Topic: HR 4269
started by: Self-Banished
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 29 2015,5:18 am
Well look at this late Chirstmas gift 
so much fun that 123 of them co sponsored, including the POS's Elison and McCollum.Any comments Botto?
< https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269 >
Posted by grassman on Dec. 29 2015,6:40 am
Exactly what do they mean by...Official Title as Introduced:To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 29 2015,6:54 am
Introducing legislation I suppose, how legislation is initiated?Looks to be just more incrementalism, hopefully nothing more that drum beating in safe districts, I hope.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 29 2015,6:55 am
(grassman @ Dec. 29 2015,6:40 am)
QUOTE
Exactly what do they mean by...Official Title as Introduced:
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
Just what it says Grassman.
QUOTE
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
That is the full title of this fascist bill. The short title is Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.
In all actuality, this bill has about a zero chance of making it to the floor. It has already been proven through data that awb don't work, cannot work, will never work. I fail to see how cosmetic features makes a firearm MORE deadlier. I have sent an email to each of the 123 traitors and asked specifically and provide data on each of the features of each firearm in their fascist bill how it makes a weapon deadlier, I don't expect an answer as their bill is based on emotion and void of any logical data.
Posted by grassman on Dec. 29 2015,7:10 am
I guess I was referring to: To regulate assault weapons and ensure the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. Seems to contradict each other does it not? What is this ( other purposes) bullcrap?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 29 2015,7:54 am
(grassman @ Dec. 29 2015,7:10 am)
QUOTE
I guess I was referring to: To regulate assault weapons and ensure the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. Seems to contradict each other does it not? What is this ( other purposes) bullcrap?
Doesn't contradict, it is merely a strike (a line in the sand per se) against the last couple of Supreme Court rulings where it was ruled that weapons of common use ARE protected under the 2nd Amendment. It would have been better if the Supreme Court also delved into United States v. Miller even further, but I guess that argument is for another time.
The last part of their fascist bill is the money maker, it leaves it open to what ever they want it to mean or regulate/punish, etc.
Why don't those 123 just come out and say it, they hate freedom.
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 29 2015,8:59 am
"Assault weapons?" That's going to need some disambiguation, like "Hate Speech." Nobody can really tell you what that is, amd your reaction to it depends on who's wielding one. Where do you draw the line? An M1903 Springfield rifle seems innocuous enough, yet in trained hands could be quite deadly. So could a Colt M1911. Where does it end? It's an election cycle. Stemming the tide of recent mass shootings is a political football. They'd have more luck if they banned gangsa rap, but that's just one opinion. Then we're into all sorts of First Amendment rhetoric.
Forgive my ineloquence this morning. I'm still working on my first cup of coffee.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 30 2015,8:46 am
Seen this on another site and decided to shamelessly steal it and repost it..QUOTE
We need to close the politician loophole where you can go to any politician and get your constitutionally protected individual rights infringed upon without any background check. These politicians are relying on bribery, graft, pay for play corruption and worse, and getting away with passing unconstitutional laws left and right. All this while they jet around the world with first class treatment, limousines, fancy hotel suites, gourmet meals, you name it, all surrounded by security forces that are armed to the teeth with high capacity 30 round clipazines, all paid for by the taxpayer.
Close the politician loophole!
Close the politician loophole!
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 31 2015,6:54 am
< http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015...-289536 >Might as well throw this BS on here too.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 31 2015,8:33 am
And then we have this< http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...16.html >
I'm not a fan of open carry but his should be entertaining for a month or two.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 06 2016,6:11 am
The crier in chief issued more EO's yesterday, says he's closing the gun show loophole. I've never bought a gun from a dealer at a gun show without filling out one of these...
Posted by grassman on Jan. 06 2016,10:26 am
I don't think I would make fun of a man for crying about people being shot and killed. 
I think he is as stumped on what to do about the killing in this country as the next.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 06 2016,10:34 am
(grassman @ Jan. 06 2016,10:26 am)
QUOTE
I don't think I would make fun of a man for crying about people being shot and killed.
I think he is as stumped on what to do about the killing in this country as the next.
I think he is as stumped on what to do about the killing in this country as the next.
I'll take crocodile tears for 1000 Alex.
To coin a phrase by Col. Ralph Peters, "The man is a pussy".
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 06 2016,11:11 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Jan. 06 2016,10:34 am)
QUOTE
(grassman @ Jan. 06 2016,10:26 am)
QUOTE
I don't think I would make fun of a man for crying about people being shot and killed.
I think he is as stumped on what to do about the killing in this country as the next.
I think he is as stumped on what to do about the killing in this country as the next.
I'll take crocodile tears for 1000 Alex.
To coin a phrase by Col. Ralph Peters, "The man is a pussy".
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 06 2016,5:22 pm
Mot a big fan of the NRA but...APPEARS IN NEWS
Statement on President Obama's Proposed Executive Actions on Gun Control
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2016
More
Fairfax, Va. – The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday regarding President Barack Obama's Executive Gun Control Order:
Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation's pressing problems. Today's event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.
The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts. The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe. But the fact is that President Obama's proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned. The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of seriousness.
The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment. The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama's failed policies.
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.
Posted by irisheyes on Jan. 07 2016,12:36 am
Grinning Dragon:QUOTE
To coin a phrase by Col. Ralph Peters, "The man is a pussy".
A while ago Ralph Peters (or as I refer to him, Walter Mitty) says the President isn't manly enough, then he goes a step further recently. But he's about the least macho person on FOX, although the time Ben Carson claimed he'd lead a charge against a gunman would be a close second.
First off it's pretty immature for someone to call the President that on national television. Second, the guy who says it appears to have less testosterone than a house plant.
Look at the photo. Doesn't he look like a really hawkish version of Mr. Rogers?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 07 2016,3:44 am
^^ you never know, packages are sometime deceiving.
Posted by grassman on Jan. 07 2016,5:20 am
I think I read somewhere that Mr. Rogers was a Special Forces Trained Assassin. Looks don't tell the whole story, most times.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 07 2016,5:50 am
I don't believe Fred Rogers serve in the armed forces.But before he died he was asked what he thought of Obama
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 07 2016,6:15 am
< http://youtu.be/uFdAUEsmszY >Is Buster taking side money from Smith or Ruger??
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 09 2016,6:33 am
..
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 09 2016,6:35 am
^^ maybe a financial standard
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 10 2016,5:33 am
^^you'd be restricted on three levels, IQ, financial and mental disorder...there's a protein called TDP-43 it's an indicator of Alzheimer/dementia...I encourage you to have the test for early intervention..the poor quality of your posts, your inability to think/reason seems to be accelerating at an alarming rate!
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 10 2016,6:42 am
(Expatriate @ Jan. 10 2016,5:33 am)
QUOTE
^^you'd be restricted on three levels, IQ, financial and mental disorder...there's a protein called TDP-43 it's an indicator of Alzheimer/dementia...I encourage you to have the test for early intervention..the poor quality of your posts, your inability to think/reason seems to be accelerating at an alarming rate!
Wow, your fixation on a socialist candidate borders on sedition, I'm hoping there are no firearms within your access. It's people like you that go off the reservation. Your idea of a right being subject to financial levels is traitorous. What's next, "I'm sorry sir, but unless you pay us you'd not allowed to state your opinions"?
If it makes you feel better I'm going to the range today to give my wife another lesson and to test a new purchase.
Why do you hate America.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 10 2016,1:31 pm
(Self-Banished @ Jan. 10 2016,6:42 am)
QUOTE
Why do you hate America[?]
Given that the bulk of Americans are middle and lower-class, and your obvious disdain for same, I'd say it is you that hates America.
200+ years of recorded national history, and the worship of robber barons by a clueless populace continues unabated. We should be better than that.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 10 2016,1:43 pm
(Botto 82 @ Jan. 10 2016,1:31 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Jan. 10 2016,6:42 am)
QUOTE
Why do you hate America[?]
Given that the bulk of Americans are middle and lower-class, and your obvious disdain for same, I'd say it is you that hates America.
200+ years of recorded national history, and the worship of robber barons by a clueless populace continues unabated. We should be better than that.
I love what America was and what it could be again. But once again it's another "wah! This country isn't fair enough! Wah! You've got more than I do" attitude.
Robber barons, oy!
Posted by stardust14 on Jan. 10 2016,6:30 pm
The old Paradise Lost line..."things were sooooo nice once upon a time, and things will be sooooo nice tomorrow if only they were like yesterday". Delusions of wanna-be pimps. American "individualists' whoring their way through one crisis after another, their goal to be corner pimp one day. A society is as Just as its members. We're losing ground rapidly.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 11 2016,4:55 am
^^Milton? Wow, the layoff at work has you desparate.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 14 2016,4:40 pm
Posted by grassman on Jan. 15 2016,12:59 am
^^^^A friend of yours? Who cares what that little challenged nut thinks? 
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 15 2016,5:21 am
^^ again, like him, hater him, right or wrong, at least he's a leader.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 15 2016,5:22 am
More short people, ( North Koreans ) that's why SB identifies with them..
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 15 2016,6:58 am
^^
Posted by grassman on Jan. 15 2016,8:22 am
(Self-Banished @ Jan. 15 2016,5:21 am)
QUOTE
^^ again, like him, hater him, right or wrong, at least he's a leader.
Leader?! You do realize that he is a self appointed dictator, right? Do you want Obama to do what his govt has done? Demand the citizens have no guns?
I think you have said quite a bit against Obama just trying to accomplish things against a stalled Congress. At least Obama is bringing this forth to the people, unlike your short little dictator.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 15 2016,9:30 am
^^ stalled congress? If it weren't for that stalled congress you'd probably be hunting deer with a government registered slingshot.Why do you think there's an opposition majority in congress?
Posted by grassman on Jan. 15 2016,3:45 pm
I think I recall something to the tune of "we will vote no on everything Obama brings forth". That meant many things that were intended to help our country. If you think about it, what he just put forth about guns is already law. He is telling the agencies that are in charge of it, to do their job.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 15 2016,5:04 pm
^^no, what he did was nothing more than pandering, making himself seem important and a bit of thespian art.There's a reason congress doesn't vote for more gun laws, they want to keep their jobs, more gun laws are a noose around a politician's neck. Why do you think nothing got passed back when Buster had both houses?
Posted by grassman on Jan. 15 2016,7:30 pm
You are preaching to the choir. I agree there are enough gun laws, they just are not enforced as they should be. I am also talking about what I said about, NO across the board. Do you even realize how much progress the Repubs staggered on important issues?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 16 2016,5:50 am
For our gov to operate as slow as it does is a great thing and you know as well as I do about the "little extras" that get tacked on to larger bills. It's so asinine that if one party is concerned or even completely disagrees with some point their labeled as blockers, not allowing progress based on the opinion of the other party, add a sympathetic media and the boogerman is created.Now with the excecutive actions of Buster, take the gun dealer provision, he actually "creates" a law, pushing the notion that anyone who sells or passes down a firearm is a dealer. First of all the POTUS cannot create law, that's the Congress's power. Secondly, there is the question of property rights, if I decide to liquidate property it's my choice.
I do appreciate your stance that we don't enforce the laws already on the books.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 16 2016,6:19 am
^In 1989, then President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order halting the importation of semi-automatic firearms considered “assault weapons” He based his executive order on the 1968 Gun Control Act...This makes Obama's executive order look like milk toast, your right-wing rhetoric is more knee-jerk hate mongering..
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 16 2016,6:56 am
^^well dumbass, one can't be right all the time.But on a a positive note, that action created a new and quite vibrant industry. One being Arsenal Arms which makes a superior version of the AK with a milled receiver.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 16 2016,10:25 am
(Expatriate @ Jan. 16 2016,6:19 am)
QUOTE
^In 1989, then President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order halting the importation of semi-automatic firearms considered “assault weapons” He based his executive order on the 1968 Gun Control Act...
This makes Obama's executive order look like milk toast, your right-wing rhetoric is more knee-jerk hate mongering..
This makes Obama's executive order look like milk toast, your right-wing rhetoric is more knee-jerk hate mongering..
With that EO, bush used the justification of the "sporting use" verbiage of the gca68. One of the most over used excuses to either restrict or reclassify firearms that are not considered "in common use" along with "sporting use". And was allowed to pass muster and stand as an executive directive. The sporting use clause needs to be struck from the gca as there isn't any requirement indicating what uses an arm must be intended as or in usage in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has ZERO to do with sport.
The EO only banned arms from certain countries and manufacturers, one that was easily side stepped by those arms manufacturers by creating a separate company name and shipped from another country not defined in the EO.
Which just recently as SB just pointed out, an established AK manufacturer here in the US, Kalashnikov is also in the process of establishing manufacturing here in the US. Last I had heard they were looking at someplace in Tennessee.
RWC-Group has announced a manufacturing plant, they are based in Pennsylvania, so it just might be based in Tullytown, but who knows.
QUOTE
Tullytown, Pennsylvania-based RWC Group, the official importer and distributor of Kalashnikov automatic and carbine rifles, had announced on Tuesday at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas that they would open an AK factory in the US in the second quarter of this year, which would produce AK-47s and Kalashnikov-brand shotguns. The Kalashnikov USA booth at SHOT features the slogans "Russian Heritage" and "Made in USA."
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 16 2016,12:59 pm
^My post was for SB to understand these things are bipartisan, (even Executive Orders ) usually brought about by some tragic event involving firearms.i.e. the 103 Congress enacted the Brady Bill in 1993 this was a handgun bill relating to the attempted assassination of Reagan. In 1994 they enacted the Federal Assault Weapons Ban adding to and reinforcing the Bush Ban, former Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan all lobbied Congress for passage of this ban..
I have nothing against sensible firearms control legislation..just saying no and citing the Constitution hasn't stopped the Government in the past..
With the number of mass shooting obviously we have a problem, one that sooner or later will bring about bipartisan trouble for law abiding firearm owners..
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 16 2016,2:25 pm
(Expatriate @ Jan. 16 2016,12:59 pm)
QUOTE
^My post was for SB to understand these things are bipartisan, (even Executive Orders ) usually brought about by some tragic event involving firearms.
i.e. the 103 Congress enacted the Brady Bill in 1993 this was a handgun bill relating to the attempted assassination of Reagan. In 1994 they enacted the Federal Assault Weapons Ban adding to and reinforcing the Bush Ban, former Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan all lobbied Congress for passage of this ban..
I have nothing against sensible firearms control legislation..just saying no and citing the Constitution hasn't stopped the Government in the past..
With the number of mass shooting obviously we have a problem, one that sooner or later will bring about bipartisan trouble for law abiding firearm owners..
i.e. the 103 Congress enacted the Brady Bill in 1993 this was a handgun bill relating to the attempted assassination of Reagan. In 1994 they enacted the Federal Assault Weapons Ban adding to and reinforcing the Bush Ban, former Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan all lobbied Congress for passage of this ban..
I have nothing against sensible firearms control legislation..just saying no and citing the Constitution hasn't stopped the Government in the past..
With the number of mass shooting obviously we have a problem, one that sooner or later will bring about bipartisan trouble for law abiding firearm owners..
The issue with so called "sensible firearm control" legislation is that it is nothing more than a feel good, "look we are doing something" legislation, and rarely ends up doing anything it was intended to do. Most of those BS laws could be argued as an interference upon due process.
At issue it is the govts job to prove why a person cannot purchase or own a firearm, not a person's job to prove their worth. Laws such as the brady bunch puts the onus on the individual and thus creates the issue at hand, a right delayed is a right denied.
Mass shootings are statistically rare and minute and are hardly any justification to infringe further upon a citizen's enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
Calling for a ban on so called (made up emotionally driven term) assault weapons is down right stupid and void of ANY logic and intelligence. Banning a weapon on how it looks, because after all, those so called assault weapons are just rifles with a cosmetic change nothing more nothing less and looks does not and cannot change the basic function of a semi-auto weapon.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 17 2016,7:08 am
like I said, we have to keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.. One mass shooting is too many and the frequency seems to be weekly, there's too many crazies with firearms and the majority of these weapons were purchased legally..I'm not for weapons bans or manufacturer liability. Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 17 2016,7:11 am
(Expatriate @ Jan. 16 2016,12:59 pm)
QUOTE
I have nothing against sensible firearms control legislation..
Sensible? You're the idiot that thinks the right to defend yourself should have a financial test.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 17 2016,7:41 am
^You got it homie, no job, no bank account, no viable means of support, on government subsidies, you can't afford a firearm. You're not showing US the responsibility in your lifestyle that you can be trusted with that firearm not to infringe on the rights of the rest of US..
Posted by Glad I Left on Jan. 17 2016,8:17 am
^at least 2/3 of them are practicing proper trigger safety...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 17 2016,10:32 am
(Expatriate @ Jan. 17 2016,7:41 am)
QUOTE
^You got it homie, no job, no bank account, no viable means of support, on government subsidies, you can't afford a firearm.
You're not showing US the responsibility in your lifestyle that you can be trusted with that firearm not to infringe on the rights of the rest of US..
You're not showing US the responsibility in your lifestyle that you can be trusted with that firearm not to infringe on the rights of the rest of US..
So once again I ask, if you're poor you don't have rights, do you even read or consider what you post or do you just peck away and slobber on the keyboard?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 17 2016,3:58 pm
< http://www.albertleatribune.com/2016/01/gun-permits-on-the-rise/ >
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 18 2016,8:53 am
Yes, because a financial status = responsibility. Seriously? GTFO! Hey, lets bring back; only people who own property can vote too, and Jim Crow laws as well.
Posted by Glad I Left on Jan. 18 2016,9:00 am
Based on the idiots we keep electing (and re-electing) to office, I'm thinking we might want to consider instituting some sort of IQ test...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 18 2016,9:03 am
^^ now now, expat will always have a right to vote.
Posted by irisheyes on Jan. 18 2016,2:10 pm
(Self-Banished @ Jan. 17 2016,3:58 pm)
QUOTE
< http://www.albertleatribune.com/2016/01/gun-permits-on-the-rise/ >
QUOTE
Hart cited single-parent families, what he described as “a Godless society,” family values, education and a lack of firearm safety as reasons for recent mass shootings.
Why do people still think that religion makes people more moral and less violent? Haven't all of the killers who cited religion and their beliefs proved that it doesn't stop them anymore than if they were atheist or agnostic. I have yet to read about an atheist who shoots up a school or abortion clinic and cites the lack of a God as the reason they did it. It's not as if giving them a Torah, Bible, or Koran would've prevented any of them.
You can't blame single parents either unless you're willing to also blame traditional families for all of the killers that came from those backgrounds. And the past century has given us a lot of serial killers who came from two parent backgrounds.
Posted by Glad I Left on Jan. 18 2016,4:17 pm
QUOTE
Haven't all of the killers who cited religion and their beliefs proved that it doesn't stop them anymore than if they were atheist or agnostic. I have yet to read about an atheist who shoots up a school or abortion clinic and cites the lack of a God as the reason they did it. It's not as if giving them a Torah, Bible, or Koran would've prevented any of them.
You can't blame single parents either unless you're willing to also blame traditional families for all of the killers that came from those backgrounds. And the past century has given us a lot of serial killers who came from two parent backgrounds.
You can't blame single parents either unless you're willing to also blame traditional families for all of the killers that came from those backgrounds. And the past century has given us a lot of serial killers who came from two parent backgrounds.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 18 2016,6:20 pm
Oh MY God, I am in agreement with IE.Hart's statement can be summed up as: Causation is not correlation.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 26 2016,4:51 am
< http://www.hngn.com/article...its.htm >Essays and a grand? Our rights cost more all the time.
Posted by Marneman on Jan. 27 2016,1:40 am
Started watching Ken Burn's documentary on prohabition again the other night and it reminded me again how trying to completly ban anything in this country dosen't work. It just leads to more criminal activity and those that resent or don't agree with the law become scofflaws. Thats why short of some kind of dictatorship arrising in the United States (complete with KGB style secret police) we will never be able to ban guns, abortion, and drugs.
Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 28 2016,11:12 pm
(Marneman @ Jan. 27 2016,1:40 am)
QUOTE
Thats why short of some kind of dictatorship arrising in the United States (complete with KGB style secret police) we will never be able to ban guns, abortion, and drugs.
Agreed! Demand rules..
Posted by irisheyes on Jan. 29 2016,1:06 am
(Marneman @ Jan. 27 2016,1:40 am)
QUOTE
Started watching Ken Burn's documentary on prohabition again the other night
Great documentary!
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 29 2016,6:01 am
(irisheyes @ Jan. 18 2016,2:10 pm)
QUOTE
Why do people still think that religion makes people more moral and less violent? Haven't all of the killers who cited religion and their beliefs proved that it doesn't stop them anymore than if they were atheist or agnostic. I have yet to read about an atheist who shoots up a school or abortion clinic and cites the lack of a God as the reason they did it. It's not as if giving them a Torah, Bible, or Koran would've prevented any of them.
You can't blame single parents either unless you're willing to also blame traditional families for all of the killers that came from those backgrounds. And the past century has given us a lot of serial killers who came from two parent backgrounds.
You can't blame single parents either unless you're willing to also blame traditional families for all of the killers that came from those backgrounds. And the past century has given us a lot of serial killers who came from two parent backgrounds.
Yeah, those atheists are just upstanding citizens of the world
< http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/ >
And the single mom thing? Many folks grew up and were famous despite only having mom at home