The occasional open thread: all or nothing edition

Posted on December 27, 2015 by Dr. Conspiracy

Put your Obama conspiracy comments that don’t relate to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

158 Responses to The occasional open thread: all or nothing edition

  1. Pete says:
    December 27, 2015 at 11:57 am  (Quote)

    Continuing a previous conversation:

    It may be that 4.8% of Americans have concealed carry permits, but I’ll bet far, far fewer than that carry a firearm with any regularity.

    It would be interesting to know what percentage of permit holders actually carry regularly. A quarter? A tenth?

    And yes, as Lupin said, the problem is not entirely with the guns, but with the American people.

    All of that said, we’re not nearly as likely to get gunned down as the media makes it sound. Most “gun-related deaths” are suicides. And yes, the use of a gun makes suicide more convenient, and more likely to succeed.

    We have around 10,000 gun homicides a year, in a country of 320,000,000.

    A significant portion of those are either crime-related (think drugs) or shootings of people who have a criminal record. If you stay away from drugs and crime, and especially if you live in a decent neighborhood, your chances of being shot are very small.

  2. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 27, 2015 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    A compilation of statistics on homicide:

    http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/19/Homicide.html

    It said that people with a gun in the home are 2.7 times more likely to be killed. In context, I THINK that means killed by homicide, but it may include suicides.I was surprised that homicide is the 2nd largest source of job-related death.

    Pete: We have around 10,000 gun homicides a year, in a country of 320,000,000.

  3. CarlOrcas says:
    December 27, 2015 at 4:27 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: A significant portion of those are either crime-related (think drugs) or shootings of people who have a criminal record. If you stay away from drugs and crime, and especially if you live in a decent neighborhood, your chances of being shot are very small.

    Another big factor is age, followed by gender and then race.

    As you can see from the linked data if you’re a 60 plus year old white guy your chances of being a murder victim are pretty slim http://tinyurl.com/o6hhd7h

    It’s been a while since I checked but I had a friend who taught a concealed carry class in Arizona (when they still required it) and he said most of the students were 50 plus years old.

  4. Rickey says:
    December 27, 2015 at 5:19 pm  (Quote)

    There were two security experts (both ex-polic

    I recently saw two security experts (both former police officers) on TV who pointed out that qualifying for a concealed carry permit does not qualify someone to respond to an active shooter. In fact, they said that training to respond to an active shooter is an ongoing and never-ending process. In simulations, experienced gun owners who had not had the proper training to respond to shooters were more likely to shoot innocent bystanders than the bad guys with guns.

    A man I know says that he won’t patronize retail businesses which have a “no carry” policy. I asked him, “If you’re sitting in a restaurant and two armed men come in, how do you know if they are good guys or bad guys?” He didn’t have an answer.

  5. CarlOrcas says:
    December 27, 2015 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    There were two security experts (both ex-polic

    I recently saw two security experts (both former police officers) on TV who pointed out that qualifying for a concealed carry permit does not qualify someone to respond to an active shooter. In fact, they said that training to respond to an activeshooter is an ongoing and never-ending process. In simulations, experienced gun owners who had not had the proper training to respond to shooters were more likely to shoot innocent bystanders than the bad guys with guns.

    A man I know says that he won’t patronize retail businesses which have a “no carry” policy. I asked him, “If you’re sitting in a restaurant and two armed men come in, how do you know if they are good guys or bad guys?” He didn’t have an answer.

    It doesn’t take much of an imagination to conjure up what’s going to happen when an untrained, inexperienced civilian finds him/herself in the middle of an active shooter situation and has to make snap decisions that trained police officers often get wrong the first pass,

  6. Pete says:
    December 27, 2015 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve seen the statements of professionals who describe the extended need for expert training.

    We have accounts of what’s supposed to happen, and then we have what actually does happen.

    In real life, yes, you have permit holders who behave irresponsibly and make mistakes. But these seem to be relatively rare. I’ve done searches for information on concealed carry permit holders shooting bystanders. Google’s not a scientific study, but accounts of such incidents seem to be uncommon in comparison to the number of accounts of permit holders shooting criminals.

    And without some real, clear, hard evidence, I simply can’t believe that “experienced gun owners who had not had the proper training to respond to shooters were more likely to shoot innocent bystanders than the bad guys with guns.

    First of all, a simulation in which lives are not on the line – even if it’s realistically and representatively crafted, which is far from given – is inherently different from a real life situation in which no lives are on the line. For one thing, if someone knows real lives are on the line, that person may well be slower to shoot in the first place.

    And as well as going far against the prevailing weight of public accounts of permit holder behavior, it strains one’s ability to believe. You have someone waving a gun about and shooting people. Everyone is running away from this guy as fast as they can. And you’re more likely to shoot one of the people who are running away from the gunman than you are to shoot the gunman? It just doesn’t make sense.

    I’m not advocating everyone should carry a gun. But the claim that armed citizens are more likely to shoot bystanders than they are to shoot the attacking gunman both defies common sense, and flies in the face, as far as I’ve seen, of the available evidence.

  7. Pete says:
    December 27, 2015 at 9:19 pm  (Quote)

    Oh, and to answer the question: “If you’re sitting in a restaurant and two armed men come in, how do you know if they are good guys or bad guys?”

    If they pull their guns and either a) start shooting people indiscriminately, or b) yell, “Gimme your cash, m*****f*****!” then they’re bad guys.

    If they saunter up to the counter, order a cheeseburger and start talking about the ball game, then they may bear watching, but are probably okay.

  8. Pete says:
    December 27, 2015 at 9:33 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting QOTD.

    However, the fact that it’s from 2008 suggests that current birther content’s getting a bit thin.

  9. Keith says:
    December 27, 2015 at 9:46 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: A man I know says that he won’t patronize retail businesses which have a “no carry” policy. I asked him, “If you’re sitting in a restaurant and two armed men come in, how do you know if they are good guys or bad guys?” He didn’t have an answer.

    That is EXACTLY my ‘issue’ with open carry.

    Pete: Everyone is running away from this guy as fast as they can. And you’re more likely to shoot one of the people who are running away from the gunman than you are to shoot the gunman? It just doesn’t make sense.

    No what doesn’t make sense is when you have 1 bad guy with a gun, and two or more good guys with guns, how do the people know who to run away from? And how do the good guys know who is the bad guy?

    Do you really think this is one of those situations where ‘what can go wrong?’ is the wrong question?

    What you are seem to be hoping for is the Soviet-American “Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)” standoff of the 60’s and 70’s writ small. I don’t buy it, thank you.

  10. Daniel says:
    December 27, 2015 at 10:11 pm  (Quote)

    My combat experience seems to be at odds with what you think defies common sense.

  11. CarlOrcas says:
    December 27, 2015 at 11:16 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: I’m not advocating everyone should carry a gun. But the claim that armed citizens are more likely to shoot bystanders than they are to shoot the attacking gunman both defies common sense, and flies in the face, as far as I’ve seen, of the available evidence.

    Is it your feeling that armed citizens are less likely to shoot too quickly or at the wrong person than police officers are in the same situation?

    It seems to me we have too many recent cases of the latter that we should be concerned about..

  12. CarlOrcas says:
    December 27, 2015 at 11:24 pm  (Quote)

    Pete:
    Oh, and to answer the question: “If you’re sitting in a restaurant and two armed men come in, how do you know if they are good guys or bad guys?”

    If they pull their guns and either a) start shooting people indiscriminately, or b) yell, “Gimme your cash, m*****f*****!” then they’re bad guys.

    If they saunter up to the counter, order a cheeseburger and start talking about the ball game, then they may bear watching, but are probably okay.

    So…..tell us….you’re sitting in your booth with your family. You’re against the wall. Your wife, son, daughter, etc., is between you and the aisle…..and the bad guys.

    Exactly what are your tactics going to be to deal with these guys if an when it becomes clear they are up to no good?

  13. Keith says:
    December 28, 2015 at 2:43 am  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Is it your feeling that armed citizens are less likely to shoot too quickly or at the wrong person than police officers are in the same situation?

    In theory, the Police Uniform identifies them as the ‘good guy’s and people can know to ‘run away’ from the bad guys.

    Of course in the real world, the innocent civilians would probably be told to ‘get down’ and not run anywhere that makes them a target or can get in the way of the Police’ like of sight (and fire).

    Also the uniform and their training helps the Police to avoid shooting at each other.

    It seems to me we have too many recent cases of the latter that we should be concerned about..

    I suspect that a civilian ‘good guy with a gun’ is not going to come out well in a confrontation with a police ‘bad guy with a gun’.

  14. Lupin says:
    December 28, 2015 at 4:01 am  (Quote)

    Another thing that puzzles me about the US situation is, what is “guns” or “arms”?

    It’s like, no one wants to define & categorize guns the way cars, motorcycles or anything else really gets categorized.

    In France we have four categories of guns: A, B, C and D.

    A are like war weapons and are basically prohibited.

    B are like serious revolvers etc and require a permit and come with certain obligations (training, kept in a safe at home, etc.)

    C are lesser-type of B and merely require a registration and can’t be sold or traded freely.

    D are like hunting rifles and are basically free of control.

    There are also regulations concerning the transport of guns, and the use (“port”) of guns.

    I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, it seems reasonable enough to differentiate between a Kalashnikov and a hunting rifle.

  16. RanTalbott says:
    December 28, 2015 at 4:25 am  (Quote)

    Keith: That is EXACTLY my ‘issue’ with open carry.

    Aside from movies and modern failed states like Somalia, how often do you see the bad guys carrying openly? In the industrialized world, they almost always want to conceal their potential for mayhem until they want to use it as a threat or actually commit it.

    Keith: And how do the good guys know who is the bad guy?

    Usually by his actions: if he shoots someone (or threatens to), the odds are very high that he’s a bad guy. Not a perfect indicator, but a pretty good one. Also one that, being an engineer with a predilection for looking for corner cases, would likely cause me to hesitate and get myself killed if I tried to intervene.

  17. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    December 28, 2015 at 5:22 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: I asked him, “If you’re sitting in a restaurant and two armed men come in, how do you know if they are good guys or bad guys?” He didn’t have an answer.

    Why not hoist gun nuts with their own petard?
    Have large groups of open-carrying “scary people” (to them, blacks and Arab looking people) attend places people usually associate with a peaceful atmosphere (playgrounds, restaurants, churches). I wonder how quickly people will demand an end to this particular brand of “gun rights”.

  18. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    December 28, 2015 at 5:29 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: it seems reasonable enough to differentiate between a Kalashnikov and a hunting rifle

    The problem is most US gun nuts are convinced they might have to defend themselves against government itself, thereby creating a necessity for having the strongest weapons possible (a hunting rifle doesn’t help you much if “the feds come for you”). That’s the notion that is most foreign to us Europeans (because despite having known many dictatorships in the last century, we’d never believe we could stand up against the military when it’s on the regime’s side).

    Germany has very strict weapon laws (and very few deaths related to guns, or police actions in general; since WW2, less officers were killed on duty than in the US in a couple months). The tactical gloves I recently bought would count as weapon if I decided to beat someone up (not in self-defense).

  19. roadburner says:
    December 28, 2015 at 6:45 am  (Quote)

    interesting discussion.

    before i go any further, i should say my first job out of school was at a traditional gunmaker. he not only sold firearms, but also built shotguns from scratch to customer specifications (he served his apprenticeship with purdeys), and i have been a competative shooter. i still shoot given the opportunity, but a lot less these days.

    and i’m totally against the idea of any tom, dick, or harry getting hold of a firearm without adequate training.

    even with training, idiots will be able to obtain firearms. i got my first lesson in the shop when a client came in limping heavily. my boss told me the year before he was out shooting and getting drunk out in the countryside, got into his 4X4 with his shotgun still loaded and promptly blew half his foot through the floor of the car. another guy i know erased half his face with his fathers shotgun while screwing around with it when he was 15. he’s not too bad, but will never get a modelling job.

    lesson learned – accidents with firearms are normally painful and serious, so don’t be a dick with them

    what i don’t understand is the paranoid mentality regarding firearms ownership. the normal person in their everyday life simply doesn’t need to carry a firearm. i mean, i hear the biggest support coming from people who supposedly live in the most advanced and allegedly civilised country in the western hemisphere, not in beirut or somalia, but the united states!

    some of this seems to be down to fantasy – being the urban rambo, gunning down marauding hoards of muslim terrorists – but the other part? it doesn’t seem too rational to me.
    the arguement given is `better to have it and not need it, than not have it and need it’, but the circumstances of actually needing a firearm on you in an everyday urban enviroment is pretty much zero.

    having said that, at one point in my….ahem….shady past, i did have an unregistered firearm. the time and the circumstance was such that the neccesity to have a firearm was far higher than a normal civilian. but even given that, i never needed to use it even once, and eventually stripped it and deposited the various parts in the drains in my town once i’d removed myself from the circumstances i had been in.

    i do have a knife on me all day and every day (except at school), and have done so ever since i was 7 years old when my father gave me my first one. in 45 years i’ve never pulled it out in anger, nor needed it for defense.

    i grew up in the countryside, and every boy had one. it was a tool of many purposes, and if my current EDC was checked by a forensic expert, it would show traces of wood, coffee, chicken, carbon graphite, wiring insulation, cardboard and sellotape – no human remains at all.

    an EDC firearm though is quite singular in it’s usage. ok, you could probably hammer nails with it (though with the increase in polimers used in their construction during the last 20 years, even that is debateable) but it isn’t really any good for anything else.

    personally, i find it sad that folks feel the need to go about their everyday lives with a firearm

  20. RanTalbott says:
    December 28, 2015 at 7:25 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, it seems reasonable enough to differentiate between a Kalashnikov and a hunting rifle.

    If, by “Kalashnikov”, you mean “fully automatic AK-47”, the U.S. does that, too. It’s completely illegal to get, or make, a new machine gun unless you’re a government agency. There are a limited number that were grandfathered in when the ban was enacted, which require a federal license to own, and federal permission to sell (or even lend). Even selling parts has the same restrictions.

    But there are many semi-auto rifles made to look like military weapons (mostly because their purchasers like owning something that resembles what they’ve seen in the movies) that have been the subject of much hysteria. Mainly because a tiny percentage of them have been used in spectacular crimes.

    Trying to write a legal definition that will distinguish guns that are functionally equivalent, but cosmetically different, to come up with a ban that would satisfy that hysteria has been a series of failures. Manufacturers simply make minor cosmetic changes that get around the ban, while still letting their customers feel like Rambo.

    We also have restrictions (though mostly not as strict as France’s) on handguns, and a fairly lax market in “hunting” weapons. But we have a huge appetite for guns of all sorts, so we wind up with lots more of them, in hands that are often less safe.

  21. RanTalbott says:
    December 28, 2015 at 8:57 am  (Quote)

    (Originally written in response to the previous open thread, but it closed before I could post it)

    Lupin: as Michael Moore demonstrated in FAHRENHEIT 9/11, the problem is not entirely with the guns, but with the American people itself.

    I haven’t seen the movie, but I’d say both are factors.

    As I understand it, the philosophy in most western European countries is:
    1. Gun ownership is a privilege that has to be earned (like a driving license).
    2. (Almost) all guns are long guns, for hunting/target use.
    3. Purchases are strictly controlled.
    4. Guns have to be stored outside the home, and checked out for each use.

    In the U.S., for the most part:
    1. Ownership is a right, that can only be denied for cause (e.g., criminality or severe mental illness).
    2. Self-defense is considered an “acceptable” purpose, and handguns are common.
    3. Purchases are loosely controlled, with opportunities to circumvent controls.
    4. Guns are commonly stored in homes, and often not securely. Less commonly, owners carry them (almost) everywhere.

    So we have a lot more guns, especially of types well-suited for crime, in the hands of people who are not trained and/or temperamentally suited to use them safely and wisely, and too available to people who definitely shouldn’t have them, via theft or poorly-regulated purchase. They’re also accessible to people who do harm on impulses they would have resisted if the means weren’t so handy.

    So, it’s pretty much inevitable that we’re going to have more violence. At the same time, almost anything we try to do to eliminate some violence by restricting access is going to harm some people who need access. It’s a mess, complicated by the fact that we have a huge number of guns in the possession of bad guys, making self-defense a legitimate purpose (especially for those of us in rural areas: at my home, typical 911 response time is about 30 minutes. Where I work, the sheriff may not be able to come at all if we’ve had heavy rain and the washes are running. And the response time is usually about an hour when the roads are clear. Out here, you have to be your own “first responder”).

    There is no simple solution, but most of our “debate” consists of groups who think there is one yelling past each other. Sigh…

  22. RanTalbott says:
    December 28, 2015 at 9:13 am  (Quote)

    Pete: However, the fact that it’s from 2008 suggests that current birther content’s getting a bit thin.

    Yeah, BR is reduced to featuring a story that says Hawaii won’t rename stuff after Obama. Poor gerbils: if it had, they could’ve gone on for days about how that was what Roman emperors used to do. And anyone who might’ve reminded them about the Norman Mineta International Airport has already been banned 😉

    There’s an interesting line in that QOTD:

    He should produce the “vault” certificate and end this speculation

    Has anyone ever compiled a list of all the things birthers claimed would “end this speculation”, but didn’t?

  23. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 28, 2015 at 9:29 am  (Quote)

    Certainly in the home, one is more likely to be killed if they own a gun (2.7 times more likely). I’ve not seen an any statistics like that for people who carry concealed weapons, but I would suspect that an accidental shooting with one of those is more likely than an intentional shooting.

    The danger of a gun in the home is the reason I don’t have a gun in my home. And I presume the reason most people have handguns is because they make them feel safer. News stories focus on violent events, and there are horrific stories. People have a hard time comparing the perceived risk to the actual risk, and so they make a less safe choice. I hugely recommend Bruce Schneier’s book Beyond Fear.

    While I would rather there be fewer guns on the streets, I think the chance of me being personally being injured by one is extremely small, and that’s why I’m not a strong partisan on the issue.

    roadburner: personally, i find it sad that folks feel the need to go about their everyday lives with a firearm

  24. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 28, 2015 at 9:31 am  (Quote)

    I was getting that story in my Google Alerts, not realizing that BR would pick it up.

    RanTalbott: Yeah, BR is reduced to featuring a story that says Hawaii won’t rename stuff after Obama.

  25. bovril says:
    December 28, 2015 at 9:38 am  (Quote)

    In addition, dependant upon the state you live in depends on the firearms you can legally own and the capriciousness of the local PD .

    So, for example in New Jersey before you can purchase any firearm you have to apply for and hopeful eventually receive a Firearms ID card, fingerprints, background checks, doctor check. A process that by law must be completed within 30 days which is consciously violated by every single PD in New Jersey where wait times of up to a year are anything but, unusual.

    There are, furher a wide selection of arbitrary ‘feel good’ restrictions on the type and manufacture of firearms which basically boils down to “OMG it looks scary” as opposed to opposed to effective functional restrictions.

    So for example a muzzle brake, which when used properly typically can increase first round accuracy, reduce recoil and muzzle climb and allow for faster and more accurate rapid semi-auto fire is unrestricted in use. Yet a ‘flash suppressor’ which neither hides flash nor adds to effective weapon use is a restricted item.

    The reason…because military rifles typically use them to reduce visible flash seen by the shooter, so they must have mystical EBR (Evil Black Rifle) characteristics therefore they must be banned or restricted.

    So, you have cretinous restrictions saying that

    This is evil bad ‘assault’ weapon

    http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Rifles/AR15A4.aspx

    This is not

    http://www.dpmsinc.com/A3-CLASSIC_ep_105-1.html

    Or, EBR

    http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mamrbnyM9p1r0n310o3_1280.jpg

    Not an EBR (’cause it has a muzzle brake not a ‘flash suppressor)

    https://shop.dantesports.com/images-prod/1354fb4561127ee50.11943128.jpg

    Until such time as people on both sides of the debate are prepared to sit down and talk sensibly about actual risk, actual issues, actual generally acceptable principles then we will continue as we are.

  26. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 28, 2015 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    Here’s one abstract from the American Journal of Epidemiology:

    “Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.”

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

    and

    “More than twice as many women are killed with a gun used by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than are murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means,” according to a study published in the Journal of Trauma by the RAND Institute of Health.”

    Pete: A significant portion of those are either crime-related (think drugs) or shootings of people who have a criminal record. If you stay away from drugs and crime, and especially if you live in a decent neighborhood, your chances of being shot are very small.

  27. roadburner says:
    December 28, 2015 at 10:53 am  (Quote)

    bovril:

    Until such time as people on both sides of the debate are prepared to sit down and talk sensibly about actual risk, actual issues, actual generally acceptable principles then we will continue as we are.

    the problem is knee-jerk reactions to horrible incidents, and the ridiculous arguements used by both sides of the arguement

    a good example is handgun magazine capacities. there has been many screams and shouts by the anti crowd saying hi-cap magazines shouldn’t be allowed (ignoring how quickly a magazine can be swapped) and the pro crowd saying it’s needed also ignoring that one of, if not the most popular semi auto handguns – the 1911 – has a 7 round mag and is lauded as a perfect manstopper.

    likewise, a compensator does look scary for the uneducated. having shot both with and without a compensator, i prefer the former by far.

    overall, what is needed is discussion WITHOUT the emotional crap, and straight logic applied to deal with any problems associated with widespread firearms ownership. and also remove from the equasion the types who are making the right sounds for their target audience to buy a vote, as they are just complicating the issue.

    because the way both sides seem to make a song and dance about things achieves nothing, and they are both to all intents and purposes shooting themselves in the foot.

  28. RanTalbott says:
    December 28, 2015 at 1:37 pm  (Quote)

    bovril: Until such time as people on both sides of the debate are prepared to sit down and talk sensibly about actual risk, actual issues, actual generally acceptable principles then we will continue as we are.

    Oh, that reminds me: I need to check on how my application for the ice skate rental concession in Hell is progressing…

    Sadly, Americans rarely “talk sensibly about actual risk”. Here’s something I wrote in response to someone trying to defend the “Keep out the Mooooslims” proposal on the basis of risk:

    Since 9/11, you’re more likely to have been killed by a white supremacist, an anti-abortionist, a “sovcit”, or some other home-grown (usually right-wing) terrorist than some jihadi yelling “Allahu akhbar”. You’re a hundred times more like to be killed by an accidental discharge by some careless adult showing off his new bang stick or some kid who doesn’t realize that what he found in Daddy’s sock drawer isn’t a toy. Over a thousand times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver. Ditto for non-terrorists who intend to kill with guns. And many thousands of times more likely to die early from eating junk food while parked all evening in front of the TV.

    But what is it that has Trump and his followers running around aimlessly like a flock of spooked sheep? The fact that a system that screens tens of millions of visitors and immigrants every year had a failure rate of about .000001%.

    In hindsight, I think maybe that rate should actually be .00001%, since I didn’t count the people involved in foiled plots as “failures”.

  29. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 6:20 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: No what doesn’t make sense is when you have 1 bad guy with a gun, and two or more good guys with guns, how do the people know who to run away from? And how do the good guys know who is the bad guy?

    As noted earlier, such a situation almost never occurs. Even 1 bad guy with a gun, and 1 good guy with a gun, only occurs around 3% of the time. 1 bad guy with a gun and 2 good guys would only occur around 1 time in a thousand.

    Do you really think this is one of those situations where ‘what can go wrong?’ is the wrong question?

    For the most part, yes. Because “What can go wrong?” is a theoretical question. If you have actual data (which we do) then the question “What DOES go wrong?” is a better one than just speculating from theory.

    What you are seem to be hoping for is the Soviet-American “Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)” standoff of the 60’s and 70’s writ small. I don’t buy it, thank you.

    I’m not hoping for anything. I don’t really care that much either way. To whatever extent I do care, my intention is to set aside clinging to the narrative, as much as reasonably possible, and be accepting of reality. This, incidentally, is what birthers ought to do, but they’re not able, or not willing, to do it.

  30. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 6:24 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: My combat experience seems to be at odds with what you think defies common sense.

    Well, let me ask you this.

    The question was whether armed citizens are “more likely” (and “more likely” has a very specific and quantifiable meaning) to shoot innocent bystanders than to shoot the armed assailant.

    In your combat experience, did you and your comrades-in-arms shoot the enemy more often, or did you shoot members of your own company more often?

  31. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 6:52 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Is it your feeling that armed citizens are less likely to shoot too quickly or at the wrong person than police officers are in the same situation?

    I don’t know. I don’t really have the data to support an opinion on that. I’m merely observing that armed citizens seem to do intervene with positive results more often than they intervene with negative results. How much more often? I haven’t attempted to quantify it, but it seems enough to have some confidence that, on the whole, lives are saved much more often than they are lost.

    And sometimes, multiple lives may be saved. What if an armed citizen saves the lives of 5 or 6 people in a single incident? You would have to stack that up against incidents in which armed citizens shoot 5 or 6 bystanders dead in order for the armed citizens, on the whole, to have been a negative presence.

    Here in fact is an incident in which an armed citizen apparently saved the lives of roughly 8 people, including himself:

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2054129059072688443

    When the assailant who died said to his buddy, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and when the two assailants then discussed the number of bullets they had in their guns, I tend to believe them.

    I particularly believe them because they had forced everyone into rooms at gunpoint, and because the one assailant had ordered the two women to bend over the bed, pulled one of the women’s underwear aside, and placed a condom over his penis.

    It’s true that one of the women was hit by gunfire, and it may have come from the good guy’s gun. This was a situation in which the bad guy was actively shooting at the good guy, and the good guy was shooting back. The bad guy was hit in the face and the thigh. The one woman was hit in the arm and both legs. She survived; this particular bad guy did not. The other bad guy survived, and was charged with murder, among other things, because of his participation in a serious crime in which someone got killed.

    The account tells us of four women who were present, plus the two men who acted. They aren’t specifically confirmed as being present, but it seems a fairly likely assumption that the two occupants who hosted the party, and whose apartment it was, were also present and among “the men” mentioned. There may have been one or two others present, but let’s just estimate a total of eight.

    So we have on the one hand: Roughly eight lives, almost certainly, saved. Because if the two assailants were going to murder the women, it’s a safe assumption they weren’t going to just let the men walk free to identify them. No, it was an all-or-nothing deal. Armed robbery was one thing, but when they started in with the rape and murder, it was necessary to leave no witnesses alive.

    On the other hand, we have one bystander who actually did get shot in the incident, who survived. Would you call that a win, or a loss? I’d call it a win. I think the 8 or so people whose lives were saved would call it a win. I think even the woman who got shot, but who didn’t get both raped and murdered, would still call it a win.

    Being shot and wounded was certainly not ideal, but it was almost certainly better than being first raped, then shot and killed.

  32. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 6:56 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Is it your feeling that armed citizens are less likely to shoot too quickly or at the wrong person than police officers are in the same situation?

    Thinking about it more, let me add another comment to your question.

    Juries almost never convict police officers of murder. Police officers are generally given a benefit of a doubt.

    The same benefit of a doubt does not usually extend to armed citizens. As far as I’m aware, proper concealed carry course emphasize this. For this reason, it’s possible, and in fact plausible, that armed citizens might be slower to shoot than police officers.

    How do the results compare overall? I don’t know. I am, however, pointing out that educated armed citizens (which includes permit holders who’ve been reasonably well trained) have a known incentive to be slower to shoot than police officers.

  33. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 7:05 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Exactly what are your tactics going to be to deal with these guys if an when it becomes clear they are up to no good?

    We’re speaking very hypothetically here, and assuming a lot of things, including that I would be carrying a firearm, which is extremely unlikely.

    But let’s assume I were carrying a firearm, and all the other things in your scenario. (It is, by the way, an artificial scenario. It’s just as likely that my family aren’t with me, or that I’m in front, or that the exit is behind us.)

    Personally, my first instinct would be to get myself and my family the hell out of there. Particularly my family. My second instinct would be to get them under effective shelter, and take effective shelter myself. If the situation were an armed robbery, that’s one thing. If they’re shooting people and I know I and/or family members are going to be killed, then I will do my best to stop them using whatever means I can. If I had to shove my family out of the way and shoot them in order for us to survive, I would do so.

    I remember hearing about a store owner who was robbed at gunpoint multiple times over the years. He had a loaded gun just under the counter. One day a robber came in, and the store owner shot and killed him. He was asked why he had never pulled his gun on any of the previous robbers. He said that all of the previous robbers had just wanted money. He could tell this guy was likely to kill him.

    Anyway, my response to the question is off the top of my head. If I actually carried a gun, I would probably put some effort into thinking such scenarios through in advance. I would probably also try to avoid the possibility of getting cornered in the way that you describe.

  34. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 7:19 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, it seems reasonable enough to differentiate between a Kalashnikov and a hunting rifle.

    There’s a significant difference between a Kalashnikov (at least those used in wa) and a hunting rifle.

    I’m certainly no expert, and have never owned either, but I’m pretty sure Kalashnikovs used in war have an automatic mode, whereas the “AK-47s” that are generally owned in the United States are semi-automatic.

    Automatic means you pull the trigger and get a continuous flow of bullets; semi-automatic means one trigger pull, one bullet.

    Since hunting rifles (at least those sold in the US) usually have the same capability, and also hold multiple rounds of ammunition, there’s not much functional difference between the watered-down military-style rifles sold in the US, and hunting rifles.

    In the US, automatic weapons are pretty tightly controlled, and expensive. It’s possible for individuals to own them, but it’s uncommon.

  35. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 7:23 pm  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: Aside from movies and modern failed states like Somalia, how often do you see the bad guys carrying openly? In the industrialized world, they almost always want to conceal their potential for mayhem until they want to use it as a threat or actually commit it.

    Well noted.

  36. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 7:29 pm  (Quote)

    roadburner: and i’m totally against the idea of any tom, dick, or harry getting hold of a firearm without adequate training.

    For the record, I’m also all in favor of training. And I’m also against idiots carrying guns. But of course, who gets to define who the idiots are?

  37. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 7:34 pm  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: If, by “Kalashnikov”, you mean “fully automatic AK-47”, the U.S. does that, too. It’s completely illegal to get, or make, a new machine gun unless you’re a government agency. There are a limited number that were grandfathered in when the ban was enacted, which require a federal license to own, and federal permission to sell (or even lend). Even selling parts has the same restrictions.

    Thanks for sharing that. I didn’t know the details, and didn’t realize there are only a very limited supply of grandfathered automatic firearms. That’s undoubtedly why they’re expensive.

    I didn’t realize how expensive they are until I did a web search, though. It isn’t just the regulations and taxes that make them expensive. I quickly found a dealer on the web who specializes in fully automatic weapons. They start at $15,000, and go up to $50,000 or so. That’s for one gun. And of course you have to meet all the federal and state requirements for owning one.

    And that’s why I’ve never heard, to date, of one being used in a crime.

  38. Pete says:
    December 28, 2015 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve not seen an any statistics like that for people who carry concealed weapons, but I would suspect that an accidental shooting with one of those is more likely than an intentional shooting.

    I doubt they exist.

    One thing seems clear to me: Training is a good thing, and there are some ways to carry guns that are much safer than others.

    People have a hard time comparing the perceived risk to the actual risk, and so they make a less safe choice. I hugely recommend Bruce Schneier’s book Beyond Fear.

    I totally agree. We have this huge national discussion about gun laws and terrorists, and what’s actually killing us is Big Macs, cigarettes, and sitting on our butts watching TV and surfing the internet.

    Probably I should go now and get some sort of exercise. :-/

  39. CarlOrcas says:
    December 28, 2015 at 9:31 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: As noted earlier, such a situation almost never occurs. Even 1 bad guy with a gun, and 1 good guy with a gun, only occurs around 3% of the time. 1 bad guy with a gun and 2 good guys would only occur around 1 time in a thousand.

    What are the sources for the statistics you include in your posts?

  40. CarlOrcas says:
    December 28, 2015 at 9:40 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: In your combat experience, did you and your comrades-in-arms shoot the enemy more often, or did you shoot members of your own company more often?

    Is there a ratio that you would find acceptable?

  41. CarlOrcas says:
    December 28, 2015 at 10:16 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: I don’t know. I don’t really have the data to support an opinion on that. I’m merely observing that armed citizens seem to do intervene with positive results more often than they intervene with negative results. How much more often? I haven’t attempted to quantify it, but it seems enough to have some confidence that, on the whole, lives are saved much more often than they are lost.

    With nothing but anecdotes and, as you admit, no data I’m afraid what you have here here is wishful thinking rather than anything you can have confidence in.

    That, in my experience, has been the case with the issue for the 40 years I have dealt with it.

  42. CarlOrcas says:
    December 28, 2015 at 10:30 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: The same benefit of a doubt does not usually extend to armed citizens. As far as I’m aware, proper concealed carry course emphasize this. For this reason, it’s possible, and in fact plausible, that armed citizens might be slower to shoot than police officers.

    What do you think is plausible for the states that don’t require any training to carry a gun…..openly or concealed?

  43. CarlOrcas says:
    December 28, 2015 at 10:35 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: Personally, my first instinct would be to get myself and my family the hell out of there.

    And attract the bad guy’s attention?

  44. Pete says:
    December 29, 2015 at 2:38 am  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: What are the sources for the statistics you include in your posts?

    I’m pretty sure (though not 100% certain offhand) that 3% came from a major FBI report on mass shootings.

    With nothing but anecdotes and, as you admit, no data I’m afraid what you have here here is wishful thinking rather than anything you can have confidence in.

    Let’s quote me accurately. My reference to “no data” was on the specific point of whether “armed citizens are less likely to shoot too quickly or at the wrong person than police officers are in the same situation.”

    I have data on other points relevant to the discussion. That data may not be “scientific” or “rigorous” in all instances, but it exists. Aside from which, even the “scientific” and “rigorous” data is well taken with a lot of thought as to whether it actually makes sense.

    For example, on the specific point of whether concealed carry permit holders are “more likely” to shoot bystanders, a simple google search on the question turns up far more references to reports of concealed carry permit holders shooting criminals than references to such persons shooting bystanders. Have I tried a formal count to enumerate press reports of one versus the other? No. But it seems to me that if permit holders were shooting bystanders at a furious rate, we’d be hearing quite a bit about it, especially given that the press loves a story about permit holder misbehavior.

    Want a source for that? Count the number of pages online that repeat the story of the woman who shot out the shoplifters’ tires.

    You state that I’m engaging in “wishful thinking.” Well, there’s some data right there, that’s relevant to the question at hand. Where’s your data?

  45. Pete says:
    December 29, 2015 at 2:53 am  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Is there a ratio that you would find acceptable?

    The question was a simple one. Are armed citizens (and I think we could say concealed-carry permit holders in specific, because that’s what we’re really talking about) “more likely” to shoot bystanders than mass shooters?

    If that’s true, then Db > Ds,

    where

    Db = the number of dead bystanders with permit holders’ bullets in them, and

    Ds = the number of dead mass shooters with permit holders’ bullets in them.

    It’s been proposed that Db > Ds, or at least that Db should be > Ds.

    I’ve produced some evidence that Ds is, in fact, > Db.

    We can get at least a bit more scientific on this if you want. Do google searches on “concealed carry permit holder shoots bystander,” one on “concealed carry permit holder shoots wrong,” “concealed carry permit holder shoots innocent,” and one on “concealed carry permit holder shoots criminal.”

    Not that this is stacked pretty heavily in favor of the idea that permit holders shoot bystanders. There are 3 searches suggesting that, and only one directly referring to criminals.

    Troll through the first 30 pages of each search, making a list of every incident you find of a permit holder shooting either a criminal, or a bystander. Make sure to weed out the duplicates.

    Report back to us how many criminals you find that permit holders shot, and how many bystanders. Also, please note any and all instances you find such as the one I talked about above in which a permit holder saves multiple lives. To be fair, that one incident offsets permit holders killing 8 bystanders. We have to count those fairly in order to know whether Db > Ds, or Ds > Db.

    Publish the results for us.

  46. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    December 29, 2015 at 4:02 am  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: Has anyone ever compiled a list of all the things birthers claimed would “end this speculation”, but didn’t?

    That would simply equate to the list of things birthers claim Obama has “sealed” – vault BC, college records, kindergarten records, birth records from the hospital… Plus confirmation by the hospital, a SCOTUS ruling and God himself coming down from the Heavens declaring Obama is eligible.

  47. Keith says:
    December 29, 2015 at 6:33 am  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: With nothing but anecdotes and, as you admit, no data I’m afraid what you have here here is wishful thinking rather than anything you can have confidence in.

    That, in my experience, has been the case with the issue for the 40 years I have dealt with it.

    There is also the problem that there are actually laws that prevent the gathering of such statistics. Nominees for Surgeon General are rejected for even suggesting that such statistic gathering would be a good idea.

  48. Keith says:
    December 29, 2015 at 6:36 am  (Quote)

    Pete: I’m pretty sure (though not 100% certain offhand) that 3% came from a major FBI report on mass shootings.

    I’m pretty sure (though not 100% certain offhand) that 3% came from an NRA propaganda cheat sheet.

  49. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 29, 2015 at 8:34 am  (Quote)

    I just want to say that the discussion here on the gun topic is generating more light than heat (in contrast to every other open Internet discussion on the top I have ever encountered).

    It’s possible that the 3% number BOTH came from an FBI report and a NRA propaganda sheet. It did come from an FBI report (see following on page 11). Of the 3.1% it looks like only one incident was ended by a civilian with a CWP–the rest were armed security guards. (See footnote 25). So between 2000 and 2013, only one armed civilian (other than on-duty security guards), ended an active shooting incident. The incident was at a bar. (News report of that incident: http://www.ktvn.com/story/8378732/three-men-killed-in-winnemucca-shooting-on-sunday).

    From the FBI Report:

    Resolutions The majority of the 160 incidents (90 [56.3%]) ended on the shooter’s initiative— sometimes when the shooter committed suicide or stopped shooting, and other times when the shooter fled the scene.

    There were at least 25 incidents where the shooter fled the scene before police arrived. In 4 additional incidents, at least 5 shooters fled the scene and were still at large at the time the study results were released.

    In other incidents, it was a combination of actions by citizens and/or law enforcement that ended the shootings. In at least 65 (40.6%) of the 160 incidents, citizen engagement or the shooter committing suicide ended the shooting at the scene before law enforcement arrived. Of those:

    ■ In 37 incidents (23.1%), the shooter committed suicide at the scene before police arrived.
    ■ In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents, 3 off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted.
    ■ Of note, 11 of the incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters were students).
    ■ In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.
    ■ The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting.
    ■ In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a responding officer to end the threat.

    Even when law enforcement arrived quickly, many times the shooter still chose to end his life. In 17 (10.6%) of the 160 incidents, the shooter committed suicide at the scene after law enforcement arrived but before officers could act.

    In 45 (28.1%) of the 160 incidents, law enforcement and the shooter exchanged gunfire. Of those 45 incidents, the shooter was killed at the scene in 21, killed at another location in 4, wounded in 9, committed suicide in 9, and surrendered in 2.

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

    Keith: I’m pretty sure (though not 100% certain offhand) that 3% came from an NRA propaganda cheat sheet.

  50. donna says:
    December 29, 2015 at 10:52 am  (Quote)

    Larry Klayman Names Obama 2015’s Muslim of the Year

    “No other Muslim has done as much, particularly given his power as president of the United States, to further Allah’s goal of a Christian and Jew-free world.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/muslim-of-the-year/

    Haven’t we been killing muslims with drones?

  51. Lupin says:
    December 29, 2015 at 12:37 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    Larry Klayman Names Obama 2015’s Muslim of the Year

    “No other Muslim has done as much, particularly given his power as president of the United States, to further Allah’s goal of a Christian and Jew-free world.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/muslim-of-the-year/

    Haven’t we been killing muslims with drones?

    And according to a leak by one of the drone operators recently reported on DailyKos, said drone operators call children targets “fun-sized terrorists”.

    A recent episode of THE SIMPSONS showed the US military recruiting young sociopaths for their drone program — Bart was deemed a candidate, but failed because he didn’t really want to kill real people.

  52. Lupin says:
    December 29, 2015 at 12:38 pm  (Quote)

    I shouldn’t be lazy and provide a link to the “fun-sized terrorists” quote:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada

  53. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 29, 2015 at 12:59 pm  (Quote)

    You may have seen delays and/or connection errors to this site over the past week. My web host has acknowledged some “routing issues” and are working to correct them.

  54. Notorial Dissent says:
    December 29, 2015 at 4:36 pm  (Quote)

    They’re still having issue connecting right now is about 50/50.

  55. Dave B. says:
    December 29, 2015 at 6:25 pm  (Quote)

    I can’t tell if this one went through or not, about Trump and Farah getting together:

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/trump-speak-event-honoring-birther-publisher-joseph-farah

  56. Pete says:
    December 29, 2015 at 8:06 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: I’m pretty sure (though not 100% certain offhand) that 3% came from a major FBI report on mass shootings.

    Keith: I’m pretty sure (though not 100% certain offhand) that 3% came from an NRA propaganda cheat sheet.

    “In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide. The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting.”

    – A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Unclassified)

  57. Pete says:
    December 29, 2015 at 8:11 pm  (Quote)

    Ah. I see Doc has beaten me to the punch.

    And yes, if we can generate more light than heat on this topic, that would definitely be a pretty rare and positive thing.

  58. CarlOrcas says:
    December 29, 2015 at 9:00 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I just want to say that the discussion here on the gun topic is generating more light than heat (in contrast to every other open Internet discussion on the top I have ever encountered).

    And thank you for this ray of light. I found the report late last night and planned to get it into the thread this morning but the day got away from me.

    It is telling that a person with a legal concealed weapon was involved in ending only one of 160 (just under two thirds of one per cent of all the reported active shooter situations)
    over all those years.

    Of particular interest, I thought, was the data point right above:

    ■■ In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents, 3 off-duty law enforcement
    officers were present and assisted.
    ■■ Of note, 11 of the incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school
    staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters
    were students).

    It seems to me the latter data confirm the current active shooter tactics to engage the shooter as quickly as possible, by any means.

    Now….as far as Winnemucca is concerned that’s a whole other story: I-80 used to be peppered with billboards advertising “Winnemucca: The City of Paved Streets”..

  59. CarlOrcas says:
    December 29, 2015 at 9:16 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: There is also the problem that there are actually laws that prevent the gathering of such statistics. Nominees for Surgeon General are rejected for even suggesting that such statistic gathering would be a good idea.

    Yes, there is a problem with data gathering in health and mental health situations but the FBI does pretty good job of gathering up what there is from local and state police agencies.

  60. CarlOrcas says:
    December 29, 2015 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: Report back to us how many criminals you find that permit holders shot, and how many bystanders. Also, please note any and all instances you find such as the one I talked about above in which a permit holder saves multiple lives. To be fair, that one incident offsets permit holders killing 8 bystanders. We have to count those fairly in order to know whether Db > Ds, or Ds > Db.

    Publish the results for us.

    Do you really think a Google search produces scientifically valid data from which one can draw solid conclusions?

  61. gorefan says:
    December 30, 2015 at 12:39 am  (Quote)

    Brooke Paige is at it again. Filed a ballot challenge in Vermont against Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. Someone should tell him Jindal dropped out.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/294235392/H-Brooke-Paige-v-State-of-Vermont-Secretary-of-State-James-Condos

    I hope he gets Judge Bent again. Mario may or may not be helping.

  62. gorefan says:
    December 30, 2015 at 1:12 am  (Quote)

    Mario is definitely involved.

    “This verified compliant and petition has been prepared with the assistant and consultation of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at the request of pro se plaintiff, H. Brooke Paige. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey…”

  63. Pete says:
    December 30, 2015 at 1:20 am  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: Do you really think a Google search produces scientifically valid data from which one can draw solid conclusions?

    I wouldn’t EVER accuse a google search of being “scientific.”

    At the same time, incidents in which a permit holder shoots a criminal, and incidents in which a permit holder shoots a bystander, make the news a very high percentage of the time. I know in my town, anytime somebody gets shot, whether it’s by a permit holder or just a thug, it makes the news. If someone were to get shot by a permit holder, it would really make the news. And I can’t imagine any city, large or small, in the United States in which such an incident would likely go uncovered.

    Secondly, we know that the vast majority, if not virtually all, news outlets in the United States post their news on the web, and those articles stay there for a long time. There’s no reason whatsoever to suspect that articles about permit holders shooting bystanders would be removed from the web any sooner than articles about permit holders shooting criminals.

    So while it’s not “scientific,” I can’t really think of any reason why such a search as I’ve described wouldn’t be reasonably representative, and therefore reasonably informative.

    I also fail to see anyone putting forth the idea that permit holders shoot bystanders more than criminals proposing a better source of real-life data, or in fact, any source of data at all.

    In fact, to be quite frank, what I see seems to me to be a little bit along the lines of, “Permit holders are more likely to shoot more bystanders than to shoot criminals because I believe they are. I’m not open to the possibility that it’s otherwise, and I’m prepared to badmouth the available data in order to retain my beliefs.”

    Which, strangely enough, is kind of similar to what we get from birthers.

    And I don’t mean to be unkind by saying it. It’s just an observation. You make a claim, pooh-pooh the available data – without giving any logical rationale whatsoever as to why it might be as thoroughly unreliable as you imply it is – and offer no actual data of your own that might even suggest that what you seem to want to believe is true.

  64. Dave B. says:
    December 30, 2015 at 3:13 am  (Quote)

    Throwing in that “”Definitions of the Words, Phrases and Idioms found in the Constitution of the United States of America”, Compiled by H. Brooke Paige- 2013″ just in case the court didn’t know, or knew not where to look, alas– that’s taking crackpottery to the next level. And then he even throws in his “The Intended Meanings of the Words and Idioms used by the Framers to Identify and Differentiate the Various Characteristics of Citizenship and the Reasons for their Inclusion in the U.S. Constitution” for good measure.

    gorefan:
    Brooke Paige is at it again.Filed a ballot challenge in Vermont against Cruz, Rubio and Jindal.Someone should tell him Jindal dropped out.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/294235392/H-Brooke-Paige-v-State-of-Vermont-Secretary-of-State-James-Condos

    I hope he gets Judge Bent again.Mario may or may not be helping.

  65. Reality Check says:
    December 30, 2015 at 9:11 am  (Quote)

    The section where Mario, er I meant Paige, claims that while the states adopted English common law in their constitutions while the federal government adopted “law of nations” and “natural law” is vintage Mario made up, pulled from his butt crack BS.

    gorefan: Mario is definitely involved.

  66. Reality Check says:
    December 30, 2015 at 9:37 am  (Quote)

    I assume Apuzzo has given up on getting anyone to sponsor his BS practice of law in Vermont so the best he can do is work through a pro se nobody like Paige. That’s a sad commentary on the state of Birtherism when their star “constitutional expert” can’t even find a sponsor.

  67. RanTalbott says:
    December 30, 2015 at 9:56 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Mario is definitely involved.

    This reminds me of the old saying about a bacon-and-eggs breakfast, and how serious you are about a project: The chicken is “involved”, but the pig is “committed”.

  68. gorefan says:
    December 30, 2015 at 1:04 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    The section where Mario, er I meant Paige, claims that while the states adopted English common law in their constitutions while the federal government adopted “law of nations” and “natural law” is vintage Mario made up, pulled from his butt crack BS.

    Right, Paige also mentions the American Common Law in several places. And he claims that a natural born Citizen cannot be made by an act of Congress, when that is exactly what the Founders did in the 1790 Naturalization Act.

    BTW, he mischaracterizes the exchange between Todd Daloz and Vermont Supreme Court Justice Dooley.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2LIhqH_nIY

  69. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 30, 2015 at 1:20 pm  (Quote)

    Bodies exhumed to prove natural born citizen status. You can’t make this stuff up.

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/751390/poe-saddened-exhumation-of-bodies-needed-to-prove-natural-born-status

  70. CarlOrcas says:
    December 30, 2015 at 3:40 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: At the same time, incidents in which a permit holder shoots a criminal, and incidents in which a permit holder shoots a bystander, make the news a very high percentage of the time. I

    What is that percentage……and how do you know?

    Pete: Secondly, we know that the vast majority, if not virtually all, news outlets in the United States post their news on the web, and those articles stay there for a long time.

    How long? And, just how do “we know” how many news outlets do that?

    Pete: I also fail to see anyone putting forth the idea that permit holders shoot bystanders more than criminals proposing a better source of real-life data, or in fact, any source of data at all.

    That’s probably because, in my case anyway, I’m not willing to make the assumptions you did. The FBI data on mass shootings provides us with some pretty good idea of how people act and react in those situations, don’t you think?

    Pete: In fact, to be quite frank, what I see seems to me to be a little bit along the lines of, “Permit holders are more likely to shoot more bystanders than to shoot criminals because I believe they are. I’m not open to the possibility that it’s otherwise, and I’m prepared to badmouth the available data in order to retain my beliefs.”

    Really? From me?

    Pete: And I don’t mean to be unkind by saying it. It’s just an observation. You make a claim, pooh-pooh the available data – without giving any logical rationale whatsoever as to why it might be as thoroughly unreliable as you imply it is – and offer no actual data of your own that might even suggest that what you seem to want to believe is true.

    This is classic: Exactly what “claim” did I make?

    The truth is I have never found enough reliable information to draw any conclusions about people who carry concealed.

    Asking questions and answering them is not, in my experience, a reliable source of information on which to make the sort of claims and statements you have.

  71. Pete says:
    December 30, 2015 at 9:30 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: What is that percentage……and how do you know?

    I think I already covered that:

    I know in my town, anytime somebody gets shot, whether it’s by a permit holder or just a thug, it makes the news. If someone were to get shot by a permit holder, it would really make the news. And I can’t imagine any city, large or small, in the United States in which such an incident would likely go uncovered.

    What I didn’t say is that, as far as I’ve observed in my own state and locality, there’s a public nature to both arrest records and court proceedings. I’m not aware of any state or locality in which arrests and at least the broad outlines of major court proceedings are withheld from the public and kept secret. If you’re aware of information to the contrary, feel free to enlighten us.

    Second, the question we’re dealing with here is the ratio of shootings of bystanders to shootings of criminals on the part of concealed carry permit holders. Absent any major cause, we would expect those to be similar across the country. Again, if you have any plausible reason why permit holders in, say, Texas, would shoot at and miss criminals and hit bystanders at a different rate than the permit holders in Georgia would, feel free to present your reasoning or evidence.

    Pete: Secondly, we know that the vast majority, if not virtually all, news outlets in the United States post their news on the web, and those articles stay there for a long time.

    How long? And, just how do “we know” how many news outlets do that?

    Your questions seem a bit like trolling. I made the statement simply to say we probably have a fair amount of information on the topic. Again, even if news articles are removed from the web, you present no reason why the ratio of bystander shootings to criminal shootings would be in any way significantly different in news articles that are removed, than they are in news articles that stay on the internet. It seems unlikely that major news outlets pick and choose articles to stay on the internet based on their content. If you have evidence to the contrary, and that they prefer to leave articles about permit holders shooting criminals up longer than articles about permit holders shooting bystanders, then please present it.

    Pete: I also fail to see anyone putting forth the idea that permit holders shoot bystanders more than criminals proposing a better source of real-life data, or in fact, any source of data at all.

    That’s probably because, in my case anyway, I’m not willing to make the assumptions you did. The FBI data on mass shootings provides us with some pretty good idea of how people act and react in those situations, don’t you think?

    To a limited degree. They say around 3% of mass shooters are stopped by non-police with guns.

    We could perhaps learn something significant if we had a good estimate of how many permit holders actually carry firearms, and specifically, how many permit holders are present in close vicinity to mass shooting events.

    That’s a piece of data we don’t have.

    If we could get an idea of what percentage of the time a permit holder is present at a mass shooting, and what percentage of the time a permit holder successfully stops a mass shooting, that would tell us something, wouldn’t it?

    Let’s say for example we were able to determine that permit holders are present at mass shootings 2% of the time, and they use their weapons to stop mass shootings, say, 1.3% of the time. It would follow that, on the occasions in which they are present, permit holders use their weapons to stop the assailant 65% of the time (1.3/2 = .65).

    We could do the same thing with shootings of bystanders, and compare the two.

    Failing that, we seem to be left with comparing permit holder shootings of bystanders, with reports of permit holders shooting assailants and/or saving lives. Which is, of course, what I was talking about earlier.

    I notice that you don’t really seem to want to do the kind of count of known instances that I proposed.

    This is classic: Exactly what “claim” did I make?

    This whole conversation started with statement by another poster, “If a firefight had broken out in San Bernardino, the likelihood is that twice as many victims would have been killed.” While your posts may be short on specific claims, the whole tenor of your posts seems to be to the effect that any comments I’ve made are in some way “cracked” or unreasonable.

    You seem to imply that my proposal of counting up and comparing incidents is completely idiotic, and yet you offer no facts, evidence or competing methodology of your own, whatsoever.

  72. Keith says:
    December 30, 2015 at 9:35 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: In fact, to be quite frank, what I see seems to me to be a little bit along the lines of, “Permit holders are more likely to shoot more bystanders than to shoot criminals because I believe they are. I’m not open to the possibility that it’s otherwise, and I’m prepared to badmouth the available data in order to retain my beliefs.”

    That is ABSOLUTELY NOT the argument that is being made.

    It has nothing to do with statistics or personal fantasies of what the statistics might reveal one way or another.

    The argument is that taking the law into your own hands is fraught with danger, for you, innocent bystanders, bad guys, actual LEO’s, and the law itself. It has nothing to do with good guys shooting innocents more often than not.

    It has to do with the possibility of innocents being shot.

    It has to do with actual LEO’s and the courts having to clean up after an firefight.

    It has to do with actual LEO’s arriving on the scene with a firefight in progress and not being able to figure out what the blazes is going on – who is the ‘good guy’ – who is the ‘bad guy’ – who is innocent – who is hostage.

    In a firefight between civilians there is simply no such thing as a ‘good guy with a gun’ no matter what the circumstances (and by my reckoning, Security Guards are not civilians), every civilian shooter involved is a ‘bad guy with a gun’.

    The whole idea of civilians injecting themselves into a ‘situation’ is absolutely insane. In spite of the movie fantasy, we are not all John McClane, and individuals do not have an advantage over local Police, SWAT teams, or the FBI.

    There is simply NO excuse other than ‘self defense’ – but that needs to be very CAREFULLY scrutinized. (I am personally aware of some self defense issues – a friend killed a guy who was trying to rape his wife and the DA correctly chose not to charge him due to self defense, he then proceeded to drink himself to death).

    American ‘tradition’ has ALWAYS been “DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS”. ALWAYS (again, except in self-defense). Even Saint Ronnie understood that, heck he was in enough Saturday Matinee Serials that preached that mantra. Some people think we need to ‘make America great again’ (as if it is not great now – huh). Well that ‘era’ of greatness was founded on lots of things: hard work, education (which they want to destroy), the middle class (which they have succeeded at destroying, perhaps beyond repair), and the rule of law (which they are trying their damnedest to discard). The idea of taking the law into your own hands is UNAMERICAN at its core.

    If you want to put yourself in an LEO position, then by all means join the Police department, they can always use good people – otherwise leave it to the professionals.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    (Notice I said ‘understand’; not ‘agree with’. You are absolutely free to continue to disagree, but please try to understand the argument and stop misrepresenting it.)

  73. Keith says:
    December 30, 2015 at 9:58 pm  (Quote)

    Any statistic quotes about gun violence are compromised by the black ban on gun violence statistics.

    The NRA is in full control of the conspiracy to ensure that any arguments remain emotional – and NO ONE can win such an emotional argument.

    The ONLY recourse is to return to fundamental principles: it is simply UNAMERICAN to take the law into your own hands – this is the traditional conservative narrative after all – and it works to answer the ‘should we – shouldn’t we’ questions being discussed here.

    How Congress Blocked Research on Gun Violence

    How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research

    Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

    Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence

    Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze

  74. CarlOrcas says:
    December 30, 2015 at 11:31 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: What I didn’t say is that, as far as I’ve observed in my own state and locality, there’s a public nature to both arrest records and court proceedings. I’m not aware of any state or locality in which arrests and at least the broad outlines of major court proceedings are withheld from the public and kept secret. If you’re aware of information to the contrary, feel free to enlighten us.

    Actually many arrests, their details and related court proceedings are kept shielded to protect the accused and his/her rights? I know that, Pete, because I spent 30 years observing and participating in those proceedings.

    What that experience also tells me that many arrests and subsequent proceedings simply never are reported in the media. Yes, they’re available, but for any number of reasons (I can explain if you’d like) they go unreported.

    Pete: Your questions seem a bit like trolling. I made the statement simply to say we probably have a fair amount of information on the topic

    Asking someone to support their assertions is not trolling: It is the essence of the Socratic method and the foundation of any inquiry…..be it a news story, a criminal prosecution or just a conversation over the back yard fence.

    It’s also just polite to back up your assertions yourself.

    Pete: Again, even if news articles are removed from the web, you present no reason why the ratio of bystander shootings to criminal shootings would be in any way significantly different in news articles that are removed, than they are in news articles that stay on the internet. It seems unlikely that major news outlets pick and choose articles to stay on the internet based on their content. If you have evidence to the contrary, and that they prefer to leave articles about permit holders shooting criminals up longer than articles about permit holders shooting bystanders, then please present it.

    It’s not my job to prove you wrong.

    What I do know, from my own experience, is that news organizations do, indeed, choose articles to archive and make available long term while others are erased or put in the deep freeze,

    And, of course, I have never asserted that anyone leaves certain articles about permit holders “up longer” than others, did I?

    Pete: I notice that you don’t really seem to want to do the kind of count of known instances that I proposed.

    You proposed it. You do it.

    Pete: This whole conversation started with statement by another poster, “If a firefight had broken out in San Bernardino, the likelihood is that twice as many victims would have been killed

    In other words……………I didn’t claim anything. Right?

    Pete: While your posts may be short on specific claims, the whole tenor of your posts seems to be to the effect that any comments I’ve made are in some way “cracked” or unreasonable.

    I never used the word “cracked” to describe any of your comments, did I? So why did you put it in quotes?

    Pete: You seem to imply that my proposal of counting up and comparing incidents is completely idiotic, and yet you offer no facts, evidence or competing methodology of your own, whatsoever.

    All I’ve said and continue to say is that it’s up to you to support you own arguments. It is not anyone elses job to do that for you.

  75. Rickey says:
    December 31, 2015 at 2:45 am  (Quote)

    A disturbing story in the Orlando Sentinel about the wife of a police officer who shot and killed her daughter after mistaking her for an intruder.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-mom-accidentally-shot-killed-daughter-20151230-story.html

  76. Lupin says:
    December 31, 2015 at 3:06 am  (Quote)

    We have been watching Netflix’s remarkably chilling and harrowing documentary series MAKING A MURDERER:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_a_Murderer

    While I am rarely prone to making sweeping generalizations, and I’m usually inclined to believe that things are more often roughly the same than vastly different in comparable countries like France and the US, I have to say that I cannot imagine any scenario in which the French legal system could have so egregiously behaved towards a defendant.

    I rush to add that we have had a number of judicial mistakes in the past, but they tend to stem from the police or the investigating magistrate’s incompetence, not the malice and blatant ignorance of the Law that is portrayed in this documentary.

    I thought ironic that so many Americans are paranoid about communism when a documentary like this one shows you already live in a regime that has the potential (in this specific instance, actualized potential) of turning into a fascist nightmare at the drop of a hat.

    (And I speak as one who experienced Franco’s fascist Spain first-hand.)

    May God protect you if Donald Trump is elected, because based on this film, your Constitution would suddenly become as relevant as the USSR Constitution ever was, and you would turn fascist overnight.

    In fact, we’d just finished watching Amazon’s adaptation of PK Dick’s MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE and my wife remarked that this was almost like the Nazi-occupied America it depicted.

  77. Pete says:
    December 31, 2015 at 6:01 am  (Quote)

    A couple of comments.

    First, I’m not advocating that citizens put themselves in the role of police. And I’m certainly not advocating that anyone “take the law into his own hands.”

    That said, where an armed citizen is present at a mass shooting, the odds are fairly high that there’s going to be no distinguishable difference between self-defense and shooting the bad guy.

    It’s also true that many citizens, fully understanding the risks they may encounter, may be willing to take on the substantial risks in an event in which a shooter is killing other people, and in which they know exactly what’s going on and have a clear opportunity to stop it.

    Is it morally wrong for people to assume a huge personal risk in order to save someone else’s life? Generally speaking, I don’t think so.

    It has to do with actual LEO’s arriving on the scene with a firefight in progress and not being able to figure out what the blazes is going on – who is the ‘good guy’ – who is the ‘bad guy’ – who is innocent – who is hostage.

    Police are already under that burden due to the existence of plainclothes cops, plainclothes federal agents, and off-duty law enforcement officers. Or do you think they can magically tell the difference, at a glance, between a plainclothes law enforcement officer and an armed civilian?

    I am personally aware of some self defense issues – a friend killed a guy who was trying to rape his wife and the DA correctly chose not to charge him due to self defense, he then proceeded to drink himself to death).

    Strictly speaking, that wasn’t self-defense. It was defense of the man’s wife. You state the DA’s decision was correct. Where do you draw the line? Is it wrong to defend the life of a friend rather than a relative? What about the life of the woman at Walmart who’s being stabbed to death?

    American ‘tradition’ has ALWAYS been “DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS”. ALWAYS (again, except in self-defense).

    I never advocated taking the law into your own hands. That’s what the idiot woman did who shot out the tire of the fleeing shoplifters, and by all counts, she was an idiot. But you seem unable to distinguish between taking the law into your own hands and being willing to defend your own life, and, in some instances, the life of another person in a situation in which it’s clear that the attack is unjustified and if you simply stand and watch, that person is going to be murdered.

    And yes, I understand what you’re saying. However, you claim that I have grossly misrepresented your argument when I described it as, “Permit holders are more likely to shoot more bystanders than to shoot criminals.” Well, let me quote you directly:

    What are these guys gonna say when there is a major amateur firefight and 30 or 40 innocent bystanders are killed?

    Now unless you presumed that such a firefight was going to involve something more than 30 or 40 amateurs, and kill all of them (and I didn’t see that assumption anywhere in there), it certainly appears to me that you were saying something to the effect that permit holders are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders than they are to shoot bad guys.

    I’m sure it was just hyperbole, though. So you can feel free to say you certainly didn’t mean it anything approaching literally .

  78. Pete says:
    December 31, 2015 at 6:05 am  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: I never used the word “cracked” to describe any of your comments, did I? So why did you put it in quotes?

    Because it’s a non-literal term. There was no intent to imply that you had used that exact word.

    You proposed it. You do it.

    I already have, at least to my own satisfaction. That’s what led to my belief that armed civilians (and concealed-carry permit holders in particular) shoot more criminals in the process of committing serious felonies, than bystanders.

  79. Pete says:
    December 31, 2015 at 6:18 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: May God protect you if Donald Trump is elected…

    Hopefully that day will never come. With Trump’s continuing poll numbers, I’m a bit past believing it impossible, but hopefully Americans have enough sense not to elect the guy.

  80. RanTalbott says:
    December 31, 2015 at 7:36 am  (Quote)

    Pete: With Trump’s continuing poll numbers

    While the media have been focused on Trump’s share of the 28% who identify as Republicans, every poll of the general electorate tracked by RealClearPolitics has reported an absolute majority (usually near 60%) with an “Unfavorable” view of him, and a “Favorable” from less than 40%.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

    The stunts that score big with the angry GOP base are, at best, getting him nowhere with almost everyone else. It will almost certainly get worse for him as people start paying more attention.

  81. Keith says:
    December 31, 2015 at 7:54 am  (Quote)

    Pete: I’m sure it was just hyperbole, though. So you can feel free to say you certainly didn’t mean it anything approaching literally .

    Actually I did mean it literally, but I didn’t say anything about permit holders necessarily. I was talking about untrained civilians taking the law into their own hands. If a ‘bad guy’ shows up at a shopping mall and starts shooting the place up, and armed civilians (concealed or not, permit holders or not) start firing back, how do any of those civilians know how many ‘bad guys’ there are and whether they are shooting at the ‘bad guy’ or some other ‘good guy’, and how do the innocent bystanders get out of the way of the resulting cross-fire.

    And when the cops show up what is the first thing they want to do? Separate the combatants – whether its a bar room brawl or a domestic violence attack. In this hypothetic shopping mall attack what do the cops have to assume: EVERYBODY is a bad guy – and that is the simple truth.

    Now you can continue to make emotional arguments about how a good guy can short circuit a bad situation if only he had a gun to deal with it – but it just isn’t likely to be so. The so called ‘good guy’ has absolutely no reason to be packing.

  82. Nancy R Owens says:
    December 31, 2015 at 4:45 pm  (Quote)

    Obama’s WHITE Father Exposed Here!

    Note: Somehow this file got saved in photo and not Word so I have to do a redirect.

    http://obamatheperfectmanchuriancandidate.blogspot.com/2015/12/obamas-white-father-exposed-here.html

  83. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 31, 2015 at 6:48 pm  (Quote)

    I received an update this afternoon, that the problem is supposed to be fixed. I haven’t had much time on the blog yet, but so far, so good.

    Notorial Dissent: They’re still having issue connecting right now is about 50/50.

  84. CarlOrcas says:
    January 1, 2016 at 2:45 am  (Quote)

    Pete: Because it’s a non-literal term. There was no intent to imply that you had used that exact word.

    Then don’t put it in quotes.

    Pete: I already have, at least to my own satisfaction.

    As long as you’re satisfied that’s all that counts.

  85. gorefan says:
    January 2, 2016 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    Martha Trowbridge is back with another of her loony theories.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Vwb_X5ka0&ebc=ANyPxKq0gREXeavh-jAFKITMn3NdSqPJoXCdE-jU9sDog8IUPPUvNdb7AiVL3hgNkpymO_3OkBS84GB4wnfbFgZFOczW4Jjq9A

    Stephen Pidgeon also shows up and screws up a lot of easily verifiable facts. And Montgomery Sibley also makes an appearance. A regular bin full of loonies.

  86. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 2, 2016 at 7:59 pm  (Quote)

    Hey, the guy in the video. Maybe this is the fellow Barry Soetoro Esq. is mistaking me for!

    gorefan: Martha Trowbridge is back with another of her loony theories.

  87. gorefan says:
    January 2, 2016 at 9:40 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Hey, the guy in the video. Maybe this is the fellow Barry Soetoro Esq. is mistaking me for!

    No you are a doctor in Pennsylvania or was it Ohio.

    Anyway that is either me or Santa.

  90. Rickey says:
    January 3, 2016 at 4:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Obama’s not parents of their children:

    http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/06/14/bombshell-documents-surface-proving-that-michelle-obama-never-gave-birth-to-malia-and-sasha/#

    What morons.

    Malia is 17 and Sasha is 14. The chances of their being any database records of them is remote, unless Malia has a driver’s license (and even that information would be protected by the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act).

    My mother had seven children and my father took lots of photos and home movies, but I have never seen a picture of my mother taken when she was pregnant.

  91. CarlOrcas says:
    January 3, 2016 at 5:31 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: My mother had seven children and my father took lots of photos and home movies, but I have never seen a picture of my mother taken when she was pregnant.

    There were three of us. I’m the oldest and I remember when my mother was pregnant with the youngest but, like you, I don’t recall any still pictures of her when she was pregnant.

    I have a vague recollection that he shot some 16 mm film of her and barely survived.

  92. CarlOrcas says:
    January 3, 2016 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Obama’s not parents of their children:

    http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/06/14/bombshell-documents-surface-proving-that-michelle-obama-never-gave-birth-to-malia-and-sasha/#

    The hate and ignorance literally drip off the posts on this website and Fellowship of the Minds.

    What a sad, sick bunch.

  93. RanTalbott says:
    January 3, 2016 at 6:14 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: The Obama’s not parents of their children:

    I don’t see what the “documents” are that supposedly “prove” this, even by the insanely low birfoon standards.

  94. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 3, 2016 at 7:34 pm  (Quote)

    The ones that low-attention-span nut cases believe would be at the end of the article, had they read past the headline.

    RanTalbott: I don’t see what the “documents” are that supposedly “prove” this, even by the insanely low birfoon standards.

  95. Keith says:
    January 3, 2016 at 8:08 pm  (Quote)

    The domestic terrorist attack in Oregon is spawning some pretty amusing tweets for such a serious affront to the “American Way”. These folks seem to hate America even more than the birthers.

    The Oregon terror/patriot incident is producing hashtag gold: #YallQaeda #YokelHaram #YeeHawdists #VanillaISIS #Talibundy

    I quite like the VanillaISIS one.

    For context, these Terrorists are complaining that they aren’t being allowed to steal the land the Government stole from the Malheur Paiute Tribe in 1878 after President U.S. Grant established the reservation in 1872.

  96. CarlOrcas says:
    January 3, 2016 at 9:20 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The ones that low-attention-span nut cases believe would be at the end of the article, had they read past the headline.

    What I like is that once you read all the way to the end of the America’s Freedom Fighters article you get a link to the Fellowship of the Minds article from late 2013 where you find four updates. Three include pictures of the girls when they were babies. Oh my!!!

    The last update, from June 2014, says Orly Taitz has a “supporter” who worked at the US Embassy in Morocco when the girls were adopted.

    Taitz says she’s still trying to confirm the information. Any day now. Any day………………

  97. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 4, 2016 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    In the early 80’s I was ordered by George Bush to kill Colonel Sabow on the suspicion that he was gay. In fact, it was an attempt to impress Pablo Escobar whose ranch we were all staying in. There was another older man who was shot as well and who was standing to the right side of the sitting Sabow.

    Jeb Bush shot a dead agent whom they had set up in a gun-running operation. His response to his brother……

    George: “Why are you shooting a dead man?”

    Jeb: “Because I want to claim him.”

    Here is my detail of this Sabow event on video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZPn02wvRJ8

    A baby-faced silver-spooned brat like Jeb Bush is the last person we need for unification.

    I swear I’d vote for Cruz or Rubio before I’d vote for Jeb.

    Trump2016!

  98. john says:
    January 4, 2016 at 10:46 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    In the early 80’s I was ordered by George Bush to kill Colonel Sabow on the suspicion that he was gay. In fact, it was an attempt to impress Pablo Escobar whose ranch we were all staying in. There was another older man who was shot as well and who was standing to the right side of the sitting Sabow.

    Jeb Bush shot a dead agent whom they had set up in a gun-running operation. His response to his brother……

    George: “Why are you shooting a dead man?”

    Jeb: “Because I want to claim him.”

    Here is my detail of this Sabow event on video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZPn02wvRJ8

    A baby-faced silver-spooned brat like Jeb Bush is the last person we need for unification.

    I swear I’d vote for Cruz or Rubio before I’d vote for Jeb.

    Trump2016!

    I’v vote for Hillary Clinton before I vote for JEB. No Good!

  99. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 4, 2016 at 12:03 pm  (Quote)

    Hillary knew Gorbechev was in South Florida and chose to wine and dine him instead of stopping him from recruiting and murdering Americans.

    I’m sure this ass-sucking netted her a few more precious jewels to add to her collection.

    Again, I’ll vote for one of the two communist Cubans before I vote for Hillary or Baby Bush.

    Trump2016!

    john: I’v vote for Hillary Clinton before I vote for JEB. No Good!

  100. bob says:
    January 5, 2016 at 7:27 pm  (Quote)

    The 9th Circuit is going hear arguments in the Melendres next week. But it is on the rather technical issue of whether Maricopa County is a party to this case. It won’t cover any of the “universe-shattering” information, and will not involve Arpaio, Zullo, Montgomery, Klayman, etc.

  101. Daniel says:
    January 6, 2016 at 2:16 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Hillary knew Gorbechev was in South Florida and chose to wine and dine him instead of stopping him from recruiting and murdering Americans.

    I’m sure this ass-sucking netted her a few more precious jewels to add to her collection.

    Again, I’ll vote for one of the two communist Cubans before I vote for Hillary or Baby Bush.

    Trump2016!

    For those of you who don’t speak crazy, allow me to translate.

    Nancy R Owens:
    Squeek!

  102. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 6, 2016 at 8:26 am  (Quote)

    While I think it very unlikely, it would certainly be interesting if the county were dismissed from the suit.

    bob: The 9th Circuit is going hear arguments in the Melendres next week. But it is on the rather technical issue of whether Maricopa County is a party to this case.

  103. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 11:40 am  (Quote)

    I publicly submitted my affidavit (also an outline for chapter one of my new book titled, “I Forged Obama’s Birth Certificates” with about thirty more chapters to go) a few days ago and yesterday they formally announce articles of impeachment with the first item being Obama/Allen’s forged identity.

    I fail to see the irony. Nor is this just a coincidence.

    http://obamatheperfectmanchuriancandidate.blogspot.com/2015/12/obamas-white-father-exposed-here.html

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of irony meter needles hit the upper peg, and then snapped off. I fear something terrible has happened.

  104. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 11:44 am  (Quote)

    Let me translate it for them as well, “The Russians/Cubans/Hispanic New World Order is coming and the only one who cares enough to warn you so that you can be properly armed is Trump.”

    Daniel: For those of you who don’t speak crazy, allow me to translate.

  105. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 12:18 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: I publicly submitted my affidavit (also an outline for chapter one of my new book titled

    You publicly submitted an affidavit to what? A blogspot website? This has no legal weight.

  106. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 12:33 pm  (Quote)

    This is obviously personal for Trump. I’m guessing that he lost a son, daughter, brother, father? to the Hispanic movement (Castro, Escobar). Or, they are the reason why he went bankrupt both times.

    If so, I’m sure it won’t be good for me. But, it never is anyway so what the hell.

    :0)

    Will he succeed in the things that he has promised? Only time will tell.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I’m just waiting for her to retcon Trump into her stories and claim she was married to him.

  107. Arthur says:
    January 6, 2016 at 12:34 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: “I Forged Obama’s Birth Certificates” with about thirty more chapters to go) a

    I can’t wait to read Nancy’s next chapter, said no one ever.

  108. Rickey says:
    January 6, 2016 at 1:23 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: I can’t wait to read Nancy’s next chapter, said no one ever.

    Her latest fantasy is that she killed Colonel Sabow in the early 80s. Colonel Sabow did die under mysterious circumstances, but it was in 1991, not the early 80s. And of course NRO had nothing to do with it.

    Her cast of characters continues to expand. It just occurred to me – if Obama is Hitler’s grandson, wouldn’t that make NRO his granddaughter?

  109. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 1:24 pm  (Quote)

    You have ADHD, don’t you? Try reading the article all the way to the bottom where you will see that I have submitted it via certified mail to the Department of Justice.

    Here’s the link again in case you have trouble finding my earlier post:

    http://obamatheperfectmanchuriancandidate.blogspot.com/2015/12/obamas-white-father-exposed-here.html

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You publicly submitted an affidavit to what?A blogspot website?This has no legal weight.

  110. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 1:25 pm  (Quote)

    It was in the early 80’s and the only ones who would know that are the ones who were there.

    Abel Danger is probably trying to hang on to the Gorbechev kill if he denies this. And Bush ordered the kills so he most certainly won’t be talking.

    Plus, Bush has had decades to whitewash all of the evidence that might be potentially used against him

    Rickey: Her latest fantasy is that she killed Colonel Sabow in the early 80s. Colonel Sabow did die under mysterious circumstances, but it was in 1991, not the early 80s. And of course NRO had nothing to do with it.

    Her cast of characters continues to expand. It just occurred to me – if Obama is Hitler’s grandson, wouldn’t that make NRO his granddaughter?

  111. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 1:29 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    You have ADHD, don’t you? Try reading the article all the way to the bottom where you will see that I have submitted it via certified mail to the Department of Justice.

    Here’s the link again in case you have trouble finding my earlier post:

    http://obamatheperfectmanchuriancandidate.blogspot.com/2015/12/obamas-white-father-exposed-here.html

    Sorry I don’t read spam. So you can’t actually tell me what you meant here instead of over on one of your blogs? The DOJ doesn’t accept solicitations.

  112. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 1:30 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: It was in the early 80’s and the only ones who would know that are the ones who were there.

    Abel Danger is probably trying to hang on to the Gorbechev kill if he denies this. And Bush ordered the kills so he most certainly won’t be talking.

    And you weren’t there so you wouldn’t know. You also continue to misspell Gorbachev’s name which is why you don’t know he’s still alive. Also Abel Danger isn’t a person it was a program.

  113. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 1:31 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: This is obviously personal for Trump. I’m guessing that he lost a son, daughter, brother, father? to the Hispanic movement (Castro, Escobar). Or, they are the reason why he went bankrupt both times.

    You sure it wasn’t a hairpiece that he lost?

  114. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    I most certainly was and I pulled the trigger so that both of the Bushes could make an impression on Pablo Escobar with whom they later became partners with after courting him for a few months with our military planes and our tax dollars.

    I know the real name of the show’s host. However, I won’t disclose it and I don’t know his “other” name.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: And you weren’t there so you wouldn’t know.You also continue to misspell Gorbachev’s name which is why you don’t know he’s still alive.Also Abel Danger isn’t a person it was a program.

  115. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 2:38 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: Let me translate it for them as well, “The Russians/Cubans/Hispanic New World Order is coming and the only one who cares enough to warn you so that you can be properly armed is Trump.”

    What about the dutch? They’re the truly evil ones.

  116. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: I most certainly was and I pulled the trigger so that both of the Bushes could make an impression on Pablo Escobar with whom they later became partners with after courting him for a few months with our military planes and our tax dollars.

    So what street did this occur on? What type of gun did you use? Where exactly did you supposedly shoot these people who didn’t die in the 80s?

  117. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 3:23 pm  (Quote)

    Pablo’s Montura Ranch House in Clewiston, Florida. A pistol. I don’t know the caliber or brand. There might be one or two military men still alive who witnessed this event.

    Lt. Sabow was sitting in a chair to the left of the front entrance and had just sat down. Another elderly man had his left arm draped across the back of Sabow’s chair. He was shot, also.

  118. roadburner says:
    January 6, 2016 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Pablo’s Montura Ranch House in Clewiston, Florida. A pistol. I don’t know the caliber or brand.

    this is one of the things that trips up your fantasies.

    if someone like yourself, who is approching the body count of an outbreak of smallpox, were the type of assasin you claim, your familiarity with firearms would be more than `Brand names’.

  119. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 4:07 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Pablo’s Montura Ranch House in Clewiston, Florida. A pistol. I don’t know the caliber or brand. There might be one or two military men still alive who witnessed this event.

    Lt. Sabow was sitting in a chair to the left of the front entrance and had just sat down. Another elderly man had his left arm draped across the back of Sabow’s chair. He was shot, also.

    “A pistol”. Ha you’d think a supposed assassin would know what her own weapons were. So you don’t actually know. So you don’t know the street or where exactly Sabow or Gorbachev were shot. Especially since it didn’t happen.

  120. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 4:13 pm  (Quote)

    I didn’t know how to forge documents, either. Yet, I did it.

    As for knowing weapons, they were usually handed to us.

    If I recall correctly, the first time I ever bought a gun out of a store was in 1985 just before starting at the University of Florida. It was a Raven .25 caliber, silver with a wood handle.

    This was witnessed by one of the writers of People Magazine.

    Nosey dude.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: “A pistol”.Ha you’d think a supposed assassin would know what her own weapons were.So you don’t actually know.So you don’t know the street or where exactly Sabow or Gorbachev were shot.Especially since it didn’t happen.

  121. Dave B. says:
    January 6, 2016 at 4:55 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve got some free one-star zombie books I’ve just got to get to first. Then maybe some antebellum laws from Mississippi, and some records of the imperial Chinese court from the third century BC. After I’ve completely exhausted every bit of absolutely useless reading material I can lay my hands on– and I’ve got a lot of absolutely useless reading material saved up– maybe I’ll give it a glance.

    Nancy R Owens: Try reading the article all the way to the bottom

  122. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 5:14 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, well, obviously I’m not as old as you seeing’s how your material dates back to the dinosaur era.

    😆

    Dave B.:
    I’ve got some free one-star zombie books I’ve just got to get to first.Then maybe some antebellum laws from Mississippi, and some records of the imperial Chinese court from the third century BC.After I’ve completely exhausted every bit of absolutely useless reading material I can lay my hands on– and I’ve got a lot of absolutely useless reading material saved up– maybe I’ll give it a glance.

  123. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: I didn’t know how to forge documents, either. Yet, I did it.

    You don’t know how to forge documents. You just claim you did just as you claimed you killed everyone. All you have is claims nothing to back it up. It’s why you constantly get details wrong when called on it.

    Oh now you’re claiming you went to the University of Florida? That seems to be the first time you’ve brought that up.

    So a gun you don’t even know the model of… uh huh sure.

  124. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 6, 2016 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    The correct spelling is Горбачев.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You also continue to misspell Gorbachev’s name which is why you don’t know he’s still alive.

  125. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 6, 2016 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: Yeah, well, obviously I’m not as old as you seeing’s how your material dates back to the dinosaur era.

    Yeah and you seem to come from the Stoned Age.

  126. Woodrowfan says:
    January 6, 2016 at 5:37 pm  (Quote)

    poking the mentally ill woman seems kind of mean.

  127. Keith says:
    January 6, 2016 at 7:49 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: “The Russians/Cubans/Hispanic New World Order WINTER is coming

    FIFY.

    You know nothing Jon Snow Nancy R. Owens.

  128. Keith says:
    January 6, 2016 at 7:50 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: What about the dutch? They’re the truly evil ones.

    He’s already had his two terms.

  129. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 9:36 pm  (Quote)

    Sweet! Someone with a heart. Put it to good use.

    Go to this webpage and send me money.

    http://iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.weebly.com/help-us-fight-the-disinformation-agents.html

    Woodrowfan:
    poking the mentally ill woman seems kind of mean.

  130. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 6, 2016 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    I also couldn’t spell Stephen Colbert’s name correctly for several months. I don’t get your point. I’m an American. Not a Russian.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The correct spelling is Горбачев.

  132. RanTalbott says:
    January 7, 2016 at 1:34 am  (Quote)

    Keith: He’s already had his two terms.

    Lewis Black disagrees.

  133. Rickey says:
    January 7, 2016 at 1:40 am  (Quote)

    Sabow as a Colonel, not a Lieutenant.

    He died in 1991, not in the early 80s.

    He died in Calfornia, at his home at the Marine Corps Air Station in El Toro, not in Florida.

    He was shot with a shotgun, not a pistol.

    http://www.ocweekly.com/news/who-killed-col-james-sabow-6393655

  134. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 7, 2016 at 11:22 am  (Quote)

    Nope.

    Rickey:
    Sabow as a Colonel, not a Lieutenant.

    He died in 1991, not in the early 80s.

    He died in Calfornia, at his home at the Marine Corps Air Station in El Toro, not in Florida.

    He was shot with a shotgun, not a pistol.

    http://www.ocweekly.com/news/who-killed-col-james-sabow-6393655

  135. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 7, 2016 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Nope.

    Yep

  137. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 7, 2016 at 2:00 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Nope.

    Yep

  138. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 7, 2016 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    Quora.com is a question asking and answering site. A current question interested me. It was: “Why do people seem to think Republicans are out to make Obama’s presidency difficult?”

  140. Kate says:
    January 7, 2016 at 6:37 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Nope.

    Why do you bother posting your lies here when anyone with the ability to read can easily determine that nobody believes a word you say? The article in the OC Weekly is very thorough. Sabow, who for some inexplicable reason, has been included in your fairy tales. You didn’t know him, Escobar, the Bush family, the Clintons’ or anyone else you’ve named. When your own family says you’re just seeking attention and they don’t understand why you’ve lied about all of this and used them in your fantasies, you’d think you’d get the hint. You have no proof of any of the things you’ve claimed because it never happened as you’ve said it did. Escobar did NOT live in Clewiston. He lived in Colombia, mainly with his wife and children. You don’t get ages right, you argue about proven dates of birth and death and claim body doubles for everyone as you try to convince others that you’ve killed them. There are so many holes in your stories that you have been unable and unwilling to explain. Why don’t you find something worthwhile to do with your time? Obviously nobody asked you to write that crazy excuse for an affidavit since you’re sending it to an investigative branch, not a specific person. It will end up in the trash, where all your fairy tales belong.

  141. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 7, 2016 at 7:08 pm  (Quote)

    Escobar DID live in Clewiston. The Bush family decided to befriend him and help him build up the cocaine fields of Central and South America. That’s more than enough motive for the Bush and Clinton regimes to falsify death records and put forth body doubles. If my family chooses not to break their silence, that’s their business. Everything I have said is true. Deal with it.

    Kate: Why do you bother posting your lies here when anyone with the ability to read can easily determine that nobody believes a word you say?The article in the OC Weekly is very thorough.Sabow, who for some inexplicable reason, has been included in your fairy tales.You didn’t know him, Escobar, the Bush family, the Clintons’ or anyone else you’ve named.When your own family says you’re just seeking attention and they don’t understand why you’ve lied about all of this and used them in your fantasies, you’d think you’d get the hint.You have no proof of any of the things you’ve claimed because it never happened as you’ve said it did.Escobar did NOT live in Clewiston.He lived in Colombia, mainly with his wife and children. You don’t get ages right, you argue about proven dates of birth and death and claim body doubles for everyone as you try to convince others that you’ve killed them.There are so many holes in your stories that you have been unable and unwilling to explain.Why don’t you find something worthwhile to do with your time?Obviously nobody asked you to write that crazy excuse for an affidavit since you’re sending it to an investigative branch, not a specific person.It will end up in the trash, where all your fairy tales belong.

  142. Kate says:
    January 7, 2016 at 8:09 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Escobar DID live in Clewiston. The Bush family decided to befriend him and help him build up the cocaine fields of Central and South America. That’s more than enough motive for the Bush and Clinton regimes to falsify death records and put forth body doubles. If my family chooses not to break their silence, that’s their business. Everything I have said is true. Deal with it.

    Prove it or you’re lying! What buildings now exist on the property you claim was Escobar’s alleged duplicate Napoles in Clewiston? How many acres did it encompass? Map it out on a current map as to where it was. That should be easy for you since you consistently speak of it being less than 2 miles from the police station.

    Your family isn’t silent about anything, they’ve said repeatedly that you’re lying.

  143. donna says:
    January 7, 2016 at 10:58 pm  (Quote)

    Wayne Allyn Root

    I’ll be giving “Tea Party Response to the President’s State of Union Address.” Wait until conservatives across USA hear what I have to say!

    http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/wayne-allyn-root-wants-to-be-Trump

  144. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 8, 2016 at 8:19 am  (Quote)

    Birther Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore is back in the news, banning same-sex marriage licenses in Alabama, again.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-chief-justice-roy-moore-doubles-down-on-same-sex-marriage/

  145. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 8, 2016 at 8:51 am  (Quote)

    Why do you keep harping about what my family says? I don’t think that you understand how any of this works. If they choose to keep silent, that’s their business.

    Napoles is to the east of Clewiston off of Hwy 27 just over the county line.

    Kate: Prove it or you’re lying! What buildings now exist on the property you claim was Escobar’s alleged duplicate Napoles in Clewiston?How many acres did it encompass?Map it out on a current map as to where it was.That should be easy for you since you consistently speak of it being less than 2 miles from the police station.

    Your family isn’t silent about anything, they’ve said repeatedly that you’re lying.

  146. Notorial Dissent says:
    January 8, 2016 at 6:07 pm  (Quote)

    Roy Moore, bravely trying to turn the clock back to the 19th C.

  147. y_p_w says:
    January 8, 2016 at 6:29 pm  (Quote)

    The Cruz campaign just sent an image of his mother’s Delaware birth certificate to Breitbart.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/294913544/Eleanor-Darragh-Birth-Certificate

    I suppose it doesn’t answer all the questions – especially the two US citizen parents theorists as well as those who propose that his mother might have relinquished her US citizenship before Ted was born. And of course those who feel that “natural born citizen” can only refer to birth within the United States.

    Whatever it is, it doesn’t appear to be a certified copy or anything that would acceptable for a passport application.

  148. RanTalbott says:
    January 8, 2016 at 7:46 pm  (Quote)

    y_p_w: I suppose it doesn’t answer all the questions

    You dambetcha, Skippy 😉

    The PDF version on scribd was created on a Mac, using Preview. Which, as we all know, is 100000% Proof Positive™ that it’s fake.

    I expect Galloops to devote his Free Dumb Friday broadcast to calls for Cruz to be burned as a Canuck witch. Or a Usurporious Wallaby. Or something…

  149. y_p_w says:
    January 8, 2016 at 8:50 pm  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: You dambetcha, Skippy

    The PDF version on scribd was created on a Mac, using Preview. Which, as we all know, is 100000% Proof Positive™ that it’s fake.

    I expect Galloops to devote his Free Dumb Friday broadcast to calls for Cruz to be burned as a Canuck witch. Or a Usurporious Wallaby. Or something…

    I kind of got confused. Breitbart seems to have received it as a JPG. However, when I downloaded it, it got converted to a PDF container.

    I suppose a PDF has advantages such as printing out at the scanned size.

    In any case, I’m not even sure what it proves. Some of the claims were that his mother may have naturalized as a Canadian citizen before she gave birth to him, although that’s not likely with their residence rules. His campaign claims that she never became a Canadian citizen, although her name showed up on some voters list in Canada. And in any case the State Department won’t adjudicate someone naturalizing elsewhere to have lost US citizenship if they state that they didn’t intend to relinquish it.

  150. Kate says:
    January 8, 2016 at 9:47 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Why do you keep harping about what my family says? I don’t think that you understand how any of this works. If they choose to keep silent, that’s their business.

    Napoles is to the east of Clewiston off of Hwy 27 just over the county line.

    You used an overhead shot of Clewiston to point to a home where you lived and where others you claim were involved w/President Obama also lived. Do the same for Napoles, it should be easy since you said it was less than two miles from the HCSO. Mark the sheriff’s office on the map and the land that Napoles allegedly occupied. How many acres was it? You said it was a duplicate of the original which encompassed over 70 acres so it wouldn’t be difficult to see from an overhead shot. I googled Clewiston and was able to get a good overhead shot that covered a radius of ten miles. You’ve repeatedly said you were so familiar with the area, so this should be relatively easy for you if it ever existed, of course. If not, it’s just more proof that you’ve been caught lying, just like the picture that proves you’re not President Obama’s sister.

    As far as your family goes, you’re the one that brought them into all this, claiming they were part of your fairy tales about the Clintons’ and birth certificates. I imagine it would be difficult to keep track of everything you’ve said. When you tell the truth, there’s no problem remembering the details nor do they change from one telling to another.

  151. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 8, 2016 at 10:53 pm  (Quote)

    I did not say it was a duplicate other than in name. Nor did I ever say it was 70 acres. I said Walt Disney had several Disney Worlds. Not every Disney World has the same acreage and I’m not going to give a satellite image because I know it from Hwy 27 by car. Not by plane.

    Again with the family? Why do you keep harping on this?

    Kate: You used an overhead shot of Clewiston to point to a home where you lived and where others you claim were involved w/President Obama also lived.Do the same for Napoles, it should be easy since you said it was less than two miles from the HCSO.Mark the sheriff’s office on the map and the land that Napoles allegedly occupied.How many acres was it?You said it was a duplicate of the original which encompassed over 70 acres so it wouldn’t be difficult to see from an overhead shot.I googled Clewiston and was able to get a good overhead shot that covered a radius of ten miles.You’ve repeatedly said you were so familiar with the area, so this should be relatively easy for you if it ever existed, of course.If not, it’s just more proof that you’ve been caught lying, just like the picture that proves you’re not President Obama’s sister.

    As far as your family goes, you’re the one that brought them into all this, claiming they were part of your fairy tales about the Clintons’ and birth certificates.I imagine it would be difficult to keep track of everything you’ve said.When you tell the truth, there’s no problem remembering the details nor do they change from one telling to another.

  152. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 8, 2016 at 11:47 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    Nope.

    yep

  153. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
    January 8, 2016 at 11:49 pm  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: Escobar DID live in Clewiston. The Bush family decided to befriend him and help him build up the cocaine fields of Central and South America. That’s more than enough motive for the Bush and Clinton regimes to falsify death records and put forth body doubles. If my family chooses not to break their silence, that’s their business. Everything I have said is true. Deal with it.

    Nope he didn’t live in Clewiston, You’re lying, deal with it. It’s funny how every time you can’t back up a single one of your claims you claim the records have been falsified or there’s a body double or some other excuse as to why you’re not lying.

  154. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    January 9, 2016 at 12:48 am  (Quote)

    Note that there is only one Disney World. None of the other Disney Resorts have “World” in the title.

  155. Keith says:
    January 9, 2016 at 12:52 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens: The Bush family decided to befriend him and help him build up the cocaine fields of Central and South America.

    I find myself in an awkward position here: I have to acknowledge that I find a minuscule kernel of a thought that might have a possible projection (that’s a mathematical term) onto the mind-space generally known as “reality”.

    It has been clear to me for a very long time that politicians as a general class (which, of course, includes the Bushes) have no real interest in actually reducing the incidence of addictive drug dependence in society. This is not to say that they are necessarily directly involved or consciously aware of their actions (no doubt some are, perhaps a lot of them), but nearly everything they do to ‘fight’ these drugs plays directly into the profit margins of the drug tycoons.

    For example, every time there is a big bust and 5 bazillion kilos of heroin gets taken off some ship or plane, two things happen: the price goes up and 15 bazillion kilos gets imported ‘unnoticed’.

    The authorities claim that the price rise is indeed one of their targeted results. They some how think that a junkie will weigh up the cost of a fix against the cost of food for their kids and ‘do the right thing’. EVERYBODY on the planet knows a junkie will kill his grandmother and sell his kids into slavery for a fix. It doesn’t matter how much it costs, they will steal it from somewhere.

    Raising the street price has the singular result of making it more profitable for everyone involved: the retail pusher, the wholesale distribution chain, the importer, the foreign manufacturers. And nobody in the process gives a SH*T about the guy below them in the chain (and probably not above them either) because they can always find someone else.

    The ONLY way to stop it is to completely remove the profit motive. Wanna stop heroin trafficking in its tracks and stop the practice of building the market by making drug slaves? GIVE it away free. If nobody can make a profit on it anymore, they will stop importing it, and there will be no incentive to ‘grow the market’.

    Lots of people function at very high levels while being addicted, doctors, lawyers, musicians, even politicians. The ‘problem’ with Heroin addiction isn’t necessarily being high – its dying from overdose or poisoning from bad ingredients and the crimes committed (robbery and theft and violence) in order to get money to feed the habit.

    Meanwhile there are politicians in key positions continue to make all the ‘right’ noises about the ‘war on drugs’ while they do their damnedest to increase profits. Why would they do that? Who benefits besides those in the direct distribution chain? Start with insurance companies. If 1 in a million householders has a drug related break in involving a couple thousand dollars to make whole, the insurance company just adds, say, 5 dollars to the premium for those million policy holders and they have made $4, 998,000. Easy money any day, thank you junkies of the world. That’s just one example, so be sure to look out for that campaign donation coming your way.

  156. Keith says:
    January 9, 2016 at 1:00 am  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund:
    Note that there is only one Disney World.None of the other Disney Resorts have “World” in the title.

    Yes.

    Not only but also: there is only one Tanamera.

  157. Kate says:
    January 9, 2016 at 3:53 am  (Quote)

    Nancy R Owens:
    I did not say it was a duplicate other than in name. Nor did I ever say it was 70 acres. I said Walt Disney had several Disney Worlds. Not every Disney World has the same acreage and I’m not going to give a satellite image because I know it from Hwy 27 by car. Not by plane.

    Again with the family? Why do you keep harping on this?

    The real Napoles, the one that actually existed, was over 70 acres. You’re the one who always refers to moves with nonsense about Contact and “Why build one when you can build two?”

    You knew Ventura Avenue by car and not by plane yet you had no problem pointing that out. If this alleged “compound” (which usually consists of several bldgs.) existed, you’d be able to show us on a satellite image where it was. There should be absolutely no problem for someone who allegedly spent so much time in this home you claim that Pablo built yet now you’re trying to use this ridiculous excuse? Obviously you can’t do it because you’re lying. Everyone who posts here has caught you in so many lies and yet you still come back spewing your b.s., thinking that people care what you have to say.

    I wasn’t “harping” on your family in either post. If you don’t want anyone to mention them, you shouldn’t include them in your fairy tales. You only have yourself to blame.

  158. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 9, 2016 at 9:04 am  (Quote)

    You are so desperate to turn the truth into lies. Pablo had THREE houses in Clewiston that I know of. I will not do it by satellite photo.

    As rich as Pablo was, you really think there was only one? Get real.

    Kate: The real Napoles, the one that actually existed, was over 70 acres.You’re the one who always refers to moves with nonsense about Contact and “Why build one when you can build two?”

    You knew Ventura Avenue by car and not by plane yet you had no problem pointing that out.If this alleged “compound” (which usually consists of several bldgs.) existed, you’d be able to show us on a satellite image where it was. There should be absolutely no problem for someone who allegedly spent so much time in this home you claim that Pablo built yet now you’re trying to use this ridiculous excuse?Obviously you can’t do it because you’re lying.Everyone who posts here has caught you in so many lies and yet you still come back spewing your b.s., thinking that people care what you have to say.

    I wasn’t “harping” on your family in either post.If you don’t want anyone to mention them, you shouldn’t include them in your fairy tales.You only have yourself to blame.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.