Lawyer Nabbed Buying Illegal Guns

[mikeb302000]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/127911003.html">JSOnline reports

A Wauwatosa lawyer has been charged with a felony after police say he paid an informant $400 for two purportedly stolen guns and an illegal silencer, court records say.

I don't think his being a lawyer has anything to do with it. Nor do I think the "silencer" is important in the story. Mr. Barrett is a good example of what I call "the hidden criminals."

The way it works is this. Among gun owners you've got the law abiding, the criminal and a very large gray area in between. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/04/venn-diagram-of-gun-owners.html">This Venn Diagram doesn't show the right proportions, but it gives you an idea, which works like this.

A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Area B would be the smallest, Area A next biggest and Area AUB would be by far the biggest. Remember in addition to the 5 categories listed above, those in the http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-10.html">Famous 10% would also fall into the gray area.

What's your opinion? Why do you think law-abiding and responsible gun owners who truly fit into category B become so defensive and antagonistic about this? Group B, law-abiding gun owners, although the smallest of the groups, still accounts for many, many individuals. I have nothing but respect for them and cannot understand why they aren't on the front lines of gun control activism along with us. They would be the biggest winners.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

[DrDan]

1. AUB would indicate the union and I think you are referring to the intersectioon

which would be A(inverted-U)B.

And let me add, I think one can be a part of that intersection only if a law was broken (as in your first 2 examples) and not yet convicted. Any other combination would not be a part of the intersection - so very small indeed. 3, 4, and 5 are not part of B as no laws were broken (except perhaps a negligent discharge).

[DanTex]

17. Here's the symbol:

A ∩ B

[DrDan]

30. yep - that is the proper symbol for that part of the Venn the poster is trying to portray

[PuffedMica]

2. Mike sets up the perfect as the enemy of the good (again)

Mike implies that any HAM radio operator that let the transmitter go off frequency can't have a gun.
Mike implies that any automobile driver who exceeded the speed limit can't have a gun.
Mike implies that a person who drove a car while their drivers' license stayed at home can't have a gun.
Mike implies that an over drawn checking account precludes having a gun.

Unrec for linking to information only found on Mike's blog.

[mikeb302000]

3. we're talking about gun rights

and "hidden criminals" among the lawful gun owners. Did you miss that?

[Tejas]

4. Come on Sparky, you'd prefer no guns at all in civilian hands.

Why the transparent ploy?

[SteveM]

32. Why, to link the hated object to the despised individual; all 80+ million of 'em.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. I'm not buying into the "hidden criminal" meme

I know it's been over 20 years since you've lived in the United States, but in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

If you haven't been proven guilty of a disqualifying crime, you get to own guns. It's as simple as that.

[mikeb302000]

15. The "hidden criminal" idea is no meme

it's a fact of life in the gun world. You guys want to keep the bar set low, at "felony conviction" for disqualification. That means those of you who regularly commit crimes and have not yet been caught are "hidden criminals." Certainly you can see the difference between the career criminal who's thus far evaded detection and the honest squared away gun owner? That's what I'm talking about. I'm not saying we need to implement a "Minority Report" system. I'm just saying you've got to admit, honesty demands it, that it's not all black and white, criminal and law-abiding. There's a gray area.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. I want the bar set concretely.

The "hidden criminal" idea is no meme it's a fact of life in the gun world. You guys want to keep the bar set low, at "felony conviction" for disqualification. That means those of you who regularly commit crimes and have not yet been caught are "hidden criminals." Certainly you can see the difference between the career criminal who's thus far evaded detection and the honest squared away gun owner? That's what I'm talking about. I'm not saying we need to implement a "Minority Report" system. I'm just saying you've got to admit, honesty demands it, that it's not all black and white, criminal and law-abiding. There's a gray area.

I don't want the bar set low, I want it set concretely.

Right now, you have to be convicted of certain crimes before you can lose your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Or, you have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

These are very bright, easy-to-define lines in the sand that operate with due process of law.

If you want to alter the metrics for disqualification I'm open to suggestions, so long as those metrics are specific and in keeping with due process.

Furthermore, the idea that most people who commit crimes with firearms were criminals all along and just never got caught is just not born out by the data.

Most people who commit homicide with a firearm have extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, 4 felonies. I have little doubt this follows for other crimes committed with firearms.

[DanTex]

41. Criminal histories.

Most people who commit homicide with a firearm have extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, 4 felonies. I have little doubt this follows for other crimes committed with firearms.
The "4 felonies" statistic comes from a Don Kates article. That's felony arrests, not convictions. Also, the notion of an "average criminal" here hides some "Bill Gates" effect: putting Bill Gates in stadium with 40,000 homeless people and then claiming that the average person there is a millionaire. Despite the fact that this is the average (in the one particular dataset Kates was looking at...), most murderers do not in fact have four prior felony arrests.

Of course, if we look at convictions rather than arrests, you find that the majority of murderers do not have prior felony convictions. Even the NRA's go-to criminologist, Gary Kleck, has estimated this fraction at just 25%.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. Either way

The "4 felonies" statistic comes from a Don Kates article. That's felony arrests, not convictions. Also, the notion of an "average criminal" here hides some "Bill Gates" effect: putting Bill Gates in stadium with 40,000 homeless people and then claiming that the average person there is a millionaire. Despite the fact that this is the average (in the one particular dataset Kates was looking at...), most murderers do not in fact have four prior felony arrests.

The article does only mention arrests, but that does not mean that they were not also convicted of the things they were arrested for.

Given the extensive criminal history of most of these criminals, dating back to adolescence, it seems likely that the premise is still quite true: Your average homicide committer is not a law-abiding citizen who just snapped one day.

[Kennah]

38. What other rights should be restricted when you think someone is dirty, Inspector Callahan?

[iverglas]

39. why don't you people go to law school if you want to talk about the law?

in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty

This is not a proverb.

It is a principle of CRIMINAL law.

I keep trying to educate the masses here about what it means, but you all seem to prefer ignorance. Ignorance becomes wilful at a certain point.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a statement of fact.

In fact, as we all know, no court ever pronounces anyone innocent of anything. "Not guilty" is as good as it gets -- which also means something. It means not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's exactly what the "innocent" in your burble means: not (yet) proved guilty. That is all it means.

No one may be punished for a crime unless and until they have been found guilty by the court of competent jurisdiction, according to the applicable standard of proof.

Note the "punished". As in: sentenced. By a court. For a crime.

Removing/denying firearms because possession of firearms is contraindicated, in the public interest, is not a punishment. Period.

I'm always curious.

Why is it a good idea -- and yes, everybody here IS saying it is a good idea -- for a person with a severe delusional mental illness to be ineligible to possess a firearm once they have been committed for care, but for them to be permitted to possess all the firearms they can tote right up until that moment? Did they become a danger to themself or other persons only at the moment a doctor signed that paper? I don't think so. I can only infer that others do. ?



typo fixed ...

[ManiacJoe]

43. Due process is needed to protect the innocent.

Why is it a good idea -- and yes, everybody here IS saying it is a good idea -- for a person with a severe delusional mental illness to be ineligible to possess a firearm once they have been committed for care, but for them to be permitted to possess all the firearms they can tote right up until that moment? Did they become a danger to themself or other persons only at the moment a doctor signed that paper? I don't think so. I can only infer that others do. ?

There may be a better way than waiting for the doctor's signature, but what is that method and how do you translate that into law?

One of the unfortunate facts is that many times friends and relatives of the sick know that the sick person is a hazard to society but make no effort to get the guns removed from that person.

[iverglas]

46. was that a rhetorical question? ... I hope ...

There may be a better way than waiting for the doctor's signature, but what is that method and how do you translate that into law?

Licensing.

I will resist saying "Duh".

Individual application for a permit to possess firearms, with individual determination that it is not contrary to the public interest or the interest of other individuals for the applicant to possess firearms.

You asked.


One of the unfortunate facts is that many times friends and relatives of the sick know that the sick person is a hazard to society but make no effort to get the guns removed from that person.

Ah, an unfortunate fact. Nothing can be done about that, then.

Of course, what could they do? -- other than try to have the appropriate medical authorities commit the person for care ... another occupied and probably uninsured bed being just what most health care establishments in the present health care system/climate in the US are asking for ...



typo fixed

[iverglas]

49. I dunno, maybe I wasn't clear

Due process is needed to protect the innocent.

My advice stands: study the law if you want to argue it.

Due process applies to criminal processes. This is not a criminal process.

Guilt is an issue in a criminal process. This is not a criminal process.

There are various procedural rights that would indeed apply to a decision to permit/prohibit firearms possession, the kinds that apply to administrative proceedings. I'm quite sure they're tougher up here than in the US, but I know you have some. Things like audi alteram partem, I'd imagine.

There is no guilt or punishment in issue in this situation.

Period.

[ManiacJoe]

64. Administrative proceedings would qualify as due process.

[PavePusher]

19. Since you have no numbers, or any evidence....

except for insinuation and allegation, pound sand.

[iverglas]

36. confusing "infer" and "imply" are we?

It's usually done in the other direction, but you seem to be substituting your inference (not that it qualifies as an inference) with the implication you wish the poster had made.

What the poster said:

A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
<A ∩ B> = all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Now compare and contrast -- what you say:

Mike implies that any HAM radio operator that let the transmitter go off frequency can't have a gun.
Mike implies that any automobile driver who exceeded the speed limit can't have a gun.
Mike implies that a person who drove a car while their drivers' license stayed at home can't have a gun.
Mike implies that an over drawn checking account precludes having a gun.

Which number in his list do you see those things in / infer them from?

Not 1 -- those aren't gun laws
Not 2 -- those aren't family violence
Not 3 -- those aren't addictions
Not 4 -- those aren't related to firearms handling
Not 5 -- those aren't related to competence

So which one? Where are the IMPLICATIONS you allege?

He did say his list was not exhaustive, but on what basis would you infer such unrelated additional items?


Myself, I was going to say that there actually are two big glaring omissions in that list

- people who have committed serious crimes but have never been convicted -- crimes like drug trafficking, robbery, burglary, sexual assault ... not people who exceeded speed limits; and if you want to pretend there are not gazillions of people like that, feel free

- people whose mental status is a clear contraindication to firearms possession (severely depressed, delusional) and who may well even be under medical care, but have never been committed for care ... and people who are incompetent as a result of deteriorated faculties or severe developmental delay, but have never been judged incompetent; and again, feel free to pretend there are no such people


A secondary advantage of a licensing system is the indirect deterrent it operates: people who are involved in things like drug trafficking aren't actually likely to apply for a licence, and thus will be unable to acquire a firearm legally. Other deterrent provisions are possible: in Canada, a spouse/partner must sign off on the permit application (and even if they do, out of intimidation, they have a hotline they can call), giving women who are victims of spousal abuse an opportunity to block the permit.

With the simple background check system, anyone who knows they have no actual conviction can purchase a firearm legally from a dealer ... if they don't just avoid the hassle and go to a gun show or a parking lot somewhere ...

[era veteran]

5. I have dropped a weapon before does that mean me?

M-16 slung on my back came loose and fell in the mud in basic training at Ft. Knox in the winter of '73. If so according to you I should what, not be allowed to carry a weapon? Then I wish they would have discharged me then instead of 4 years later. You cannot move Kentucky by pushing it.
Not a good argument.

[mikeb302000]

16. we'll take your circumstances under consideration - nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. who is this "we"?

you got a rat in your back pocket?

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Italians, evidently. n/t

[SteveM]

34. LOL! He does so want to be in charge. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

45. We, the voters, won't let you get that authority. N/T

[era veteran]

55. Wondering?

Is that the royal motherfucking we? WE kicked the royals out once. Good thing the government didn't have all the weapons.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. man, you really take these opinion pieces seriously...

No truth, statistics, or facts anywhere... all opinion. Good job!
You have a bright future ahead of you in politics.

[ileus]

7. Isn't it commonly accepted around here that all gun owners are criminals?

[spin]

31. Yup. (n/t)

[mikeb302000]

52. just some of 'em n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

8. Whenever I come out of hiding

It's always to the tune of "The Thieving Magpie" .

You hear that.... best to unass the area .

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Typical BS from mikey

As usual you have perverted the statistical process, made substantiated claims, and generally prevaricated.

Usual actions taken

[Atypical Liberal]

10. Didn't click on the blog spam link...

I don't think his being a lawyer has anything to do with it. Nor do I think the "silencer" is important in the story. Mr. Barrett is a good example of what I call "the hidden criminals."

No, Mr. Barrett is a good example of an actual criminal. Nothing hidden or gray about it.

The way it works is this. Among gun owners you've got the law abiding, the criminal and a very large gray area in between. This Venn Diagram doesn't show the right proportions, but it gives you an idea, which works like this.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Yes, it is quite true that if you have not been convicted of a crime or have a restraining order against you, you can't loose your second amendment rights over it.

It is illegal for users of illegal drugs to own firearms, though it should not be.

Yes, it is true that you can still own guns even if you have had a negligent discharge or if you are old or disabled.

What's your opinion? Why do you think law-abiding and responsible gun owners who truly fit into category B become so defensive and antagonistic about this? Group B, law-abiding gun owners, although the smallest of the groups, still accounts for many, many individuals. I have nothing but respect for them and cannot understand why they aren't on the front lines of gun control activism along with us. They would be the biggest winners.

First they came for the other guys, and I said nothing because I wasn't one of the other guys...

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Don't click on the links, folks.

Bear in mind that by clicking on the link to Mike's blog and then posting here, you may be correlating your IP address (that accesses his blog) to your handle here on DU.

[Hangingon]

13. unrec unsubstantiated bull

[rrneck]

14. Fearmongering bullshit worthy of any good amateur media whore. nt

[gravity556]

20. As someone disabled by a back injury

I'd just like to take the 30 seconds needed to say, on behalf of every other individual like me, you are quite possibly one of the proudest idiots I have ever encountered. And on behalf of my 70 year old grandmother-who can still skip a coke can across the ground with grandpa's original Colt Single Action Army, landing 6 out of 6 shots, I would also like to say that someone was obviously remiss in teaching you respect for your elders.

Also, stop with the fucking blog spam. Nobody wants to read your spam in here, so it's a safe bet that you're not generating hits out in the wild. And I'll give you a hint as to why-you're neither insightful, witty nor do you intelligently cover your subject matter. Your blog is the equivalent of an unimaginative child playing the "What if?" game.

Sorry, I think that's all I can write without letting my real feelings toward your views come through, but I will say that while I'm sure your friend in real life thinks you're quite the pithy wordsmith, suggesting that I be disarmed because of an injury is fucking idiocy and discrimination of the worst sort. Nothing about my injury keeps me from handling a gun safely, and I am still capable of putting 16 rounds of 9mm into the X ring in under 7 seconds, so take your ideas, wad them up in a little ball and hammer them up your ass. If you need help, stand next to a handicap parking space until someone who is disabled pulls up, explain to them that they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves and I'm sure they'll be happy to assist you in replacing your ideas from whence they came.

[PavePusher]

21. Perfect reply.

:toast: :headbang: :applause: :patriot:

[Fred Engels]

23. I second the (e)motion!

:thumbsup:

[Atypical Liberal]

26. Hear! Hear!

Well said.

If there is anyone who needs to be armed in order to stand up to violence, it is the disabled and the elderly.

[Remmah2]

28. +1

:toast:

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. +1. Looks like our interlocutor dislikes the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The Christine O'Donnell branch of the gun control movement has certainly been busy in the Guns forum lately...

[iverglas]

37. disgusting

What you addressed:

"5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated."

The list in question was of people whose conduct/condition contraindicates firearms possession.

Your claim to be one of those people because of your back injury is disgusting.

You have no basis whatsoever for making this claim. There is nothing about a "back injury" that would contraindicate firearms possession, and YOU KNOW to an absolute certainty that the poster was not referring to "back injury" in composing that list.

Are we back to "guns for the blind" here? Many blind people live independently alone. If they have a firearm in their home for "self-defence", or better yet, if they carry a firearm in public, exactly what are they going to do with it? Pull the trigger and hope for the best, if somebody tries to take their stuff, for instance?

There ARE physical incapacitations that contraindicate firearms possession.

Where I'm at, doctors must report to driver licensing authorities if a patient's condition contraindicates driving. Do doctors have to do that in the US if a patient's condition contraindicates gun possession? If an Alzheimer patient, exhibiting hostility and inability to comprehend their surroundings, has firearms, is there anything that can be done about it? Not unless they are committed involuntarily or judged incompetent, as I understand it. For most Alzheimer patients, nothing of the sort ever happens.

If a person is in an accident and is left quadriplegic, what then of firearms possession? They are unable to use a firearm, so their firearms should just be left in their possession, where they are easy pickings for thieves or unscrupulous and possibly ineligible family members?

There are contraindications to firearms possession apart from criminal convictions, committal for psychiatric care and judgments of incompetence. In the minds of the vast general normal public.


Also, stop with the fucking blog spam. Nobody wants to read your spam in here blah blah spew spew

You are free to speak for yourself -- and now you have done it, and there is no need for you to do it ever, ever again. You are not the board police. Your little friends are not the board police.

If you have a complaint, contact a moderator or the administration. I think you know what the "or" here is.

You

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. All that, and you skipped right over the ageist "anyone who has become elderly" part.

But it's for a good cause, so it's okay...

[iverglas]

58. no, I was just honest about what was actually said

which was:

anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated

If it had said:

anyone who has become elderly or otherwise bald
or
anyone who has become elderly or otherwise unemployed
or
anyone who has become elderly or otherwise has no minor children

it would have meant something completely different.

So leaving out the other bit doesn't make it mean what you want to pretend it meant.

Oh, and it too obviously meant incapacitated from using firearms safely.

[gravity556]

60. And on what data are you basing your counterdiagnosis, Doctor?

'Cause I've got a platoon of specialists who have all, seperately, come to the conclusion that my back is, and this is a very technical term, "fucked". Chronic neuropathy, constant, incessant, everpresent pain and oh yeah, 7 screws, 2 rods and a plate that I get to explain when it sets off a metal detector. Not often, thank goodness, as it's mostly titanium.


Also, Mike o'Blogsalot failed to clarify his statement. Since he has posted previously that his goal is disarming law abiding gun owners, my, and I'm sure quite a few others' bullshit alarm jumped to 11, and I perhaps erroneously, though he has had time to try and spin it, presumed that he meant disabled by so much as a papercut.

And at what point is someone "elderly"? Do we start cutting off rights at someone's 60th birthday, stripping them of the last of the first 10 on the eve that they become a septugenarian? Take a line from the fundies and limit rights to those within their first three score and ten?

As to rights of inheritance, my wife gets all of my stuff when I die.

[mikeb302000]

53. so, all of those insults, which were well done

being quite the pithy wordsmith yourself, were about this: "...letting my real feelings toward your views come through." You hate what I have to say so much that you can't help attacking me personally. If you'd try to read what I wrote with an open mind you'd see that you and your grandma wouldn't necessarily be disqualified. In fact, no responsible and competent person would be. So, why are you so vehemently opposed to that? Guys like you would be the main winners.

[gravity556]

57. Because I have a strong distaste for

Anyone who would deprive a citizen a right without due process of law. Which means that you have to be adjudicated by a court to be ruled incompetent and made a prohibited posessor. I like ALL of my rights. I don't like it when someone who knows nothing about firearms, to include their use, the legalities surrounding them as well as the history of armed citizenry. Not to mention that your constant spamming of the board with your vapid "musings" "Hey guys, what if we make all guns have to be pink!" and your previously stated in one of your forum spamming blog posts, you came right the fuck out and said that disarming law abiding citizens was your fucking GOAL, since you knew that criminals don't fucking follow the laws.

So yes, that put you on my "fool with delusions of grandeur and no regard for civil rights" list. I dislike what you say because you would see me disarmed and left to the tender mercies of whoever is bigger and stronger than I am and decides they want to assault or rob me.

And I still didn't insult you-only your ideas. The difference between us is that while you have no qualms about violating my right to defend myself using the most effective means available to me, I would never dream of trying to violate your first amendment rights. I'll call bullshit when I see it, but if you can't handle an opposing view that is strongly held and defended, maybe blogging out in the wild isn't for you.

[cleanhippie]

62. "you're neither insightful, witty nor do you intelligently cover your subject matter" - PERFECT!!!

Well stated.

[Fred Engels]

22. I can't help wondering...if you and the handful of other posters who seem to advocate

disarming all the law-abiding people are operating under some sort of illusion that you have a snowball's chance of accomplishing it.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Not really.

He hasn't even lived here for 20 years.

[iverglas]

40. seeeeeem

if you and the handful of other posters who seem to advocate
disarming all the law-abiding people

C'mon now, start as you mean to go on. (Oh, well, maybe you have ...)

TO WHOM does this seem this way?

To you? I'm sure you can write a sentence that expresses this.

It would go something like:

I claim that you want to disarm all the law-abiding people.

See? That way you've stood up on your hind legs and SAID something, loud and proud ... something that can be assailed as the false shit it is.

Don't you take pride in your thoughts? Don't you want to share them clearly with others? Won't you be a good elephant, and mean what you say and say what you mean?

[Fred Engels]

42. I don't know you so I can only say what it SEEEEMS like to me.

Are you one of those people who are laboring under the de...er, illusion that you can disarm me and the millions of other Americans who aren't about to give up our rights?

In another post you accused me of insulting some people who never said (according to you) what you SEEEEM to think I claimed they did. Obviously I'm not nearly medicated enough to follow your 'reasoning'.

You want some honesty? I wish that EVERY person under attack by scumbag thieves/thugs/robbers/gangbangers would just kill them dead right on the spot. I will never shed a tear for criminals, unlike SOME people.

[iverglas]

47. why do you ask, kind sir?

Are you one of those people who are laboring under the de...er, illusion that you can disarm me and the millions of other Americans who aren't about to give up our rights?

Do you have some, like, reason for the question? Or is it just a random thought that entered your head from somewhere and you thought you'd type out in a "reply" to my post?

I'm not coming up with a reason to answer it. Terribly sorry.

Obviously I'm not nearly medicated enough to follow your 'reasoning'.

I guess you said it.

You want some honesty?

Yeah. But on the issue that was actually at hand, you don't seem prepared to offer it.

I'm not going to sully my clipboard by reproducing the rest of your vomitus. It sepaks for itself.

What it doesn't tell me, though, and I do think it's reasonable to ask and fair to answer, just so we can get to know our new friends:

Is that statement a principle of liberal philosophy, progressive philosophy, democratic philosophy or the Democratic Party platform? Or some combination of your choice.

That's a simple question that can easily be answered by picking one or more ... or saying "no".



By the way, yer ordinary person, when asked how it is that something "seems" some way to them, would really be able, and perfectly willing, to offer up the reason(s).

What's your problem?

[mikeb302000]

54. where in the hell did you get that?

"disarming all the law-abiding people"

isn't there some kind of unwritten rule about such blatant mischaracterization? Isn't what I really do say bad enough for you? Do you have to exaggerate it like that and then pretend that's what I say?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. Given your posts, it seems clear to many of us that would be your intention

You certainly seem to consider most of us near criminals

[iverglas]

59. "isn't there some kind of unwritten rule about such blatant mischaracterization?"

Nope. You may be lied about in this place in the most vile ways, and you are welcome to offer the facts that demonstrate the lies to be lies. Fun, eh?

I'm sure not saying that anyone is lying. Heavens to betsy, what an idea.

[Glassunion]

61. Yes there is actually a written rule about that. But it only holds if it is true.

Correct me if I am wrong but are these not your words?

Here: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-pro-gun-folks-wont-be-reasonable.html
"All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go."

Or here(comment 16): http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/06/29/bloomberg-buying-ads/
Or here(Anon @ August 6, 2011 at 12:43 AM signed MikeB302000): http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/08/robert-farago/mikeb30200-grab-guns-from-50-of-current-owners/
Or here(comment @ July 2, 2011 at 3:17 AM):http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/aaron-jossie/happy-anniversary-d-c-v-heller-now-what/

Just sayin.... Does not seem to be an exaggeration, nor a mischaracterization, nor pretending that is what you say.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Well, that *IS* what you say. Unless those links at post #61 were all hacked.

BTW, you are not a donor to DU, yet you use it to link to your blog wherein you sell advertising.
Unless and until you do donate, I believe it would be eminently fair to characterize you as a parasitic capitalist.

(Added on edit, after checking at Mike's blog): And not even so much as a link to DU at your blog.

You, sir, are a parasite upon DU.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[iverglas]

35. I'd say his being a lawyer has this to do with it

He pretty obviously was a certified non-"felon". Pretty much certified "law-abiding", actually.

Right up until he wasn't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. Is the OP concept more applicable to lawyers?

That the majority of them are in the gray area of criminals who have not yet caught yet. Be interesting to see what percentage of lawyers are charged with crimes vice legal gun owners.

[iverglas]

50. look, if you are not going to give me some clue

as to why you are replying to my post, i.e. what I said that what you are saying is somehow relevant to, could you just find somebody else to follow along behind?