Prosecute them. Exercising your 2A rights doesn’t give you the right to dump your trash in the desert.

Yes, ammo and guns are taxed to maintain public lands (sorry for the mangled sentence).

Lots of gun groups (local and grassroots) organize public land cleanups. We do what we can.

BTW – I didn’t read the article yet – just responding to the post (which was a great question).

Happy New Year.

Do we tax ammo much like we do cigarettes now and use those proceeds to clean up after shooters? Do we increase enforcement by hiring more rangers and other federal law enforcment personnel and fine the bejesus out violators? If so, how do you apportion the costs? Do we demand stricter self-regulation by the NRA and other pro-guns groups and hope they do the job that they are not doing now? Or do we simply throw our hands up and conclude that the expense of cleaning up after shooters is the cost of the 2nd amendment?

BTW, I get that gun owners are not the only ones despoiling our public lands. I’ve seen first-hand the refuse left behind by other public land users and the referenced articles is not about shooter per se. But I’m interested specifically in how we solve this piece of the puzzle since it potentially involves issues that don’t arise when we’re merely talking about an ATV rider who is the first one to talk about rights, but the last one to talk about responsibility.

Thoughts?

The Clinton one tested the Kleck methodology and came up with 4 million DGU and twice the accepted number of rapes/year.

Are you confined by any chance?

I’ve shown you two studies. Kleck and Gertz was one.

The other study — commissioned by the Clinton administration was the other.

While the authors may not like the results of their survey, that survey confirmed Kleck and Gertz.

Not one piece of evidence was submitted to show the results weren’t valid. NOT ONE.

They just said We don’t like it, this study shows that guns prevent more crimes then what happens.

Did they present any evidence showing that firearms didn’t prevent more rapes then were reported? NOPE.

Also notice who you entirely skip over how MikeB302000 has been lying and how that fact undermines gun control laws.

Bob S, Show me ONE! Just one!

As always you have it backwards

why MikeB’s so called “repeated lies” might pale in comparison to Alan Korwin’s lies on C-Span?

First, evidence presented, repeatedly shows that Mr. Korwin didn’t lie. You can repeat it all you want but the facts remain. Defensive Gun uses are established facts and the numbers have been verified by different studies.

MikeB302000 has repeated lies – such as “90% of all firearms confiscated in Mexico”. Even after multiple attempts to convince him of the truth, even after multiple citations of the actual facts and numbers MikeB302000 lied. Only after months of repeating the lie did he stop.

Next and most important, MikeB302000 lies are directed at trying to restrict our rights. Alan Korwin statements did not try to restrict anyone’s rights.

MikeB30200 lied by calling Weer’d’s statements unfounded and a personal attack. He called Weer’d a liar multiple times when Weer’d ONLY asked about his ownership of illegal guns. Not the “bragging” but simply calling Weer’d a liar and was making personal attacks.

If MikeB302000 owned firearms illegally, as he has admitted, then he has direct personal evidence that the gun control laws he is advocating do not work.
MikeB302000 has repeatedly claimed that gun control laws work….yet the laws didn’t stop him from illegally purchasing a firearm, did they?

Your entire argument claims that if MikeB is a liar, therefore his arguments about gun’s and gun policy is somehow not valid.

I would like a citation of Weer’d’s or my comments that claim this or would that be too close to calling you a liar?

What we state is simply this- Should trust a person who says they have your best interest in mind after that person has been proven to be a liar?

MikeB302000 has lied repeatedly about his ownership of firearms and the effectiveness of gun control laws. What else is he lying about?

What I did read, was the kind of incoherent rant one might expect from a drunk high school drop out who’s never been in a significant position of authority and as such has never needed to defend such accusations.

One would think, If MikeB really did lie, that one could easily point out the lie.

It would be really easy. Here’s an example of what I mean…

Alan Korwin said “Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.”

This is a lie.

When challenged to defend that statement, Alan Korwin invoked the Kleck study. But the Kleck study does not say lives were saved anywhere. Kleck’s was a study about defensive gun uses (DUG) not lives saved.

See how easy that is?

So, if MikeB lied, tell us exactly what he said that is untrue.

All I could find were comments like “So certainly MikeB HAS to be lying here no matter what. I would say that the majority of his “Biography” given is fictitious” or “This scenario would still make him a liar,” or “So is MikeB a Liar, or a Lying Criminal? I don’t know, but let’s play devil’s advocate and say he’s just lying about the guns, as well as his biography.”

How about, “No matter what, MikeB is a classic liar from the anti-freedom, pro-ignorance front”

Im sorry Weer’d, I just couldn’t see where you’ve shown that MikeB has lied.

But here’s the really stupid part. Your entire argument claims that if MikeB is a liar, therefore his arguments about gun’s and gun policy is somehow not valid.

That logic does not follow. Even if you could prove someone is a liar, it does not change the truth of the facts he uses to make his arguments.

If your life depended on it, do you think you could come up with a convincing argument for why MikeB’s so called “repeated lies” might pale in comparison to Alan Korwin’s lies on C-Span?

Im really curious if you can tell the difference.

I thought I did respond to his points. Which did I mention?

How about the comment

That’s what we call “personal attacking” and as Cliff mentioned it’s a shabby tactic used in debate.

Did I not discuss that?

Gun Lobby Liars, Gary Kleck, Alan Korwin, National Rifle Association (NRA) Continue to Deceive Americans | One Utah

That is the name of the tab when i open this post….Cliff says that personal attacks are shabby?
While calling us liars? Hypocrisy anyone?

MikeB302000 who admits to owning firearms illegally spends much time on his blog discussing how “10%” of gun owners shouldn’t own firearms. Sounds like a personal attack, right?

Does he support his idea with any facts, evidence, statistics? Anything? Nope.

It doesn’t take long to respond to his lies, distortions. We’ve done it repeatedly over the past 18 or so months.

To use an analogy that MikeB302000 hates; if a person producing child pron was advocating laws that he would ignore but would restrict your 1st amendment rights, wouldn’t you want to know what type of person he was?

I’m not saying that MikeB302000 has anything to do with that crime.

Is it wrong to let people know that MikeB302000 didn’t obey gun control laws and is now advocating more gun control laws?

He repeated that several times. This is another lie that you endorsed. And this is what I denied, not my original statement but the fact that I’d been “bragging about it all over the internet.”

We addressed this over at his site. MikeB302000 lied about it by saying that Weer’d was making things up or making personal attacks

Weer’d repeatedly made requests for information about MikeB302000’s ilegally owned firearms. Those comments were deleted repeatedly with MikeB302000 calling them slander, lies and personal attacks.

By repeatedly denying the validity of Weer’d’s claims, MikeB302000 repeatedly lied.

Walls of the City covered this
Weer’d Beard covered this
Armed and Safe addressed this (link available but worried about spam filter)
I covered it

So to say that we haven’t addressed MikeB302000 points is a little inaccurate. We just haven’t gone it all here again.

So, if this post makes it past the spam filter, what parts of MikeB302000’s comments didn’t I address?