If I fail to do this in 14 days, I'm a criminal. The state (MA) also apparently reserves the right to search my possessions to determine the status of my firearms at any time.


Or, I could just bring it up and not tell anyone ever..........

Tell me what's the more attractive option?
2.19.2007 11:47am
Americangunowner (mail):
To the idiots That think criminals side with republicans on gun control, I hate to break it to you. Criminals would rather guns be banned outright! This way when they rob you, they know there is little chance they might get shot when they are breaking into your home. If you happen to be a woman, they could rape you, then if they chose, just kill you so they can't be identified. OK, now I can hear "they can run DNA test". Too bad it is after the fact though huh! Do you know the NRA is behind the nics check? This is a law that can really stop a criminal from buying a gun when the person is not legal to do so. We could spend millions on programs such as COBIS like NewYork has. It worked so well for this state. Last time I heard something like 18 million dollars and no match to crimes. Now theres a good crime prevention tool to spend our money on. Democrats make me sick. They are weak and worthless, they would rather turn our country over and let the UN run it. They put good programs like NAFTA into play. Thats really working out for us too don't you know.... IDIOTS!
2.20.2007 1:58pm
GR8-GUY (mail):
*** DARE U TO PUBLISH THIS *** DARE YA! ***

THE Prob is this: NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID; NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE U PRESENT, in ANY WAY U CHOOSE, THERE ARE THOSE SPLIT IN THIS COUNTRY, REGARDLESS, ALMOST DOWN THE MIDDLE IN FACT WHO WILL NOT SEE LIFE; WHO SEE OUR BILL of RIGHTS AS "LIVING"!! WHO WANT TO KEEP IT IN PARTISAN "BICKERING".

BUT THE DAY HAS COME!

THE DAY HAS COME... WHEN WE CAN NO LONGER "PRESENT REASONABLE EVIDENCE" TO SUPPORT A REASONABLE CAUSE - THE BILL of RIGHTS. AS IN ENGLAND -AND THE GUY ABOVE CERTAINLY REFLECTS- DENIAL IS MORE THAN A RIVER IN EGYPT - IT IS A WAY OF LIFE IN AMERICA TODAY! THEY WILL SIMPLY "CHOOSE" TO DISPUTE &LIVE OTHERWISE!

THE DAY HAS COME... WHEN -SIMPLY PUT- GRASSROOTS SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS CAN NO LONGER, SHOULD NO LONGER TRY TO "BARGAIN", "MEDIATE", "COMPROMISE" or OTHERWISE FEEL EMBARASSED FOR BELIEVING IN OUR FOREFATHERS, NOR INSULT OUR FOREFATHERS ANY LONGER BY WHITTLING AWAY OUR COUNTRY IN AN EFFORT TO "BE REASONABLE" &"SHOW CIVILITY", WHEN IN FACT - THEIR GOAL IS/HAS BEEN THE GRADUAL, BUT COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THESE RIGHTS.

HENCE, IT IS TIME THESE TYPES OF TRITE WORD-PLAYS BACK-&-FORTH and BACK-&-FORTH COME TO AN END! I THINK I SPEAK FOR ALL WHEN I SAY: THEY REALLY SERVE NO PURPOSE. NO ONE HAS CHANGED MY MIND HERE. NO ONE HAS CHANGED THEIR MINDS EITHER... SO: THERE IS NO COMPROMISE -AGREED; THERE IS NO POINT!! EXCEPT AT THE POLLS, BUT I PREDICT A PROBLEM THERE AS WELL - and REAL SOON.

IF SENATE &CONGRESS "NARROWLY" AGREED TO START CHANGING THE BILL of RIGHTS [RE: PELOSI -WATCH HER LIKE A HAWK], ELIMINATING AMENDMENTS ALTOGETHER - WOULD YOU (and YOU KNOW WHO I AM TALKING TO NOW) JUST KOW-TOW and "GO WITH THE FLOW"? WOULD YOU LET THEM TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN/CAN'T SAY ANYMORE ABOUT OUR GOV'T, or THAT U'd BE ONE OF THE "Mr &Mrs, America, turn 'em all in" CROWD TO DO IT CIVILY, ORDERLY? WOULD YOU HONESTLY FEEL ANY BROW-BEATING SHAME &EMBARASSMENT THEY PURPORT FOR FEELING OTHERWISE? CAN U RELATE ALREADY? OF COURSE! THEY've BEEN DOING TO US FOR 40 YEARS NOW!

WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE...

A NATION DIVIDED CANNOT SURVIVE. ITS STRUGGLING NOW - FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS, THO!!!!

I PREDICT -IN OUR LIFETIME- BECAUSE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES ARE, and HAVE REACHED THEIR LIMITS - THINGS WILL COME TO A HEAD IN AMERICA.

SIMPLY SPEAKING, AS AL GORE SAYS "THE DEBATE IS OVER. THERE IS NO MORE DEBATE." I SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS, UNABATED, AS MY FORE-FATHERS INTENDED AND MY GRAND-FATHERS DIED-FOR DEFENDING! NO APOLOGIES, NO EMBARASSMENT, NO MORE EXCUSES! THOSE WHO DONT, WHO WILL NOT MUST EITHER BE PREPARED TO FIGHT or WHIMPER (BITCH). EITHER IS THEIR RIGHT. BOTH ARE INALIENABLE! AND I WILL DEFEND THAT RIGHT FOR THEM. BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR THEM, I THINK I AM NOT IN THE MINORITY LIKE THE PRESS WANTS US ALL TO BELEIVE - NOR EVER WAS. "THEY'LL" LEARN WHEN THINGS COME DOWN TO THAT LEVEL...

THEY WILL LOSE.

AND THAT IS THE LIBERAL's WORST NIGHTMARE!

SO PLEASE: BE STRONG! BE RESOLUTE!! FROM NOW ON JUST SAY "NO"... and NO "MEANS" NO! AND YOU, &YOU ALONE WILL START TURNING THIS COUNTRY BACK AROUND INTO THE SUPERIOR NATION IT ONCE WAS; A NATION ADMIRED BY ALL THE WORLD, DREADED BY ALL THE LITTLE DICTATORS... BE THEY INTERNAL or NOT!!

GOD BLESS US IN OUR FIGHT.
2.20.2007 5:34pm
WHOI Jacket:
Woah there buddy, you seem to have hit the CAPS Lock near the start of that copypasta.....
2.20.2007 8:30pm