Recent Comments

1. 13 minutes ago on Michael Ramirez

   And yes, we will never stop all murders (or suicides). Murder has been part of the dark side of the human underbelly as long as our species has existed — long before Cain killed Abel, our simian ancestors were already killing each other (as Jane Goodall discovered).

   But no one ever used a knife or rocks OR FISTS to kill 58 people and maim 500 more in less than 15 minutes from a distance of hundreds of yards (Las Vegas) or kill 49 people (Orlando) or 20 first graders and 6 faculty (Sandy Hook) or 14 high schoolers and 3 faculty (Parkland) or others at movies, meeting their congresswoman or even in churches. In Dayton, a mass murderer was shot and killed by police who arrived on the scene THIRTY SECONDS after he had started shooting and already KILLED NINE PEOPLE in those 30 seconds.

   It happened because they had easy access to weapons designed for war meant to kill lots of people as rapidly as possible.

   Compare two attacks at schools with children on exactly the same day: December 14, 2012 —

   CHINA — Crazed attacker wielding a KNIFE slashes 22 children. NONE DEAD — all survived

   Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut — Crazed attacker wielding an ASSAULT-STYLE WEAPON shoots 20 children and 6 adults. ALL DEAD.

   https://www.thedailybeast.com/not-just-sandy-hook-chinas-terrifying-knife-attacks

2. 25 minutes ago on Michael Ramirez

   I was the one who summarized the Social Security mental disability standard and did so using two sentences. I guess that is too complicated for simple minds to understand. I stand by what I wrote and not someone’s attempt to rewrite what they did not understand.

   We do not allow civilians to own or use nuclear weapons, missiles, IED’s or fully automatic weapons. In the past, we outlawed semi-automatic assault-style rifles and the result was a dramatic reduction in gun carnage.

   There is no reason for any civilian to own or use an AR-15 or similar assault-style weapon. It’s only purpose is to kill as many people as possible in as short amount of time as possible. You cannot kill so many so fast with a pistol and, while they are used in one-on-one crimes and suicides, they are rarely used as the primary vehicle for gun carnage is mass casualty events.

   Eliminating assault-style rifles is not just Feinstein’s standard or my standard. It is an objectively valid standard weighing the virtually nonexistent legitimate need for it by civilians against the fact that it is the primary tool for mass gun carnage in the United States. THERE IS A PROBLEM. I want to solve it, while others are content to offer up school children as human sacrifices for their gun fetish.

   And yes, I want to remove ALL pistols, rifles, and any other firearm from anyone who cannot pass a background check because they are a terrorist, convicted violent felon, violent domestic abuser or mentally unstable, and I want that background check to be universal and absolute, with no exceptions for gun shows, Internet sales or private party sales or anything else.

3. about 3 hours ago on Michael Ramirez

   — And you need to read more carefully. I did, indeed, note that the disability requiring conservatorship was specifically with regard to mental illness.

   Copied and pasted from my earlier comment with emphasis added only for the key words that went over your head:

   “As to the mental health standard, in the Obama years, the background check did include mental health and the standard was spelled out precisely: any person who received Social Security disability checks that had to be paid through a court-ordered conservatorship went on the list. If you’re so mentally ill as to be disabled and require a conservator, you shouldn’t be buying guns.”

4. about 3 hours ago on Michael Ramirez

   — Beto O’Rourke has indeed suggested that all assault-style weapons be removed from private civilian hands and many agree with him. An assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 caused mass shooting casualties to plummet. That is completely consistent with what I said: “no one has proposed taking away any weapons appropriate to sport or defense from anyone who is not a terrorist, convicted violent felon, violent domestic abuser or mentally unstable.”

   Assault-style weapons are not appropriate for sport or defense.

   I agree with Beto O’Rourke and that is completely consistent with what I said.

   Assault-style weapons are designed to kill as many human beings as possible as quickly as possible with maximum destructive carnage.

   As for Dianne Feinstein, she was the Deputy Mayor who found the bodies of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk after conservative Republican Supervisor Dan White used a gun to kill them.

   She has been one of our strongest advocates for common-sense gun safety laws.

   She is my senator and I have voted for her every time she has been on the primary or general ballot since 1992, though I think she has now grown too old and should step down and let Gavin Newsom make a younger appointment.

   That said, as closely as I have followed her career, I am not aware of any instance where she “proposed taking away any weapons appropriate to sport or defense from anyone who is not a terrorist, convicted violent felon, violent domestic abuser or mentally unstable” and, if you disagree, then cite the exact example and provide a source, as I did.

5. about 9 hours ago on Michael Ramirez

   — There you go with your false little urban mythology. No, there is not one single elected politician who has introduced a single proposal to take away all guns. In fact no one has proposed taking away any weapons appropriate to sport or defense from anyone who is not a terrorist, convicted violent felon, violent domestic abuser or mentally unstable. None.

   You claim “there are many a politician that have outwardly advocated for taking all firearms”?

   You make the claim. If there are so “many,” it should be easy to find documented examples from credible sources. I won’t hold my breath.

   And as your experience demonstrated, the standard for going on the background check list is for domestic abuse is CONVICTION, not allegation. There is a difference.

   You seem confident that I can’t back up the assertion that Trump ended the Obama-era mental mental health rule on background checks. Unlike your little assertion about taking everyone’s guns away, yes, I can back it up.

   https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

   https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ended-rule-block-mentally-ill-guns/story?id=53113891

   And you misrepresented the standard. It was not just for conservatorship. It was a conservatorship DUE TO MENTAL HEALTH DISABILITY.

   But thank you for clarifying that, yes, you do support the right of convicted violent domestic abusers and those who are mentally unstable to have easy access to firearms.

   Very illuminating.

6. 1 day ago on Michael Ramirez

   And still trying to divert and distract to personalized comments that have no relation to the actual topic at hand, just like I said.

7. 1 day ago on Michael Ramirez

   — Those who are unable to respond with facts, issues and substance relevant to the thread often try to distract by making it about something personal or some other irrelevancy. It seems that might be what someone is trying to do to you because they could not respond to a valid point you made about the actual subject at hand.

8. 1 day ago on Michael Ramirez

   — There is no proposal to take any firearms appropriate to sport or defense away from any person who is not a terrorist, convicted violent felon, violent domestic abuser or mentally unstable, nor has there ever been.

   Law-abiding mentally-stable people in Canada, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand do own guns in large numbers, but a person cannot just walk into a gun show or place an Internet order for assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. And those countries, while allowing common-sense gun ownership, do also have mental illness and video games, but they do not have an epidemic of gun carnage.

   The fear of law-abiding mentally stable people that we want to “take away all their guns” is not only unfounded, it is also IRRATIONAL. If they are so disconnected from reality by their exposure to scare tactics and fearmongering that they have been whipped into such a frenzy of delusion, perhaps they are not mentally stable enough to be carrying around loaded weapons.

9. 1 day ago on Michael Ramirez

   It seems that there are still those who simply do not grasp the concept, regardless of the simple one-sentence text of the Second Amendment itself, the writings of the Founders explaining it as representing state militias or all judicial writings prior to 2008, that the Second Amendment was written, intended and understood to refer to state militias.

   No, it was NOT written, and never intended, for use by amateur militias to rebel against actions of the federal government they disagreed with. The latter — armed rebellion against the United States — is defined as “treason” in the Constitution.

   Those advocating such interpretations are essentially advocating treason.

10. 1 day ago on Michael Ramirez

    — If you do not object to closing the gun show and internet sales loophole, then that closes a huge amount of the gap compared to those who do oppose closing those loopholes. And the NRA does object to further tightening of those loopholes, which is why it did not get included int the extremely weak bill that was passed just so people on both sides of the aisle could say they “did something.” The only thing noteworthy was that any kind of agreement could be reached at all.

    If you do not object to closing the gun show and internet sales loophole, then my comment was not addressed to you. It is addressed to all those who DO object, of which there are plenty, including today’s NRA, in stark contrast to the reasonable position Wayne LaPierre took in his congressional testimony 23 years ago:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-oqfPojhec

    As to your comments on restraining orders and mental health, you are not informed on the issues.

    I have accompanied disabled abuse victims to court to assist, and even here in California it is not so easy to just get a restraining order. Evidence and expert testimony is required.

    As to the mental health standard, in the Obama years, the background check did include mental health and the standard was spelled out precisely: any person who received Social Security disability checks that had to be paid through a court-ordered conservatorship went on the list. If you’re so mentally ill as to be disabled and require a conservator, you shouldn’t be buying guns.

    In the first month of the Trump presidency, with a Republican House and Senate, they eliminated that standard completely.

    So would you support that well-defined standard being restored?