The fact remains that Mr. Gottlieb was entirely correct in his charge that Fascitelli's cynical exploitation of Officer Brenton's murder in furtherance of Fascitelli's radical agenda to ban so-called "assault weapons," without even knowing at the time what kind of firearm was used, was despicable blood dancing.

I won't argue with your assertion that Fascitelli's plan was a "no-brainer," and I submit that Fascitelli is an ideal source for ideas that don't require a brain.

Nina - was the gun purchased legally or illegally? Seems like kind of a big thing to leave out of the story.

Jack -- Don't know whether the gun was purchased legally or not. Not sure why that would matter in relation to a bill that would make all assault weapons illegal.

He was NOT shot with an assault weapon. He was killed with a semi-automatic rifle. An assault weapon is fully automatic, a machine gun. No army in the world today arms their soldiers with semi-automatic weapons. The US has not armed our soldiers with semi-auto weapons since WWII. The guns available to civilians today, AR-15s and the like, are semi-automatic and therefore are NOT assault weapons. The libs like to call them that because the LOOK like assault weapons. Kind of like a Fiero kit car LOOKs like a Ferrari but it is not a Ferrari no matter how many times you call it one.

Nina - the point is if a crazy guy got a gun (what ever kind) illegally, what's the point of the legislation? make it more illegal?

Jack -- So if he got the gun legally, would you be prepared to admit that it bolsters the case for a ban?

Nina - i think you're missing my point. i don't really care one way or the other. don't own a gun and never will. my experience has been that the gun owners I know are very responsible.

that said, no doubt lots of crime committed with guns of all types. and leaving that out of the story was probably a mistake when discussing legislation to ban assault weapons (i don't think i even know exactly what those are) against the backdrop of the seattle officer who was shot.

and though i've stated my position (apathetic as it is), the answer to your question i imagine is that someone would admit that as soon as you'd admit that the legislation is unnecessary if he got the gun illegally. turns in to a big circle jerk.

Gottlieb's "rhetoric" will not and should not change. He basically says to go after criminals for their actions, don't attack law abiding citizens for their posessions just because you don't like their posessions. Owning something and using it in a manner that causes no harm to others should not be made criminal just because another will uses the same possession to do harm.

The alleged killer was a beneficiary of race-based affirmative action at the University of Washington.

Preferential treatment should NEVER be given as a result of someone’s race.

Nina, it seems like since it was revealed that the shooter was a left wing-nut rather than the right wing-nut your side was hoping for, a lot of print has gone into making it seem like his motives were a lot deeper and more complicated that what he's made it plain they were, outrage at police conduct. Maybe you'd like to explore that issue a little, it's one that a lot of people sympathize with, and some immediate attention to that problem might prevent this from becoming a trend.

Regarding deadly weapons, do you have any idea how many ways there are to commit murder, even mass murder, effectively? Combat style rifles are just the most obvious, and also the noisiest and hardest to get away with. By contrast, a .22 bolt action rifle with subsonic ammo and pop bottle suppressor is lethal to 100 yards and dead quiet. Knowing that, you want a bunch of angry people driving around town with their harmless .22's?

Americans have a right to be armed, with real weapons, end of story. Ralph wants to try and change that again, and I encourage him to, because like I said if his bill comes back, so does my bill to settle the issue of what a constitutionally protected "arm" is. And if my bill gets dropped here, it gets attention nationwide. More than likely the Brady Bunch will throw Ralph overboard again rather than risk that happening, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Nina Shapiro, take note:

It doesn' matter if you call them assault rifles, daisies, or defensive arms. Semiauto firearms are constitutionally protected items. Modern "assault weapons" bans seek to ban commonly owned semiauto guns, not the "machine guns" that everyone thinks they are.

Bans on semiauto guns are unconstitutional. If you don't like that, too bad. But you need to think twice about trying so hard to take away people's individual rights ... especially the rights of the people who best understand them (gun owners).

Rather, you can focus on reaching out to those among us who would choose to murder police officers. Can we at least agree that we need to diminish the number of criminals in society?

The gun allegedly used to kill Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton is not an "assault rifle"

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d10-Seattle-murder-weapon-not-militarystyle-assault-rifle

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/ydqxfef

Nina,
What makes this firearm an assault rifle?

Nina said..."So if he got the gun legally, would you be prepared to admit that it bolsters the case for a ban?"

Focusing on the tool a criminal uses is a complete red-herring. The only thing that will have any impact is focusing on the criminal, you know, the active party who actually commits the crime.

If a criminal doesn't care that MURDER is illegal then I doubt they'll care about any other laws you want to enact.

Meanwhile the law-abiding (you know, those innocents who never did anything wrong) would be forced to live with the additional legal restrictions AND the financial burden of paying for enforcement...kind of a "double jeopardy" situation if you think about it.

Nina--let's say you get your ban and "assault weapons," that is, semiautomatic rifles are declared illegal.

I won't give mine up.

Now what?

Your move.

Please describe for your readers what should happen next in this scenario to satisfy your demands.

Has fact checking gone out of style or has Nina Shapiro purposely used a murdered police officer to push her own anti-United States Constitution agenda?

Not an assult rifle... To be fair, I had the advantage of free access to Google for checking my facts.

Has fact checking gone out of style or has Nina Shapiro purposely used a murdered police officer to push her own anti-United States Constitution agenda?

Not an assult rifle... To be fair, I had the advantage of free access to Google for checking my facts.

I think that the true insidiousness of Shapiro's article and view is that it tends to detract from the criminal ... that person who decided to murder.

Most of the attention on weapons detracts from the real issue ... a person committed this crime.

Myself and a lot of other people will be standing beside David. What will be the next move Nina?

My dear Nina,

So you want to ban semiautomatic rifles in the state of Washington, eh? Has no one in your life ever introduced you to the Law of Unintended Consequences? Bill Clinton could tell you how that works.

He intrigued to pass a law banning semiautomatic rifles of military utility in 1994. Several things which he did not intend happened:

1. Several million such rifles were imported and sold before the ban took effect. This was more of these types than had been sold in the previous TWENTY YEARS.

2. It was realized after the fact that people did not pay good money to turn these rifles in, but to turn them on anybody who subsequently might try to seize them.

3. The Democrats subsequently lost control of the House of Representatives and even Clinton himself blamed that on the gun ban.

So let us say you get your way and semiauto rifles are banned in Washington state. The following things will happen:

a. If the California experience is any guide, no one will turn in or register them and the state police will refuse to go looking for them lest they get their heads blown off by otherwise law-abiding people.

b. You will personally have made all the owners of these rifles criminals. Do you think they will love you for it? Do you think this has no personal consequence for you? Do you think that if their son, father, daughter, friend is made a felon and imprisoned or killed that they will not blame you for it?

Another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences:

In 1999, the aforesaid Bill Clinton decided to modify the rules of war to allow American precision guided munitions to be used on the political leadership, the media and the intellectual underpinnings of the Serbian government, with whom he was having an argument. He blew up Serbian television in the middle of the night and killed a lot of janitors and make-up artists. In doing so he made the Serbians knuckle under.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but under Clinton's rules, should you get what you want and start another American civil war (even a small little Washington version), that makes you a legitimate target, doesn't it?

I think this falls under the heading of "be careful what you wish for, you may get it."

Just a friendly word of advice.

Dave and Anonymous seem sure the gun used to kill Brenton wasn't an assault rifle. Maybe they know something the police aren't saying. In any case, Dave cites one of his articles that discusses the technical versus common definition of an assault rifle. Seems like we're talking semantics here, and I have no idea what specific rifles the proposed state bill would ban.

Nina Shapiro: "I have no idea what specific rifles the proposed state bill would ban."

Let's recap. Nina doesn’t know what said bill would ban (but supports it anyway), plays dumb on what constitutes an "assault rifle" (even when told multiple times), and wants to turn her fellow state residents into criminals for owning a piece of metal formed in a certain (but we don’t know exactly what) configuration.

Sounds like Seattle to me.

Nina Shapiro states: "...Dave cites one of his articles that discusses the technical versus common definition of an assault rifle. Seems like we're talking semantics here, and I have no idea what specific rifles the proposed state bill would ban."

Do you have any idea, specific or otherwise, what constitutes an "assault rifle?" Semantics are important when you are talking of banning items. You might as well ban Corvettes from the street as "race cars" because they have bucket seats and stick shifts.

Definitions are important when one is calling for a ban on something. That said, how would YOU define the term you bandy so freely? Dave gave the proper, accepted, definition, one that limits the term to specific characteristics, one of which already bans such guns from common civilian use and has since 1934. What new objective criteria would you base your beloved ban upon?

When you say that semantics are not important what you are really saying is that you don't want to be tied to an objective standard. Rather, like Humpty Dumpty, you want the words to mean whatever you intend them to mean at the moment you use them.

http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/su16ca.htm

His gun was created for AWB states like California, thus the "CA" at the end of the model number..cali legal.

"Like the A model, the SU-16CA can be folded for storage and it will not fire in the folded position. This allows for it to be purchased in most states that still have an "Assault Weapons Ban"."

Mouse here and you can learn more about "assualt weapons" in five minutes than Nina has learned in an entire lifetime.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Weapons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not

The "trust" factor for news media is down to about 30 percent right now... a significant drop in just a few years. If Nina wonders why, she can just look in a mirror and see much of the blame. Ignorant journalists willfully and knowingly opining ignorantly about subjects that their readers know much better than the journalist does.

Nina, Why do you insist on calling it an assault weapon if you cannot tell us why it is one. SPD is calling it an assault rifle but it fits no definition of one by and state or federal law.

Ms. Shapiro,

I know that the terms "fact checking" and "research" are dirty words in modern "journalism", but it is hubris of a special sort to actually take pride in your ignorance. Had the officer been killed with a chain saw, would you have the intellectual honesty and moral courage to call for a ban on those? Or are you simply a purveyor of mendacity and arrogance?

Nina Shapiro is one of those people who automatically assumes that any rifle is an "assault rifle", just like any dog that is involved in biting a person is a "pit bull, or that any large fish in the ocean can only be a great white shark."

Don't jump to conclusions too hastily Nina. You might land on your derriere.

Years ago, whenever somebody was arrested for making homemade firecrackers, the lapdog media would always- and without fail- say that the accused had "enough dynamite to blow up an entire city block".

Or, how about hailstones always being the size of golf balls, but never the size of marbles or soybeans.

Cheap sensationalism at its worst Nina Shapiro. You learned your journalism well, from William R. Hearst.

Nina Shapiro: You seem to favor a Washington state assault weapon ban. Regardless how you choose to define an assault weapon it probably will be as a rifle. According to FBI stats, rifles account for less than two percent of gun crimes. Why would you choose to ban a weapon that is used so infrequently in crime? Handguns and shotguns are used far more often. Why not start there with a ban? Please explain your logic in light of the low crime rate for rifles.
E. Zach Lee-Wright

As a Jewess in the US, I want to point out that America wasn't won with a registered gun! And criminals on EITHER side of the law are stopped by FIREARMS, not by sweet talk! That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!

Have you ever had to wait on the police while someone was in a life or death situation? If we were to follow your advice Nina we would have to have a cop in all our homes.

Did you know that police are not really there to protect you? This has been decided by the Supreme Court.

So if there is a ban on guns which many anti-gun people want us to be like England... who is going to protect your family, children and loved ones.

Did you know that to buy dinner knives in England you have to be over 18? The red tape never ends. Anti-gun folks have no stop.

Why is the crime rate so high in Chicago? They have a ban.. Could it be that restraining the legal owner is not the solution?

Cut Nina some slack, folks. It's not like she's an actual journalist... she's an opinion writer. Opinions, not facts; and no necessity for sensible opinions at that.

DaveP. says: "Cut Nina some slack, folks. It's not like she's an actual journalist... she's an opinion writer. Opinions, not facts; and no necessity for sensible opinions at that."

True, but this is not a recognized defense for felonious violation of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

We are no longer one people but rather two (at least, let's not start counting tribes within, like illegals for example). We share the same national border, language and stamp on our passports, but that's about it. If we cannot agree on the sanctity of life and whether government should have the monopoly on defensive violence, does it matter that we agree on anything else?

My friend Billy Beck has said, and I agree, that all politics now is merely dress rehearsal for civil war.

Nina should understand that before she unthinkingly gets herself in trouble.

Pointing such things out to folks such as Nina is akin to your human duty to point out the unpleasant truth that the bridge around the next turn is out to the driver of a passing car. I am not responsible for the bridge being out, ergo I am not threatening the driver with death. Their own ignorance and deliberate stupidity does that.

The bridge is out, Nina. You might want to take your foot off the gas and hit the brake before you find the chasm. It is a long way down.

Have a nice day. ;-)

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
Pinson, AL
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

Nina, you might want to type "molon labe" into a search engine... could give you some much needed insight.

I'm a Three Percenter who has no intention at all of allowing anyone to disarm me.

Nina Shapiro says, "I have no idea what specific rifles the proposed state bill would ban."

Nevertheless, you're for the ban regardless.

Should it ban all "repeaters", you'd be fine with it. Like those lever-action rifles you've seen in movies.

Nina

Here is a video from San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle concerning the differences between auto and semi-auto rifles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

Officer Pyle's info on the web.
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Pyle/Pyle.htm

Dave Codreanu and Mike Van Genechten, you are both thugs. And countries with laws have ways of dealing with thugs.

I am in law enforcement, and I have seen how you insult and attack the law and its agents. I will be happy to personally come take your weapon when it is made illegal. With a lot of my friends, and stuff that makes a much bigger boom than anything you have in your storehouse.

But we know your kind. All mouth and no action. The really scary folks on your side are the ones who aren't writing blogs. You guys are punk wannabes. Two old fat guys who have seen too many John Wayne movies.

GG:
The only one here making like a thug is you.

I do not live in one of the "People's Republics". I am in compliance with all current laws where I live. I will not abide by one more. Not. One. More.

Molon Labe

Gun Grabber, just make sure you have your jackboots polished and your swastika armband on straight. Will you be wearing your brownshirt or your blackshirt? I've had several contacts with law enforcement regarding the 2nd amemdment - while carrying concealed - and they have all been positive. You are a disgrace to an honorable profession.

I have a very hard time believing that gun grabber is real. I know too many cops who are totally supportive of the complete spirit of the 2nd Amendment. I've shared handload recipes with them, shot various "exotic" black guns with them, and even taught CCW classes alongside a few. Unless Gun Grabber is a jack-booted thug from NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, or one of those other police state locales, I think he's a troll.

It's the law of unforeseen consequences, you see. Like when I eat too many Fritos and accidentally poop myself a little bit as I sit down to watch my 10th straight hour of Ted Nugent's "Call of the Wild."

And when the bridge goes out, and the cows come home to roost, and the chickens are all hatched and counted, why, then the revolution will begin with me writing a really, really brain-numbingly bad 'novel' about a hunky Patriot soldier who shoots his way to Justice through about 19,000 Agents of Evil.

Then I'll write on my blog about what an important figure I am in the 'movement,' while I fumigate the room with Frito-powered gas and call my son to bring me my mobility scooter so I can go to the bathroom.

Gun Grabber is a troll who is attempting to provoke threatening remarks, which will then be used to clobber us in the media for years to come, and also to justify pushing the AWB in Washington. I know this tactic well, I use it all the time to walk them into my own traps.

Ralph Fascitelli is blowing smoke out his ass, there is no more threat of that bill moving next session than there was last one, so long as people don't make remarks that can be construed as threatening of people who pose no threat, such as media people, who are not valid targets in any case no matter what Bill Clinton did in Serbia. (And if the AWB does move, I have the solution ready to go.)

The gun debate has been won, by us, and the Dems have learned that as long as they leave the issue alone they'll keep winning elections. Things will be fine, so long as we don't let their tactics work and shoot ourselves in the foot.

P.S. Mr. troll sir, have we met before?

Hey, Mark, where'd you get your scooter? Will my disability pay for one? I need one for my trips to the Wal-Mart to stock up on ammo, generic beer, denture adhesive, and Depends--gotta stay ready for when the new civil war kicks off.

Down with the totalitarian state (but keep the disability checks coming at least until the shooting starts!)

Gun Grabber says:

"I am in law enforcement, and I have seen how you insult and attack the law and its agents. I will be happy to personally come take your weapon when it is made illegal. With a lot of my friends, and stuff that makes a much bigger boom than anything you have in your storehouse."

Au contraire, asshole. I have great respect for the rule of law as well as the local and state law enforcement with whom I have worked to put neo-Nazi terrorists in jail (terrorists who were being given a pass by the Feds; google Michael Brescia).

You, on the other hand, are a self-proclaimed oath-breaking piece of scum.

What are you bottom-feeding ATF pukes going to do when the case in the Northern District of Georgia is lost by James P. "Little Jimmy" Vann, et. al and the judge forces you to actually have rules, regulations and testing procedures so you can't frame anymore folks like Friesen and Olofson?

Insofar as your ineffectual and rather pathetic punk threats go, you may try it any day you wish.

"One hundred heads."

Mike Vanderboegh

BTW, there is nothing more pathetic than an ATF troll who issues deadly threats from behind the cover of anonymity. It is the acme of cowardice. Which, of course, is typical of the breed.

Mike Vanderboegh
(my real name)

PS: My favorite parts of the Waco documentaries are when you big, bad, jack booted thugs run out of ammo and have to beg the Davidians to let you disenage. The image of you pukes backing off with your hands in the air, carrying your dead and wounded is absolutely priceless. You can bet you'll never get that kind of mercy again from anybody who knows your sorry agency's history of depredations.

Here's an excerpt from my novel.

It's called "Absorbed: The Battle for a Dependable Adult Diaper"

Chapter One: Fritos, Ted Nugent and the ATF

There I sat, weak and weary. Pondering my can of swill beer, bleak and dreary. Au contraire, mon frere! The Law of Unforeseen Consequences, One Hundred Heads, etc. etc. Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ!

Suddenly the ATF agents were at my door, at least 55,000 of them, firing away, dastardly do-badder jackbooted neo-commo-fasco-socialist anti-American devils who beat up Girl Scouts and leave flaming bags of doggie doo on unsuspecting patriot doorsteps just for a laugh.

Oh, the cowardly cowards of cowardism! This cowardistical cowardosity could not stand, even if Noel Coward be among them!

They sought to use Satanic Supreme Court decisions to take away my mobility scooter and my remote, which I use to toggle back and forth between Nugent's "Call of the Wild" and Praise the Lord.

I had no choice.

My Depends diaper was soggy and needed changing, but I focused on the task at hand: finish my bowl of Fritos and ward off these despicable angels of Satan. I called my son to bring me my scooter. My God looked down and saw I was light on ammo (no disability check this month), and magically filled my barrel, for He knew I was righteous and in need of my remote.

The battle was on!

This is far more likely a Ceasefire clown than an ATF clown. The halfway smart ones will at least bring an argument to the table, others like this aren't even worth their carbon footprint. They'll never admit who they are or use their real names either, they're pussies.

Kevin Schmadeka
(my real name too)

Hey, Nina Shapiro, why will you not answer the question?
No brains or no guts??
Again, why ban rifles that account for less than two percent of gun crimes (FBI Stats) instead of handguns and/or shotguns which are used in far more crimes?
You don't seem to have much ability to handle logic. Perhaps it is time to go back to selling corndogs under the rolling roof. This opinion gig seems to have outrun your abilities.
Of course, I am E. Zach Lee-Wright

Cum pugno sello taberna gunnuttio estupido Fritos mobilititis scooteroscio.

Me use me real name! Me no am female genitalia! Me am MALE genitalia! BIG ONE!

Yes, you are, Kevin Schmadeka, a big one indeed.

Kevin Schmadeka says: "This is far more likely a Ceasefire clown than an ATF clown. The halfway smart ones will at least bring an argument to the table, others like this aren't even worth their carbon footprint. They'll never admit who they are or use their real names either, ... "

I learned long ago that one of the hallmarks of the gun ban movement is to use lies, distortions, and insults, then to run away when countered with verifiable facts. This particular discussion seems to have reached the point where the side favoring bans has run out of uncountered arguments and been reduced to playground-level insults and similarly childish behavior. I call that a win for our side.

Interesting little exchange we've got going here!

My two cents:

Leave me alone = everybody's happy.

Attempt to disarm me = I got the tools, and I have to skills, and like the movie title says: There will be blood.

Ms, Nina, gun bans will only and have been only obeyed by law abiding citizens. Read-- Responsible folks!!! ;Banning guns prevents law abiding people who are by court edicts responsible for their own "self Defense". 911 only calls in folks to clean up the mess and search for Criminals, It does nothing for protection..Ninnies who would ban guns should be held accountable for all who are hurt or die because they were prevented from defending themselves... Hope you never have to defend yourself.. Dennis Stager, USN retired.

Nina Shapiro is just a typical know-nothing who is mad because nobody will let her manage the world. Perhaps "jerkette" is the best appellation for her and all the other lunatics who blame the gun and not the one who pulls the trigger. She's not worth reading!

Chris Meissen says:

"This particular discussion seems to have reached the point where the side favoring bans has run out of uncountered arguments and been reduced to playground-level insults and similarly childish behavior. I call that a win for our side."

Ditto that. You would think that Ralph would at least send a halfway competent underling to show some support, but when the going gets tough, Ceasefire leaves their friends hung out to dry. Or maybe scrapes the bottom of their talent barrel... But like I said, words come back to haunt people. If a legislator wants to see the level of opposition to my Arms Definition bill they'll be facing, all I have to do is point them to this page.

Nina, what do you think of the level of support you've gotten here? If this was who I had in my corner I'd be crying with embarassment.

Nina, would it be ok with you if I slapped you until you soiled your panties, for stealing my dog?

What do you mean, you didn't steal my dog? That doesn't matter. Somebody did and according to your philosophy and your article the proper response is to punish everybody and rob them of their constitutional rights.

Therefore, I assume you won't mind soiling your panties as punishment for somebody else stealing my dog.

Any response that denies the appropriateness of the above contemplated action would reveal your hypocrisy. I know you will do the right thing and say that such would be fine with you. Right????

Oh, and before you decide to mention that I might be a barbarian or uncivil, bear in mind, my scenario only punishes one innocent. Your would punish 320 million, which of us is the barbarian?

Oh, Gun Grabber, Charles H. Sawders, Doddridge, Ar. Really? Really? If so, you're a fool, if not you're a blowhard.

This is an awfully hard thread. Let's check our guns at the door and sing The Banana Song... Hey, look: there's Nina!

nina-nina bo-bina
banana-fanana fo-fina
fee-fi-mo ina
nina!

Hey, look: there's ... Gun Grabber!

gun grabber-gun grabber bo......

Never mind. Sorry I chimed in. Go back to work.

I'm 65 and have carried, legally, a Revolver (never developed a liking for the "automatic" as it's called), since I was 21. I've never threatened, road-raged, shot, intimidated or harassed anyone, with a weapon, and heaven knows, this day and age, there has been plenty of opportunities and provocations.

Three questions to Nina et. al.:

How then is my ownership, a threat?

Where is the ban-talk on the other items,(bombs to kill any and all; cops, neighbors, small children, reporters) "cocked and ready" that was found in the Accused's apartment?

What is the percentage of crime committed by the legal owner of a weapon, compared to the criminal who is in illegal possession and how do we ban them from such possession?

Thank you for you input.

Yes, we gun nutters are an esteemed group of logical debaters. We just out debate our opponents with our highly scientific minds!

How do we demonstrate our argumentative skills, you ask?

Oh, by threatening to KILL journalists who have positions on gun control we don't like because they're "legitimate targets." And by cheering about the murder of federal agents by crazed religious cultie child molesters who think they are God.

Yessiree, we are some logical argument-constructing and oh so respectable and not embarrassing gun nutters, we sure are!

Any sane person who looks at what you wackjobs have written in these comments will understand instantly what kind of dangerous psychos you are.

How about that, a high and mighty post from the soiled-panties guy.

So gungrabber, going to try real argument for a change? That'll be great, let’s see if you can keep it up for more than two posts. I've made you clowns lose your composure before, but never seen you go completely infantile for so long. You must be new to this, but as long as you want to keep representing Ceasefire, be my guest.

The journalist remark I'm not sticking up for, although he was primarily pointing out that that was a Clinton policy. I disagree with the Clinton policy of course, where do you come down on the views of your hero?

That part of the Waco video however, that was pretty sweet. You'd have to trouble yourself to watch the whole thing to understand. It’s not murder when the thugs shoot first without cause, government uniform or no. And when the man in uniform shoots and kills without cause, it’s still murder and his authorita doesn’t change that. Ala, the Everett case, among many others.

What you want to bet that Mr. Monfort’s “manifesto” contained a mention of that case?

Here’s something you should see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIedW4HG5gE

Now supposing this was your friend being gunned down in front of you, unarmed and on the ground, by the man in uniform, who has been led to believe through indoctrination in police culture that police own citizens and rightfully hold power over life and death. Would you argue that you do, or do not, have a right to shoot that officer to save your friend’s life? This is what we mean when we talk about government thugs who commit murder.

If your answer is that you do not, well, your friend is dead, and if it’s not on camera the cop gets a temporary paid suspension no matter how many other cops witness it. If you’d say that you do however, would you prefer to save your friend with a real weapon, or a politically-correct ten round pistol?

This happens to libs too, you know. And no, I’m not in favor of that.

Kevin Schmadeka

“I know hippies. I’ve hated them all my life.” --Eric Cartman

As one Jewess in the US speaking of another, I say Nina Shapiro just needs to have an ORGASM!

All right then gungrabber, you had your chance but your infantile nature got the better of you again. Maybe when you're out of junior high and finish your Ceasefire internship and have the kajones to sign your own name to your views you might be worth speaking to. Me, I've got work to do. Specifically, getting ready to burn down everything you live for. Again.

Cheers,
Kevin Schmadeka

Three cheers for lawlessness! Let's have a society in which groups of millenarian wingnut religious cultie freaks can systematically break the law, rape children, do whatever their crazed God tells them they are allowed to do, and when the law tries to intervene, let's cheer on the culties as they murder agents of the law.

Let's side with insane people. After all, we're also insane, we gunnutter paranoids.

You've got work to do, KS, that's for sure. Lots of work to do to become human. Good luck with that.

Now back to your really important work--there must be lots of swill beer to be drunk, Fritos to be eaten, and "Call of the Wild" to be watched. Go, Ted Nugent, go!

Dirtbag Elio Carrion, that's the best you got, gunnutter?

A drunken a-hole who flees police for a hundred miles, taunts and insults them when they finally catch him, does everything he possibly can to convince the police that he's a dangerous and non-compliant maniac, then (doh!) is all surprised when the police treat him appropriately?

No law enforcement officer in his right mind is going to chase some maniac for a hundred miles, then listen to what Carrion spewed, and not suspect that the dirbag is dangerous. So when the dirtbag gets up and looks like he's reaching toward his jacket, he's going to get what Carrion got.

This is typical gunnutter worldview. I act like a dick, engage in patently illegal and dangerous activity, then I'm shocked, shocked!, when police are fearful that I'm carrying and dangerous and react as they have been trained to react to dangerous threats.

Your boy dirtbag Carrion created the entire situation. He had all the power in the world to ensure that he wouldn't get shot. Instead, he led police on a long and dangerous chase, talked to them like dangerous maniacs talk to police, and didn't keep his hands in view.

Carrion got what he was asking for. Then like cry babies the world 'round, he whined about getting it.

It says WORLDS about you that you think this juvenile, drunken a-hole behavior is justifiable, and that it's the officer's fault that he treated Carrion consistently with his actions.

Like the rest of the gunnutter community, you're a big baby who thinks the world revolves around you and you can do whatever you want and have no consequences.

Act like your hero the drunken a-hole dirtbag, and you'll get what you deserve too.

Gungrabber, I think you actually did better with the infantile blubbering. Now you’re just putting your complete lack of any interest in facts on display for the whole world, which I suppose makes you the perfect Ceasefire representative.

Dealing with drunks is something I have a bit of expertise in. Used to be a bouncer, got quite my fair share of practice tussling with them. They can be aggravating, no question. I myself have been accused of excessive arm-twisting a couple times, but I never so much as punched a single one, including some times I probably should have.

Read the reports. Officer Webb was spewing his own stream of epithets, angry and out of control. He ORDERED Elio to get up off the ground. So what should he have done exactly? Getting up with your arms sticking straight out is a little tough, but Elio stated clearly he was getting up, started to, and was gunned down for his COMPLIANCE, because the cop in question wanted to shoot him and thus made up an excuse.

Later on the cop said "Law enforcement officers are trained to assume that suspects are dangerous and have weapons." Well golly, that makes it all okay! That used to mean that you kept a close eye on the suspect, now apparently it means they are justified in killing people who “might” be a threat but have shown no weapon. And these are the people you’d give the monopoly on firepower to. (Not that that’ll happen, sorry you lost already.) Being “trained” to kill people without justification does not justify it. Or do you think it does, if you happen to personally feel the person “deserves” it?

Same deal with the Everett case, and he didn’t even bother to make up an excuse. He just said “Enough is enough” and dumped the better part of a magazine into the back of an unarmed man who had just been tazed in his driver seat. And the cops in his department are sticking up for him, proving that this isn’t the occasional bad apple cop, the problem is institutional.

So what will you do when the pissed-off man in uniform tells you to get up, with that predatory glint in his eye? You should think about that, you clearly have some real stability issues of your own going on. Come to think of it, the current trend seems to be leaning toward left-wing nuts going homicidal. Um, you own any guns? Perhaps you should show your blatherings here to a shrink and get his opinion on your keeping them.

Re: Waco, I found you this. I loaned this video to a liberal, hippie, commie co-worker once. He brought it back the next day so pissed off I thought he might really go off on a federal building or something. Watch it, or you have no business commenting on it. People still following this will be watching it, so either have your facts straight or make yourself look even more retarded. (Whoops, insensitive… um, impaired… challenged… no, special!) Having a handle on the facts is how I kick your asses every year.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=73C7DB0C7E33D99A

"So what will you do when the pissed-off man in uniform tells you to get up, with that predatory glint in his eye?"

Here's the best indication of your total insanity. You claim to hate 'hippies,' yet you sound like the worst of the acid-dropping, Amerikkka-hating, bomb-building lot from 1968.

In your pathetic drunken fantasy world, THE MAN is constantly prowling around, looking for innocent people to kill, just because he likes it. Only the gunnutter cult loving child molesters (that'd be people like your hero Koresh) stand between them and our sacred FREE-DUMB!

FREE-DUMB! FREE-DUMB! The cries come from the country shacks inhabited by toothless moonshine swillers wearing tin foil hats. GIVE US OUR FREE-DUMB to stockpile our arsenals in anticipation of the rise of the Anti-Christ, or else we'll kill you! FREE-DUMB!

Funny thing. I've never had problem one with THE MAN, and I never will, because unlike your drunken a-hole hero Carrion, I don't go around leading the police on high speed chases, nor do I curse them as though they were my dogs, nor would I make suspicious moves toward my jacket when I've been asked to keep my hands in sight after the high speed chasing and cursing.

See, I treat the police respectfully, and (imagine that!) they treat me respectfully. Fascinating concept that you holed up in the woods stockpiling ammo and waiting for the end of the world nutjobs wouldn't know much about.

You are constitutionally a-holes and d#*ckheads who think everyone else is your toady. But the truth of the matter is that you are, as a group, insecure, snivelling little children who can't go out into the world every day unless you are packing a gun.

What did your parents do to you, Kevin? Did Daddy mistreat you? Is that why you hate the world and other people, and especially those who represent authority, so much? Is that why you failed so miserably in life that bouncer was your only option for employment?

I look forward to one day seeing you on one of those youtube videos, after you've led police on a high speed chase and acting like the king of the world, getting your just desserts. Don't keep me waiting too long.

"A handle on the facts," indeed. You wouldn't know a fact if it fell into your lap wearing a big red sign around its neck that read "I'm a fact."

Go back to "Call of the Wild" and your Fritos, and try not to slobber on yourself.

Whoa whoa whoa, gungrabber! Take a bong hit man, it’ll all be okay!

It might help you with the tunnel vision too. You won’t watch the Elio Carrion video closely enough to see that both his hands were still on the ground at the moment the first shot was fired. You won’t watch the Waco video long enough to see the bullet holes in the front door all pointing in, or the fact that whatever David Koresh did with teenage girls (which nobody I know takes sides with) no laws were broken under Texas law, or the fact that the ATF, a tax agency, has no authorita of any kind over child welfare issues to begin with. Machine gunning the roof of a building full of kids? Yes, great defenders of the young, those fine folks at ATF.

The good news is that you can turn all the blind eyes you want and all it does is take away your relevance. People (including lawmakers) read these posts, look at the debates, and make up their minds who cares about the truth and who needs his Zoloft. And that’s where the actual difference gets made. Your epithets, unstable rantings, high emphasis on personal digs and Southern jokes only serves to make my case for what your side is really about; hate. Our side is perfectly willing to get along, so long as we’re left alone, you however can’t stand the existence of any challenges to your worldview. And it shows. Seriously man, threatening Nina with “slapping” her until she… well, you know what you wrote. That was quite a bit more pointed, not to mention sick and disgusting, than the only other comment to run in that direction. I’d be turning your IP address over to law enforcement if I were her. Make sure not to wear anything with pockets if they show up.

I’m going to throw you a softball now. Here’s the bill I plan to take back to Olympia again, since you want to go for the AWB once more. Tell me what you think.

“Arms” Definition Act

Summary:

Defines what weapons are protected for civilian ownership by Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, and reasserts that citizens have the right to bear the same arms as domestic law enforcement, which is civilian and not part of the military.

Findings:

Many state laws exist that deprive citizens of weapons that are allowed to police and government agents. Similar and more restrictive laws are proposed annually. The basis for many of these laws is a false or incorrect interpretation of the word “arms” as it appears in the Washington State Constitution.

In the Washington State Constitution, no basis exists for depriving citizens of weapons that are allowed to police or government agents. The state and federal constitutions preserve a monopoly on heavy weapons only for the military, not domestic law enforcement.

In the 1889 edition of the Century Dictionary, from the year the Washington State Constitution was ratified, “arms” are clearly defined as military and personal weapons, suitable for war and defense. The 1891 Black’s Law Dictionary specifically notes that military infantry weapons are constitutionally protected.

The Washington State Constitution protects the right of everyone in the civilian sector to bear the same weapons, with no differentiation between civilians and police.

The line that has been drawn between citizens and government is erroneous and unconstitutional. The actual line intended in the state and federal constitutions is between the civilian sector and the military.

Domestic law enforcement is part of the civilian sector. They are not part of the military, and cannot be exempted from military or non-military weapon prohibitions that apply to other civilians.

“Arms” Definition Act

To be introduced as a Constitutional Amendment

AN ACT: Defining what weapons are protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

1. For purposes of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, in accordance with the definitions found in the 1891 edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, the 1884 edition of Webster’s Dictionary, and the 1889 edition of the Century Dictionary, "arms" shall be defined as:

A. Any rifle or pistol that is legal for military infantry use, or training thereof, in all calibers up to one-half inch, or any shotgun, which may or may not possess the features and functional capabilities suitable for armed conflict that are found on military infantry combat weapons, and shall include accessories that enhance combat effectiveness, standard or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and all types of ammunition permitted for infantry use.

B. Any firearm, firearm accessory, ammunition type, defensive or restraining tool, striking instrument, electrical weapon whether lethal or non-lethal, edged or piercing weapon, gas or spray weapon, beam weapon, explosive or fragmentation weapon, or any other lethal or non-lethal weapon that may lawfully be possessed by civilian law enforcement.

C. Any lethal or non-lethal weapon or weapon system using alternative technologies, which is legal for infantry use, provided it is capable of targeting a single enemy combatant; or which may be possessed by civilian law enforcement.

Tell me what you think gungrabber, and please, more ranting. You’re giving me lots of great quotes to take with me, and unless you prove differently I will identify you as a Ceasefire representative when I do. And really, saying who you are shouldn’t be so hard. It’s about having enough pride in your beliefs to sign your own name to them, be they about government omnipotence or soiled panties. I promise you, NO ONE wants to visit you.

Hail the sunshine.

P.S. Anyone who wants to see the dictionary scans can email me at frp-wa@mindspring.com .

"People (including lawmakers) read these posts, look at the debates, and make up their minds who cares about the truth"

HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Right on, dude, keep believing you're a player in something other than the alternate universe existing inside your head.

You should be thrilled I take a few minutes to taunt you. Lord knows it's more attention than you get elsewhere, or deserve, but I'm earning compassion points. Make the outcast loner psycho feel like he's being paid attention to by someone who isn't from the Planet Zebulon from Dimension X9000.

Speaking of facts, this one seems to have gotten by you: your drunken a-hole friend Elio's case was heard by a jury. Know what happened? They cleared the officer. Did you hear?

Then drunken a-hole Elio put on a suit and tried to go around the media playing the poor victim card. "All I did was flee from them at 100 mph and then curse them like dogs and then refuse to keep my hands clear, how DARE they treat me like the dirtbag I am!"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19867423/

As it always does in America, it took the crooked civil process to produce anything for Elio the drunken a-hole. Mostly because the county crumbled and failed to support its own police. We've seen that before. "We can't get the verdict we want in criminal trial, let's try and get some cash otherwise." And the lawyers do what the lawyers do, and never mind justice or the law.

So, be clear about it, Kelvin Schamdorka. You are not on the side of democracy. In democracies, juries of one's peers decide in such cases. But Kelvin Schamdorka doesn't like that idea. Kelvin Schmadorka thinks what he says goes, whatever the evidence, whatever the opinions of the actual jury in the case. And if he can't get his way, why, he'll threaten to kill anyone who says different.

How pathetic is it that you want to accuse *me* of threatening Ms. Shapiro? The only people I've attacked here are you gunnutters. And YOU'RE the one who's got Mikey "Let's kill the journalists" Vandunderhead on your team, not me.

Remember, Kelvin, Planet Zebulon is watching! You are important! You're not just a fat old guy with fantasies of shooting it out at the OK Corral. No, no, no! You're KEVIN SCHMADEKA, important person who might be living in his Mom's garage and employed as a bouncer but that's OK because you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it people like you!

Fritos, I need more Fritos! I am Napoleon Bonaparte! How dare you not recognize what an important legislator I am! I am Emperor!

Where's my remote?

Before I get into the truly surreal level you're despiring to, did you just accuse me of threatening to kill people? I want a clear yes or no answer on that.

Kevin Schmadeka

OhmiGod, this is too good.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/10112/schmad.pdf

Thank you, Innernets!

20 year old car: check
Crack running the length of the windshield: check
M-80 on the front seat: check
Odor of marijuana in the car: check

Sounds like a redneck dirtbag to me.

The Planet Zebulon is calling, Kevin! They want their Fritos!

I almost feel bad having to tell you this, but you got the wrong one. He’s Kevin C. Schmadeka, I’m Kevin L. Schmadeka. Distant cousin I presume, never met him. I’ll give you a second to get the egg off your face.

Now what did we leave off on? Right, car chases and roadside executions.

Hippies are capable of the most incredible mental gymnastics. A civil suit outcome, well, that’s as corrupt as they can be, but the criminal case with the outcome you happen to like, well that’s as holy and pure as they come!

Guilty people are acquitted all the time. In case YOU missed it, Webb accused Carrion of LUNGING at him. You show me the frame on that video where he lunges, or explain how he reached for a nonexistent sweater pocket with both hands still on the ground. Hello, credibility! Any sane human being with even the most tenuous grip on reality can watch that video and say, that’s attempted murder. And that’s what everybody does except the apologists and you.

Taking cops on a chase is wrong. Cursing at them is unwise. But on-the-spot executions by cops who are having a bad day? Most of us would consider that to be right over the line, but you love the power of the state so much that you actually like the idea. I thought libs were the ones who knew their rights, like you can’t search me, you can’t hassle me, let alone “you can’t shoot me” for God sakes. You are a truly sick and disturbed excuse for a human being.

So now I want you to tell me what you think of the Everett case. Same thing will happen there too. The system will find a way to get him off, like it always does, which is one of the major sources of animosity toward law enforcement. You want the animosity to keep building, and end up creating more Monforts? I don’t, but it’s up to police whether they want to fix the problem or not. This is a prime opportunity to show the system can hold their own people accountable, I really hope they take it.

So now, in my quest for relevance, I’d like to play the scorecard game. In ’02 I wrote and got an armed teachers bill introduced, then creamed you in the statewide editorial war. Gun-free-zone expansion bills went away almost entirely until ’08, when you tried to add colleges to them. That’s when the campus carry bill, also written by me, got dropped and we had that awesome face-off hearing. You remember the one where you dolts tried to cause a stink by reporting that I was carrying (lawfully) and succeeded only in getting me the lion’s share of the airtime. Please, PLEASE keep doing that! And when reciprocity was the issue, I rooted out and dispensed with the roadblock that killed it the first year, thus getting it enacted the next year. Wasn’t my bill, but I did my part. And, the last year we saw your AWB bill was the same year I pushed my Arms Definition bill. It was drafted and almost made it to the hopper, and strangely, your AWB bill dropped off the radar and didn’t even get any attention the next year even though it was still in play. Hey, maybe this year we can get another face-off hearing on those.

And I saved the best for last. When your president was murdered (nothing funny about that, mind you) and you went to work the very next morning raising money in his name and initiating a finger-pointing campaign at the shooting community, (truly disgusting) I concocted the wild, paranoid, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that it was an inside job, in order to point the finger back at you. Alan only got on board with that because it was the only thing that was working. And at some level, the wild theory stuck, because that’s when your finger-pointing ended. Now why would that be, if it was only crazy delusions? It’s a sad state of affairs when the tinfoil-hat theories stick.

And who, who has done all this to you? Why you’re absolutely right, NOBODY! I haven’t been a bouncer in twenty years, now I’m a dirty construction worker. (But as people in my field routinely clear $100,000 a year it’s not so bad.) I’m just one angry loner malcontent who goes to the capitol and represents himself, and has done nothing but take from you for going on eight years now, for no other reason than because it needs to be done, and I’ve never charged anyone a dime to do it. How must that sting?

Your turn to tell me the score now. Aww, forgot, that would mean throwing away your safe little hiding place where you don’t have to have your insane rantings stuck to your name and following you forever. That’s okay, I’ve pretty well narrowed you down to Ralph or Jon.

Now somewhere, it seems we got separated from the original issue, the AWB coming back. You’ve seen what my response will be, the Arms Definition Bill. You’ll have a lot of say yourself in whether that gets dropped, because it ain’t the nineties anymore. When you people go on “offense”, all you’re accomplishing is to give us a chance to get something good enacted. So read it and tell me what you think. Want to go for another face-off hearing?

Kevin Schmadeka

Suuuuuure it's not you. Did you get your windshield fixed yet?

Remember, your tin foil hat won't protect you at work from heavy things falling on you. If you do get hit with a falling piano, be sure to stick it up on YouTube so we can have a laugh.

Then I wrote a bill that failed. Then I wrote another that, er, failed. And finally I wrote one that almost "made it to the hopper" before...it failed. Then I went back to my job, stirring Quik-rite. Good times.

Failure and more failure. The story of my life. Bouncer, then construction worker, probably destined to die tragically when my cracked windshield implodes in on me while driving, causing me to veer into oncoming traffic. Oh, but life is still sweet. I've asked that I be buried with my firearms, in case space aliens come to abduct my body, so I can defend myself properly. So I got that goin' for me.

"Then I wrote a bill that failed. Then I wrote another that, er, failed. And finally I wrote one that almost "made it to the hopper" before...it failed."

Autobiographical notes from Ralph Fascitelli and Jon Scholes?

Cheer up Ralph/Jon. It's a new legislative session and maybe Ceasefire's exceptionally bad luck with bills will finally change.

But I doubt it.

Well gungrabber, it’s your face and your eggs and you could really use a washcloth.

And now, failure. Personal failure. Failed bills. Good freaking GOD where to begin??? I’ve got three failed bills, by your definition at least. By mine, they succeeded spectacularly at shooting down yours, which was all I ever needed.

So back to the old scorecard, which you ducked. What have your bills been doing for the last decade? Have they been…. FAILING??? One after the other, by the dozen? How do you explain this? I mean, don’t you get paid to do this, and be successful? Don’t the politicians you fought for love you anymore? Or do they prefer holding power to pleasing people who have never had anything to offer them but lost elections? Do fill me in.

Now back to the issue at hand again. Believe me, you’re not the Ceasefire rep I want to talk to, you’re just the only one I’m going to get. I called you out, Nina called for help, you showed up hell-bent on disgracing your movement and have done so well, now answer to the issue. You’ve said a couple of lofty, if inaccurate, things about democracy and justice, so I know you can make an argument if you try to. And I just threw you the biggest softball I could possibly find.

This is a bill that legalizes Ma Deuce! A silencer to go on the front! Grenades, if police can have them! Photon disintegrators, the preferred weapon for mass murdering the children of Zebulon! What more can you possibly ask of me? If you have nothing to say about this, then what the hell is Ralph paying you for? I mean, you’re not maybe afraid of giving this any exposure, risking the idea catching on, are you?

So step on up and give me your successful, highly educated and professional analysis. If you dare. And you might want to confine it to Earthly relevance, I’ll be quoting it.

Come on, I’m just a dirty ex-bouncer construction worker, what are you worried about?

WHERE ARE MY FRITOS!?!?!

AND MY TINFOIL HAT!?!?!?

THE ALIENS ARE ATTACKING!!!!

What does Ted Nugent have to say about all of this?!?

Gungrabber, I do believe you’re blubbering again. And sounding like the whupped little puppy I’ve always known you to be.

Friends and cohorts, I call this a classic moment in blog war history. Gun rights people in and out of the capitol have told me for years, “You push a bill that crazy and they’ll just say… they’ll just say…” Look at what the Ceasefire representative, with all his success and communications training behind him is saying about one of the wildest bills to get dropped in front of him ever, not jack squat. He’s reduced to infantile blubbering and howling about Fritos and Zebulon.

Nina, I genuinely feel for you now and I’m not being sarcastic. When you called them for an assist you could not have been expecting this. Believe me, I wasn’t either. I guess if there’s a lesson in this though, it’s what to expect in the way of support when you throw in with Washington Ceasefire.

Kevin Schmadeka

“Greetings from Zebulon to the hippies of Earth. Are you consumable?” --KS

The hallmark of the lunatic: imagines everything that happens in the world fits his retarded preconceived worldview.

The Cement Stirring Legislator sees Washington Ceasefire everywhere, presumably in his dreams too, because he is obsessed with them. He probably has little voodoo dolls of his rivals sitting on his coffee table at home that he compulsively stabs with pins while he watches Fox News and cheers Sarah Palin's latest incoherent bleating. Then he flicks over to see what the Nuge is hunting. Then he calls his Mom to bring him a beer and some Fritos.

Sorry to disappoint, He of the Cracked Windshield, but I'm just somebody on the Internet who loves to poke gunnutter and other rightwingextremist idiots and watch them herk and jerk all over the place, like you're doing right now.

You are entertaining, Emperor of Zebulon, in your fanaticism. I really hope you don't destroy yourself too soon and cheat me of more fun.

Of course, I know your paranoia is sufficient to keep you believing whatever is required by your sickness, so feel free to continue to think I'm one of the targets of your voodoo dolls.

But be careful tomorrow while you're fishing your dirty t-shirt out of the hamper, Kevin the Bouncer. There might be a Ceasefire Boogeyman in there ready to leap out and eat you! Make sure your firearms are handy at all times to defend you from the Satanic Enemy lurking in the depths of your sadly warped mind.

WOOGIE BOOGIE!!

How sad. Kevin thinks he has "friends." The ones inside your head don't count, Kev.

Or are you perhaps addressing your guns when you say "friends"? I don't think they're reading this, Citizen Concrete Mixer.

Yes dear, Zebulon, we know. Turn off the TV and go to bed now.

The closest thing I have to a voodoo doll is my Google-Me-Elmo, and it knows how to read and use a computer better than you. I thought you were educated.

So you’re just now disclaiming ceasefire? You’ve been letting them take the rap for your ramblings for a good long time now, and they’ve been letting it happen. If you weren’t so ashamed of who you are, then being misidentified wouldn’t be such an issue. It’s nice you have job where you can do this on the company clock. What company would that be?

Seriously though, I have no wish of any kind to pay you any visits, all I want is for this page to pop up every time your name is searched. That’s not asking so much, is it?

I make no claim to being important, just involved, some of the time anyhow. You seem to feel pretty important, though you won’t provide any reasons why, and I do feel fortunate that you’ve made so much time for me. You yourself aren’t actually as worth my time as it seems, but this hasn’t exactly been for your benefit either. It’s been a chance to show people who they’re casting their lot with when they join forces with ceasefire, and I can’t thank you enough for your help with that. Admit who you are or not, I’ll be pointing people to this page for a good long time, unless a real identifiable Ceasefire person wants to clear the record.

That out of the way, I’ve been on Ceasefire’s most-hated list for a good long time, and I hardly need any verification from you on that. That is kind of flattering actually, it means I’ve been doing my job. How do I rate so much of your time, while you’re at work no less? Are you sure we haven’t done this before? You sound awfully familiar.

Incidentally, tweaking people is fun, I’ve done my fair share of that, but I suggest a little caution in certain areas. For example, you impersonated law enforcement. Not for fun or profit either, you attempted to elicit threats against law enforcement. (“All talk no action” ring a bell?) Cops tend to follow conversations that involve law enforcement and threats, and in the age of Monfort I doubt they’ll appreciate your impersonating them for the purpose of provoking people against them. Especially with that being a felony and all. If I did such a thing I would fully expect them to be dropping by and taking me away in handcuffs. How special are you exactly? Now that it’s likely come to their attention, this might be a good time to practice your respectful face and keeping your hands in view.

Cheers, and best of luck to you and Ceasefire in your own quests for relevance.

"Nina Shapiro says:
Jack -- So if he got the gun legally, would you be prepared to admit that it bolsters the case for a ban?"

The VA tech shooter got them legally over the counter, and one of his victims then went after gun shows! Liberal ADD. Nina, guns are easy to make in the garage: I've several. Have also packed heat since '95 without a CCW, as I let it expire then..saved my life total of 3x.

Nina, why are you a tikkun olam reform Jew going after a Conservative one? You bring shame upon yer peeps.

Ditto what Wendy said..