Slashdot Mirror

You have a right to keep and bear arms - but not necessarily to trade them. A restriction on buying arms does not infringe on the constitution, for you can still MAKE they weapons you want to bear.

HAHAHAHA! Not in California! https://www.thetruthaboutguns....

. . .because the files have been out there for years, and now more people looking for them.

Besides, you don't **need** a 3D Printer to make a firearm. The tools in any decently-equipped home workshop are generally sufficient. A drill-press, a rivet gun, and perhaps a hydraulic press, and you're good (Or spend a few hundred bucks at the local Harbor Freight. . )

There is a case where someone actually built an AK-47-pattern rifle from a SHOVEL.. And there's an entire cottage industry that makes functional firearms entirely using hand tools.. .

The point is, firearms are extremely easy to make by any competent craftsman. The genie has been out of the bottle for CENTURIES. All 3D printers do (or CNC automills) is the gruntwork. . .

Guns are already more heavily regulated than cars.

You don't need a license or any sort of test to purchase a car and drive it on your own property.

And cars kills vastly more people than AR-15s do. Normally 40K/year from cars vs. maybe 100 people/year from all "assault rifles" combined.

I can think of a few ways that someone can get a gun away from someone else and use it on them.

Now, I would live a gun that will not fire unless authorized. Some punk picks up one of these guns, he is most likely not gonna look at it and think, "Yo dog! I can hack this!"

He's gonna try - maybe - to use it and when it doesn't work, cast it away or try to sell it to some other punk.

Or someone breaks into my place and grabs the gun and when trying to use it, it don't work.

If he is that informed to hack, they'll have to go somewhere to the lab in the hood and do whatever -away from me.

Get it? Barriers to using the thing immediately - most likely against myself.

Washington Post: More Cops Killed by Their Own Gun Than “Straw Purchases”

This site has been following ShotSpotter tech for a couple of years now:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

Near as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be a huge reduction in gun crime as a result of this technology - mostly due to the fact that many gun crimes are committed with stolen guns (that are ditched after a shooting) and the fact that criminals don't hang around after a shooting waiting for the cops.

This technology stinks of Redflex and the red light camera fiasco there...

It could be parody, it does not look like a parody and it will strike fear in the heart of NRA supporters.
The asymmetric enforcement of second amendment rights is the core of NRA and its followers mission. White people with long guns, with fingers on the trigger can walk into departmental stores, or pick arguments with police officers, insult the police and terrorize play grounds with impunity. Stand your ground, Open Carry and such slogans are meant for them.

The irony is that if you actually go to a place where die-hard gun nuts hang out (and I'm talking about people who think that NRA is "too mushy" on gun rights), and read the comments on that video, you'll find that they actually kinda wish this was a real thing and not a parody.

It wasn't just the Democrats that tried to prevent people on the "lists" from being able to buy firearms. Cornyn also introduced a bill preventing anyone on the list, or had been on the list within the past 5 years, from buying a firearm. His bill satisfied the NRA and the ACLU's concerns by requiring the government to prove to a judge within 72 hours why the person should be permanently barred from purchasing. Harry Reid didn't like that the bill was supported by the NRA and Joe Manchin didn't like the due-process requirement. It, too, failed on a party line vote.

There were 4 gun-control measures brought for a vote, 2 by the Democrats and 2 by the Republicans; all failed along party lines.

"Not all Democrats are for a complete ban on guns..." While this statement is true, there are enough Democrats in positions of leadership that want to ban some sets of guns that, taken in aggregate, represents pretty much a ban on the most useful and popular guns. "Australian-style gun control," popular with both Clinton and Obama, is a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. "Assault weapon" bans are a ban on the most popular rifle in the country.

By the way, there's significantly less regulation on operating a vehicle than in operating a firearm (treat guns like cars). There's also a lot more paperwork involved in buying a firearm than in getting a hunting license, at least for the states in which I hunt.

Nah, nobody needs an assault rifle. Even for military use, they're not necessary. Of course, an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon and those are banned (existing fully automatic weapons are allowed and can even be sold and transferred, but must be registered -- nobody is using a registered weapon to commit a crime). What was used here was not an assault rifle, it was a rifle, just like any other rifle, functionally equivalent to any hunting rifle but with a design that looks a lot more like a military assault rifle.

Let me tell you this: what a gun looks like doesn't make it any more or less deadly. Were I so inclined, I could go buy a rifle, like one you might consider using for hunting, right now, wait the obligatory 10 days (California, gotta love this place), go pick it up, and commit a mass shooting with it on my way home. I'm talking about a single-fire .22LR rifle like this one. Yes, just as deadly as the one used in the Orlando shooting.

One, the media refers to (erroneously, as it is not fully automatic) as an "assault weapon". The other they refer to as something Dick Cheney might take with him on a hunting trip. Both are just as deadly.

What's more deadly? Actual assault weapons. Go ahead and ban them.

These guys keep an archive of defensive gun uses:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

Of course - you will say that weren't spree killings or mass shootings - well it could be that a "mass shooting" was prevented in many of these single instances of defensive gun uses.

I've noticed that many people who claim guns are useless for defense are not gun owners or have never carried one for self-defense.

The police are more than 5 times more likely to shoot an innocent person than a civilian.

"Although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals."

https://www.learnaboutguns.com...

Regarding the myth of "highly trained professionals":

"...one of several shootings where the police, in legitimately (mostly) trying to shoot bad guys, accidently[sic] shot citizens instead, in one case, shooting not only the bad guy, but nine innocent bystanders."

The author goes on to talk about mediocre training and political decisions that make most police sup-par shooters.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

Damn standing, I hate standing.

I have some problems with it as well. I think there should be a process to, well, challenge laws in the court even before standing has been established, but I'm not enough of a lawyer to say how that should work.

But again that's a question of use-cases and how the user balances risk.

Correct. What it means, at least to me, is that smart-guns need to be commercially competitive. Consider something like a hydrogen fuel cell car. When the state of the art, even with the company eating all R&D costs, only charging the marginal cost of production results in a $200k vehicle that has 3 fueling points in the city vs hundreds of gasoline fueling points, said car isn't competitive. Get the marginal cost down to $10k per vehicle(IE sale price of about $15k is profitable if they sell enough of them) and the gas station owners will see an opportunity and those 3 points will expand to dozens(at first), so the problems will be solved. Until then, as you say, there's a lot of risk.

So you're basing all of your arguments on the NJ law and the boycott by current gun owners.

No, I'm basing one of my arguments on it. S&W, for example, nearly died to a grass roots boycott when they made a deal with the Clinton Administration to restrict firearm types, features, and sales. So many gun owners refused to buy S&W firearms and/or sold their S&W firearms in protest that not only were there fewer people buying their weapons - there were so many used S&W firearms available that even those still willing to buy were lured into buying used more often than not. The owners ended up selling the company to another party at a 'fire-sale' price, and the new owners repudiated the deal.

So yes, firearm companies are well aware that they can't piss the gun owners off too much. They're one of the few industries that have actually faced an effective boycott in recent history. Most boycotts aren't widespread enough to be 'effective'.

And I don't think that works for this argument because the police or military wouldn't involve themselves in a boycott, and a new maker could survive on a smaller initial market.

They might not involve themselves in a boycott, but the military does their purchasing their own way, and most firearm companies can't survive on the military market alone. You lose the military contract and you're gone if you're dependent upon that. As for the police - they're more distributed, but note what I was saying - the police might not deliberately boycott the company, but they're not buying the smart gun versions. If all you're producing is smart guns, right now that means that the police will keep buying Glocks.

I will note that police and military are probably the worst market for smart guns since they don't really need to worry about 3rd parties getting their guns and their guns are explicitly for combat situations.

Uh, say what? I'd suggest doing a couple google searches on topics like 'military weapons stolen'.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/new...
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12...
https://www.gunandgame.com/thr...

Also, the police are probably one of the better targets for smart guns because being killed by their own weapons is a real problem:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...
"Fifty-one officers were killed when their department-issued firearms or another officer’s gun were turned against them."

Yes. Yes they can. That is what has happened in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Liberals cannot admit that humans are evil, and guns are merely a tool that can be used for good or for evil. Most liberals I encounter are scared of guns, and so because they are scared, everyone else should be scared of guns and be forced not to have them. The desire to ban guns is rooted in cowardice and fear.

Ghost Gunner...may signal a new era in the gun control debate

Presumably he means a "new era" of debate in which gun-rights advocates are not resoundingly winning that debate. This week's news is that the Texas legislature approved campus carry and both houses of the Maine legislature approved constitutional carry. And those immediately followed the Federal Courts rollback of carry restrictions in DC. And last year Illinois legalized concealed carry.

I don't see how Andy Greenburg using a "Ghost Gunner" is going to reverse that trend.

The PR hit will be based on the outcome. In the U.S. the odds that the police: aren't expected, don't identify themselves, and bust down the door to encounter someone "well within their rights" who has a gun is quite possible. The police are in a tough spot when working from an anonymous tip. They need to demonstrate the best judgement possible.

HOLY SHAZBOT!!
Why'd you have to go and bring that up?! At least we'll always have Big Bertha.

Has the ACLU ever actively worked against gun ownership, though? They interpret the 2nd as applying to government-controlled military, not individual rights, but I don't know that they've tried enforce gun control. Here's a case where they defended a gun-rights supporter, though because of the violation of his civil liberties and not because of his firearms.

It's also a matter of domain rather than interest; where the ACLU doesn't take cases that could violate the 2nd, the NRA steps in. Why should the ACLU spend its resources on a battle the NRA can fight?

Similarly, I haven't heard much about the NRA working to protect free speech or the right to proper legal representation outside of fire-arm-related cases...

Hey fuckface, lots of people are asking this question, and the reporting is out there, all you have to do it look.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

"What do you think would happen if France had laws so that the manufacturer of a weapon used in a terrorist attack gets a _massive_ fine? And by _massive_ I mean a fine that will badly hurt a major arms manufacturer?"

Good grief, are you really this stupid? First of all, the law says that these men cannot have guns, espcially fill auto guns. Fat lot of good that law did in this case huh? Get a clue douchebag, people who intend on killing others, be they actual-in-fact mozzie animal terrorists, or be they simple run of the mill criminals, don't really give a shit what the law says, so the acquisition of the firearm is really the least of their crimes. The only real impediment to them getting a gun is getting hold of the money, which in the end isn't that hard for anyone to do anyway.

That said, all this gun control ends up doing is preventing men of moral character and people who respect the law and the lives of other men, from having firearms that can be used to protect themselves and those around them. If only the CH cartoonists had been carrying in that meeting room! Lives could have been saved, perhaps a lot of them! Wouldn't that have been a wonderul thing? Guns are not evil, they are used by people who want to protect themselves from evildoers, that is not a bad thing, that is a good thing.

Hey idiot, do you think Obama, who is pro gun control, or Bloomberg who is also (just to name a few) would ever go out in public without armed bodyguards? These men do not hate guns, they just hate it when other free men have guns. Don't you ever think for a second or two why this would be? Why do people who want to prevent gun ownership of the masses, always keep guns around themselves?

Wow, self preservation, what a concept.

Fuck you assholes and your mindless knee jerk antigun idiocy. You assholes want only to keep me from having the means to protect myself and my loved ones from other men who might seek to inflict harm on us. That makes me fucking pissed off.

Asshole.

Yet another illustration of the fact that legit gun owners must jump through endless hoops and be allowed to defend themselves at the whim of whatever statist entity, but terrorists, criminals, et. al. can pick their stuff up anytime they want, do whatever they want with it, pretty much anywhere they want. Whenever they want. The states love these kinds of events, because they can keep scaring their herds of sheep and pretend to be the ever-vigilant sheepdogs, who just need to pass some more laws and clamp down some more on ordinary schmuck Mundanes like us.

On the other hand, my sympathy is limited for the vics at the Charlie Hebdo offices; you just canâ(TM)t expect to keep flipping the bird worldwide to a billion hadji bastards and then act all surprised when two of them cruise through your front door firing AKs at you, as you sit there unarmed with your thumb up your ass.

This and other recent incidents have shown the hadjis that they can get away with it with nearly utter impunity. So it will be interesting when they start kicking it off over here, back in the World, so to speak.

Youâ(TM)ll excuse me now while I check the local Amtrak station for anyone who might be selling RPGs or sumthin.
Yet another illustration of the fact that legit gun owners must jump through endless hoops and be allowed to defend themselves at the whim of whatever statist entity, but terrorists, criminals, et. al. can pick their stuff up anytime they want, do whatever they want with it, pretty much anywhere they want. Whenever they want. The states love these kinds of events, because they can keep scaring their herds of sheep and pretend to be the ever-vigilant sheepdogs, who just need to pass some mo

Let me take the last first.

Also please note, the number of "bad guys with guns" stopped by a random "good guy with a gun" citizen in all of the past decade and a half of mass shootings is 0.
Zero.
Zilch.
Zip.
Nada.
None.
Not a one.
They were all stopped by either police, or themselves via suicide.

From http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

The problem with claiming that zero mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians is just that: they were stopped. Thereâ(TM)s no weeks-long media feeding frenzy when a mass shooting doesnâ(TM)t happen. But I can definitely present some examples in just the past couple of years where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.

Clackamas Town Center: An armed individual, obviously attempting to commit a mass shooting, was confronted by a person with a concealed carry license. After seeing a gun being drawn on him, the shooter immediately deviated from his course and killed himself in an adjacent hallway.

Arapahoe High School: A student armed with a shotgun and multiple incendiary devices, shot one person in the face and was attempting to kill more people when an armed school resource officer confronted him. The attacker then killed himself.

Those are just the two most high profile cases in recent history â" a news story that doesnâ(TM)t happen is hard to find, so we never seem to hear about those. Even when they happen, the actual chain of events are still often hard to prove.

It boils down to this: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Police officer, concealed carry holder, school resource officerâ¦it doesnâ(TM)t matter. Any armed opposition is effective.

Also, the notion that "bad people will always have guns because they ignore laws" is not logically valid, and links two seperate concepts while ignoring the inherent assumptions required to link them. Bad people may ignore laws, but that has little to do with their ability to obtain firearms. Their ability to obtain fireams depends on the efficacy of efforts to disrupt their illicit supply chains.

Read the news out of France lately? The attackers had fully automatic weapons and a rocket launcher. Personal firearm selling, buying, ownership, and possession are all extremely heavily restricted and regulated in France. Have you seen the Colt Model 1911 semiautomatic pistols that are being produced by 3D printing these days? Heck, I can fabricate a STEN submachine gun with the common metal shop tools I have access to in a day or two. I have the complete plans and templates. As far as that goes, it's probably easier to just steal a shotgun and/or pistol from a parked police cruiser (might even get an AR or M4 from the trunk).

Heck, gangs in Brazil make their own guns, and so did Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and elsewhere in WW2.

If more guns makes people safer and reduces crime, why is America not the safest country on the planet with the lowest crime rate?
Why is it that instead we see the exact opposite, that Amercia has the highest crime rate of all western nations, where the majority of those other nations have far stricter gun control than the US?

Sorry but no. The theory that more guns = less crime is a pile of manure disproven by simple observation.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Other nations don't count & categorize data points the same way the US does. Violent crime in the US is at an all time low and has been trending steadily downward for 40 years.

So basically, your entire post is factually wrong and smells like emotionally/ideologically-driven propaganda.

Strat

Only if you stick the gun point blank to someone's head. otherwise a .22 won't penetrate the human skull.

Don't bet your life on that.

First things first, let’s see what percentage of observed gunfights ended in a fatality for the person on the receiving end.

The graph is pretty clear on this: .22 caliber firearms are just as deadly in a gunfight as any other handgun caliber. In fact, it beat the average (far right). Surprisingly, every caliber that begins with a 4 (.40 S&W, .45, .44 Mag) performed worse than the .22 caliber firearms in terms of putting the opponent in the dirt for good.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

It depends how it is measured.

If you take polls relying on self reporting, then yes, the numbers are slightly declining.

If you take the number of NICS background checks then the numbers are up.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

Most states have no registration at all. I can buy or sell a gun to another private citizen I don't have to tell anyone, as long as it's not an NFA item. I can even mill out my own un-serialized rifle that no-one knows about (talked about in a previous /. article on 3d printed guns)

Even the number of NFA classified items (machine-guns, suppressors, etc) are up.
http://www.businessinsider.com...

If only 1 in 5 of the NICS checks resulted in a sale, then gun sales from stores alone outpaced the us population increase.

The gun industry actually sailed through the recessions like they never happened, and gun-industry jobs grew like 30%. People will be retiring off the money they make selling ammo with crazy markups.

My state's concealed carry program has been off tha hook as the kids say.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014... http://m.washingtonpost.com/lo... http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c... http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/201... http://m.washingtontimes.com/n...

Firstly, I'm a law abiding citizen.

The ideal situation is that I throw my dogs in the glassed in shower in my bathroom just off of my bedroom and calmly come out and ask 'what the fuck'. The whole point of motion sensors on the flood lights is that I'll see them coming. If they've got a warrant, come on in boys and look around. Just don't shoot anybody or anything.

However, if it comes down to it I'll blow rounds through anybody wrongfully coming into my house. If they shoot my wife or anybody dear to me, then that SWAT officer is gone. Full stop. Either now or later; I've got a very long memory.

In addition, I don't think you know how fucked up county SWAT morons are; they're little better than mall ninjas. Thanks to homeland security giving them military hardware and precious little training and common sense on how to use it, they're comical at times.. until they hurt somebody.

Also, botched raids? You're welcome.

And if you're one of those boot lickers who think no-knock warrants, drone strikes on US citizens, and ubiquitous surveillance are a good thing, fuck you.

Somebody has got to put a stop to this shit. Violent crime is plummeting yet the state is escalating.

Indeed. This is on a pro-gun blog, but folks might want to look a this. Seems like the cops are much more likely to commit homicide than are CCW holders.. and before anybody spouts off, check the cites.

It was a retired cop.

And I do wonder why people would carry a gun when going to the movies.

Aurora, Colorado. If there had been one armed ex cop in the theater, probably less than 12 people would have died.

Oh, that would have been sweet. Let's posit *3* armed ex cops in the theater, ranging from 55 to 72 years old.

The slaughter from mistaken identity of the shooter and the crossfire would have been IMMENSE. Probably many more people dead.

If you think cops are good shots, you're not paying attention. Here, read about these sharpshooters: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/new-york-city-cops-shoot-innocent-bystanders/

And if you go there, don't miss this link in the story to another incident: "9 out of 16 Rounds Fired by New York City Cops May Have Hit Civilians".

Sure do! I am always happy to provide sources for a kindly requester. :)

These are both biased sources, but they name their factual sources so you can look and see how they came to their numbers and make your own decision about it:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/

http://hawaiiccw.com/gun-myths/concealed-carry-myths/people-permits-commit-crimes/

Seriously, I don't think I could buy one if I wanted to. The gadgetophile in me loves the idea, but there's only one company making 'em, it's only a 10-round .22LR, and there's that infamous video of the salesman handing the gun to the customer to test - instead of going silent, he pulls the trigger and it clicks - the hammer fell on an empty chamber, in spite of the smart electronic safety being engaged at the time. After the first dry-firing, it stops going but if that's their idea of a promo video, I'm worried.

Maybe I'll look into smart guns again in a decade or so, that should be enough time for them to 1: actually reach market, and 2: implement some worthwhile features. Let's say you've got a smartwatch, like the Armatix gun. It's got electrodes on the back. Make my wrist tingle when I'm getting low, and itch outright when the magazine's empty. Hell, this is 2023. Google Glass is out, and we've already got pica tinny "action cams". Let's make a camera under the barrel feed video to my Glass. If you gave me Land Warrior on a handgun, I'd be inclined to overlook the new points of failure; the ability to fight from behind cover without exposing yourself to return fire is pretty revolutionary. Set it up so my smartphone dials 911, feeds the operator my Glass-eye view, my words, and speakerphone audio - odds are if I'm drawing a weapon on short notice, I want the police to show up, know exactly where I am, and who I've been shooting at.

If domestic law-enforcement drones end up legal, automatically task one to my location, and let the 911 operator work with me to tag the bad guy so I know if I'm pinned down, or I can get away safely. Some of this is also going to involve a smart holster, but Viridian has developed the prototype for that already.

The problem is right now, smartguns are all stick, no carrot. I get a low-capacity, small-calibre, weapon that has glowing TRON lines (maybe they should have put the indicator in the front sight? The thing that's supposed to be easy to see while you're shooting?) to give away my position, an unreliable safety mechanism that'll only let me get shot with my own gun once, and all this for the price of "If you have to ask, you can't afford it". I could get a very nice used, 10-round .22LR for a couple hundred bucks, and if I shop around I could get a really nice European gun made by people better known for making Olympic target pistols at that price. If I'm in a hurry, I can find a used Ruger Mk.3 for about that price just about anywhere. And that Triggersmart thing - that lump's so big I probably couldn't holster a retrofitted gun. I certainly can't use it alongside a Radtec round counter, which sits in the same spot but is a much smaller box. Additionally, I doubt most people could effectively conceal a handgun with an inch-thick block sticking out of the side; the trend is toward small, slim, and round-edged these days for a very good reason.

Seriously, right now there is no benefit to smartguns.

They are not armed with anything this legislation is trying to ban/limit.

The Secret Service now carries as its sidearm Sig Sauer P229s in .357 SIG, which has a capacity of 12 rounds which would be illegal per this legislation.

It also uses FN Hernstal P90 submachine guns as a close combat/carry weapon, and that weapon also violates the proposed legislation.

Happy now, dumb ass?

I don't know, are you?

If you want something done inefficiently, badly, at high cost and overly influenced by politics, have the government do it.

Isn't that what the Republicans say all the time? Now if only the Republicans would DO something about it instead of just waiting for their turn to spy on those evil ACLU bill of rights supporters.

So, Mr. White Guy gets the right to follow around people with a gun,

First off, he is a Hispanic man with an interesting history:

The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

Second, he had a concealed carry permit, so he could carry a concealed firearm, period.

Third, are you saying Zimmerman should not have called the police?

Why might Zimmerman have had an interest?

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

harrass them and finally shoot them for the deadly threat of walking around while black and carrying skittles,

Carrying skittles? Do you think this is the bag? -> Zimmerman Injuries Seen in Exclusive Photo

"Walking around while black" . . . like Zimmermans great grandfather? And one more interesting bit -

“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would?

while the black boy should have called the police.

Zimmerman did call the police - he spent a considerable amount of time on the phone with them. And yes, it would have been a much better idea for Martin, who had a phone with him and was chatting on it, to have called the police if he was worried, instead of apparently assaulting Zimmerman.

I get it, "standing your ground" is . .

Stand your ground doesn't have anything to do with this.

. . .only for your fellow Stormfront members, you racist fucker. You are so full of it, one day you gonna explode in a quite dramatic crapageddon.

Don't you claim to be a biochemist? Do you have any ability to engage in a rational, fact based discussion on this matter? You certainly haven't demonstrated that you do. You might want to talk to a counselor, you seem to have some issues.