The dementia and depravity of the National Rifle Association
Wayne LaPierre | By Gage Skidmore | Wikimedia Commons
Some people believe NRA chieftain Wayne LaPierre (who was raised in Roanoke) has lapsed into the stuttering gibberish that’s characteristic of insanity.
Either that or he’s increasingly desperate for attention for his organization, because its raison d’etre is getting murkier all the time. After all, it’s hard to get people all worked up over “battles” when things are going your way for so long.
Now, they’re even pushing for concealed carry for teenagers, for goodness sake. That’s a cause? Not in Columbine, it ain’t.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington Friday, LaPierre warned that President Obama’s re-election would lead to the end of gun rights in this nation, because the “conspiracy” to destroy those rights would begin in Obama’s second term (earlier, he had warned it would happen in the first).
(Last year, he warned that the fact Obama hadn’t sought to curb gun rights in his first term was proof that he would in the second).
Heres’ what LaPierre said according to the Washington Times:
“All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term,” he said.
“We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution.”
The great thing about these predictions is that there’s a darn good chance that we may be able to see them tested out in real life. Because thanks to events like CPAC and the loony statements like LaPierre’s that are made there, Obama’s reelection chances are increasing.
If, and when that re-election happens, we’ll be able to judge the credibility — and sanity – of LaPierre. And right now, I wouldn’t take 100 to 1 odds on either.
February 10, 2012 - 5:44 PM
Obama has been a big gun salesman in his first term, but I do believe that he will pursue gun control in his second term, when he is not trying to get re-elected.
Jack, where exactly do you get your gun numbers? I have tried and cannot find a good source for how anyone knows how many guns are sold.
LaPierre is the worst. Just despicable. His flogging of the UN treaty was also willfully deceptive and obnoxious.
Obama, though not intentionally, has been great for guns. As I predicted before his election, he didn’t touch guns because he’s a craven political opportunist and gun politics are poison for Democrats.
The chance that he might try something in a second term is higher, but still low. Even though he wouldn’t have to worry about re-election, he likely will be facing a Republican controlled Congress. You’re not going to get anyone on your side by sending really unpopular legislation to the floor.
Sandi, are you interested in last year’s number of guns sold? It seems to me that you should be able to get some info from those fine folks you support to regulate sales.
Slightly related is an e-mail I got from one of my more hawkish friends of that party. It listed some ‘facts’ that you should also be able to find. Look at how many licenses are issued for hunting in each state. It’s safe to assume each hunter has at least one gun. If you know any hunters, ask them how many guns they own and adjust those other numbers.
I’ve heard it’s not easy to unring a bell. Maybe you’ve noticed that countries without armed citizens are suddenly armed by our fine government for political, strategic, or monetary gains.
This is more fun than looking for numbers from the ATF.wth? Brought back fond memories of years ago when a gun toting pal would stop at Walmart for the essentials of life before arriving on my doorstep. BBB
That’s Beer, Beef, and Bullets. Since I’m not a Walmart shopper I was unaware they stopped or started selling ammo and boomsticks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703367004576289230488920802.html
More top secret information. Walmart won’t disclose a number of weapons sold. Then the article says Walmart sold the most and they toss a dollar number into that. I suppose you can guess an average price per weapon and divide. There is other information in the article that might lead you to info you seek.
Yawn….slow news day?
Sandi, I suspect when Mr. Obama was elected president the NRA propaganda machine caused many of the paranoid gun owners/buyers to stock up on all the guns they could afford. So in a way he has become a great gun salesman. The funny thing is the paranoid gunners don’t realize this NRA crap is just a ruse to increase gun sales for the manufacturers which in return results in more donations to the NRA.
Wayne is nuts. Or he’s a liar on par with troll suzie.
There is indeed very conflicting info out there on gun sales, ownership, usage and just about anything you might be curious about. That is why I asked Jack where that info came from. Both sides readily put out what makes their case but real, constructive, verifiable information is harder to come by.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/when-it-comes-to-data-on_b_1256769.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-bloomberg-guns-numberstre8130bk-20120204,0,7291640.story
“The conventional wisdom is that gun sales have increased dramatically since the election of Barack Obama because people fear gun rights will be curtailed. But as it turns out, there are no completely accurate measures of either gun purchases or gun ownership.”
I guess it is a secretive right.
Ernie,
Do you value your rights or are you content to shoot just whatever the government allows? I know a very few people like that: Today, I’ll shoot rifles, shotguns, and handguns…. tomorrow, I’ll shoot rifles and shotguns… the day after that, I’ll just shoot shotguns and by next week, I’ll be auditioning new hobbies.
As for speculation over what Obama will do in a second term with no elections ahead of him, I say he will use the Second Amendment for toilet paper. It’s easier to push bankrupt people around and his tenure has certainly helped to accomplished that.
I’m very curious how far Darrell Issa can dig into that ATF gun-walking scandal. That potentially could bring a lot of clarity to the character of Obama and guns, good or bad. Everyone should welcome this.
As for speculation over what Obama will do in a second term with no elections ahead of him, I say he will use the Second Amendment for toilet paper. It’s easier to push bankrupt people around and his tenure has certainly helped to accomplished that.
“I’m very curious how far Darrell Issa can dig into that ATF gun-walking scandal. That potentially could bring a lot of clarity to the character of Obama and guns, good or bad. Everyone should welcome this.”
John Wilburn,
1) Thank you for the speculation. We’ll know by 2016 whether it’s insane on a par with LaPierre’s or if it’s dead right. But both you and WLP should consider that the president a) cannot amend the constitution; b) cannot fire the Supreme Court that rendered Heller; and c) cannot enact laws. You should also take into account that no matter how “lame duck” — and hence dangerous, in your mind — a second term president may be, senators and representatives who introduce and vote on bills will have no such “second term” luxury.
2) Are you serious about Issa, or being sarcastic?
Oh good Lord, if I had known you were some conspiracy theorist masquerading as a rational person…guess I missed the cues; I should have known. What the hell has the government “not allowed” you to shoot that you need for your right? Obviously Obama has more important things to do, too bad you don’t. You know, one day someone really is gonna ‘come for your guns’, only since you have been “the boy who cried wolf” for so long, no one is going to lift a finger.
The Wayne Lapierre who lived in Roanoke gave every evidence of being a rational, sane human being with a slightly left of center outlook. Whatever chemical imbalance in his brain that has induced this level of paranoia must be very destructive. Either that or the greed of the arms industry has rubbed off on him in a sad and ugly way.
“I say he will use the Second Amendment for toilet paper.”
hes already done that. he hates this country, the constitution, the congress and everything free. he is a flaccid little king wannabe who thinks he can mandate our lives. if you want that kind of putrid marxist stinking thinking, go ahead and vote again for it.
Dementia. That’s funny because when old people get dementia, they are SO stupid. They drool and act really dumb. Maybe you should have used the word “retarded” because retards are stupid too. It’s like the NRA has Downs Syndrome they are so terrible.
It’s lead poisoning..
Biting too many bullets.
I think Wayne may enter the rational
world of the Swirling Suzies.
The whole gun thing was about something
serious.
Elephants weere about to stampede North America.
And ,by god , after word got out that everyone
was loaded like Reba Mcentire and Alex Keaton-s dad
in “Tremors” ..the whole damn thing fell apart.
We owe a lot to Suzie-s and Waynes World.
Roanoke…you can rest easy tonight. Suzie has the night
watch from Mill Mountain…… Lovers and Wormans…stay off the mountain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcsLaSBWG9k
As for speculation over what Obama will do in a second term with no elections ahead of him
My guess is he will retreat back to Chicago and try to further cash in on his failed presidency. There will be enough liberal numbskulls who will pay to hear him describe his failure. What he SHOULD do is head back to Kenya and take care of his half-brother living in a hut on $12 a year. That’s what anyone with even a modicum of compassion would do.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html
Dan, yes time will tell on the second term. The president does, however appoint supreme court justices and has appointed two real winners so far (insert sarcasm this time). Those justices aren’t getting any younger up there and I’d rather not chance their longevity on the bench for four more years. As for Issa, yes. If what they’re claiming is indeed true, Holder should be in jail and I’m curious to know who all knew what and how far up the chain it went. Everyone should want to know.
Seriously,
I can’t think of anything the administration has even said about curtailing gun rights. It’s just non issue with Obama. As others have pointed out, it hasn’t stopped gun advocates from speculating that a federal ban on ammunition or gun ownership is imminent, which also happens to be a time honored way of increasing lagging sales.(Order now folks!. Quantities won’t last!)
The less the administrations says, the more the NRA preaches the impending persecution. Twisted.
100-1 says most of you have never read the UN treaty to which LaPierre quote flogged. Screw the UN they have done more harm than good in the world. Why would any clear thinking American want to be governed by the UN morons at the UN instead of the government morons in the US. At least in the US we can fire them via elections.
Maloof, why don’t you link to that treaty, and at the same time patiently explain to us how it has affected gun rights in America?
The gun issue, like the birth control/insurance issue is a manufactured “crisis” created by a Republican party bereft of ideas. Spending a whole lot of time on the gun control advocates v keep-your-hands-off-my-gun crowd = wasted time you will never get back. Neither side will see the others’ point of view…and the NRA will continue to prolong the paranoia screed to boost membership and gun sales… on another topic…
Here’s some good news!
CANCER DRUG REVERSES ALZHEIMER’S SYMPTOMS IN MICE, STUDY SAYS
A drug that has been approved for the treatment of a type of skin cancer since 1999 appears to reverse Alzheimer’s symptoms — in mice.
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine neuroscientist Gary Landreth and colleagues reported Thursday that bexarotene quickly cleared away beta-amyloid plaque, believed to cause the cognitive deficits of Alzheimer’s disease, from the brains of genetically engineered mice.
Mice who received bexarotene treatment regained memory and cognitive function, including improvements in their sense of smell, the authors said. Bexarotene worked by helping to increase levels of a protein called Apolipoprotein E (ApoE), which helps remove beta-amyloids. Its effects took hold quickly, with half of plaques removed within 72 hours, the authors reported.
[To read the entire article:]
http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-alzheimers-bexarotene-improved-brain-function-
20120209,0,6139021.story
#20 Maloof, drink much TEA?
John Wilburn – I value my rights. Not sure how fantasizing about what the President will do in his second term pertains to that. As Dan has pointed out we have checks and balances so we should be fine. What we are seeing here is the fundamental difference in how conservatives and not-conservatives minds work. You live in fear, unfounded fear. I do not.
If Sandi was addressing me, no, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I couldn’t care less where Obama was born, I couldn’t care less about any configuration of JFK assassination theories, and I’m a patient guy, but have yet to be able to sit through the explanations of 9/11 being an “inside job.” We know of some terrible misdeeds by the ATF and Holder has lied and is refusing to cooperate in the investigation. The President should have some inkling of what his Attorney General is up to, especially something of that magnitude; that is not a stretch. I’ve made no accusations and even if in some wild unrealistic scenario it turns out that NRA and GOP were the architect of some grand conspiracy to frame Holder and the President… I don’t care. I just want the truth to come out! You’re striking blows to the credibility of liberals everywhere to allude to the investigation somehow being unimportant or overblown.
Ernie,
You may not live in fear, but you do not live in the real world either. We have had “checks and balances” in government for hundreds of years and this country is in an awful mess. Is that what you rely on to safeguard against leadership running amok?! Who’s the conservative and who is the liberal? Liberal derives from liberty, but that has become quite a misnomer. Gun rights, abortion, gay rights, attitudes about drugs, religion, etc, etc. are not an inseparable package. There is a big difference between living in fear and simply being prepared; that topic has been beaten to death lately.
Maloof-
I have read the treaty, at least the relevant parts. Are you aware that Hillary Clinton forced a section that guarantees each nation remains in charge of gun laws within their borders?
More importantly, are you aware of how treaties get ratified? 2/3 majority in the Senate, that means 67 votes. Regardless of which party is in charge, you can’t get 67 votes to agree on what color the sky is, never mind a treaty that might limit gun rights. So even granting that it does the horrible things that the NRA says it will, whipping up paranoia over a treaty that has zero chance of ratification is the action of a rat-weasel group of fear mongers. Whatever good the NRA does for 2A rights, they take two steps back by being right-wing shills that make all gun owners look like psychopaths.
Mike Scott,
One thing that pops to mind on Obama is his wastefulness in guns, which keeps their prices high. He refused the importation of 1 million M1 rifles that are perfectly legal to own and were paid for by the taxpayers. That keeps M1 prices high and wastes the taxpayers’ money.
He also stopped the sale of spent brass shell casings from being sold to commercial reloaders opting to have the brass shredded and sold to China. This created a very real ammo shortage, reduced the value of the taxpayer-purchased brass by at least a factor of four, caused further taxpayer burden by causing police departments to have to pay more for their ammo.
Smacking gun owners in the face and wasting our money every way he can think of are two of his executive hobbies even if he hasn’t pushed forward big legislation like Clinton did… yet.
John – Perhaps I’m just living a more fortunate life than you therefore my unreal world seems pretty good and eerily real. I accept without a doubt that an individual’s circumstance dictates their point of view. It is sad that if one does not live in fear then they must not be living in the real world. There ain’t no package deal in philosophy in my world. I’m free to pick and choose what I believe and stand for. I can shoot my guns with my gay friends after church if I choose to.
I’m glad you enjoy freedom Ernie. Be glad some of us are working to keep it
I believe it was the ATF who lobbied the State Department for the ban you blame only on Obama.
http://firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=540:korean-m1-mess&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
And I understood that the decision on the spent brass was quickly rescinded.
http://firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=540:korean-m1-mess&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/casings.asp
Hating a President enough to distort and lie is not good for anyone’s credibility.
Lots of uproar by the reloading companies like Georgia Arms caused the order to be rescinded, not concern for doing the right thing. It was a real ammo shortage that was not manufactured by the gun lobby. I know, my ammo doubled in price when I could find it. Obama could clean up the ATF if he cared. He’d push to abolish it if he really cared. Without trying to turn a gun thread into an Obama thread, there’s really no way around recognizing that he’s a lousy president. Didn’t I hear that lately he’s buying votes with a third attempt to halt foreclosures? The first two were total failures. He just doesn’t care about the long-term health of our country in any way that I can discern.
“Lots of uproar by the reloading companies like Georgia Arms caused the order to be rescinded, not concern for doing the right thing. It was a real ammo shortage that was not manufactured by the gun lobby. I know, my ammo doubled in price when I could find it. Obama could clean up the ATF if he cared. He’d push to abolish it if he really cared. Without trying to turn a gun thread into an Obama thread, there’s really no way around recognizing that he’s a lousy president. Didn’t I hear that lately he’s buying votes with a third attempt to halt foreclosures? The first two were total failures. He just doesn’t care about the long-term health of our country in any way that I can discern.”
John Wilburn,
Thank you. You’ve just told the rest of us a lot about the conspiracy-minded roots of your anti-Obama fervor. Seriously, is it Obama’s fault that a bunch of paranoiacs were buying ammo hand-over-fist after his election, and the price went up because demand was high and supply was shorter?
What do you teach in those college classes, anyway? I sincerely hope it’s not economics.
It wasn’t just paranoid gun owners either. There was a convergence of circumstances including huge demand from both the military and law enforcement and raw material shortages. Any one of those could have caused some shortages, but put them all together and you get what we had.
As for the M-1s, as stupid as the opposition to putting them on the surplus market was, from what I’ve heard it was no big loss. The Korean military apparently beat those guns to death, so it’s not like we are being denied a bunch of mint-condition pieces of history. If that’s the worst thing Obama has done as far as gun policy goes, I can deal with it.
Dan,
You’re right in that lots of people buying increased the demand, but there were bonafide shortages of the brass too at one time because of that ban that was HIS fault. No one can defend his wastefulness.
I now have the non-gun owner telling me about the ammo market where I am a very frequent customer and he has never been a customer?
John Wilburn@28
You owe me five minutes of my life back. I realize that you a probably deeply invested in second amendment issues. I’m deeply invested in things that are true, or at least accurately described.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/casings.asp
It’s a non issue, and you have little to blame on Obama in this regard. As for the Garrands…you do realize the Koreans are trying to sell back a guns lent to them by the American taxpayer? What kind of deal is that? Do you think the importation of 850,000 carbines would affect the value of similar M1 carbines currently produced in the US, and would those producers of such carbines feel real good about the drop in value of their product. Do you think those folks might actually have a bone to pick with their importation?
I know it’s funner to believe in a vast conspiracy, but the it could just have something to with economics.
If, and when that re-election happens, we’ll be able to judge the credibility — and sanity – of LaPierre. And right now, I wouldn’t take 100 to 1 odds on either.
Dan just said he wouldn’t take 100 to 1 odds on 0bama getting re-elected.
No sh*t. Who would?
John Wilburn,
If you are teaching the “shredded brass casings” urban legend to your college classes, I’d urge you to read the link supplied by Mike Scott.
Dan and Mike,
That’s never even come up in class because the topics are about firearms, safety, Virginia law, travel with guns, etc and not politics. Gun buyers here would have been more than happy to pay for those M1s a second time and shredding the brass had no basis in logic to be done in the first place, fixing what wasn’t broken. Just par for the course of how he manages everything else.
John Wilburn,
Are you saying the brass casings were actually shred? It seems clear it never happened.
No, the uproar from the ammo market stopped it, but it still shook up the supply. The uncertainty of the brass supply kept a lot of ammo orders from being filled. What seems like a short temporary inconvenience actually still caused a lot of grief to make other more costly arrangements and back-up plans. In the end, it’s just about the management of such. Were you a cash-for-clunkers fan?
What shook up the market was the paranoia of gun owners fomented by the ridiculous public and internet campaign fostered by the NRA and the arms makers.
And you still have the gall to insist that gun control advocates are the ones who resort to distortion, emotion and dishonesty? Just wow.
Thank you for your honesty Jason.
John Wilber
You still want me to believe that the present administration has some deep, yet secret agenda to curtail gun rights. You haven’t made a good case for it. At best I see the messy process of government bureaucracy at work, and a hyper sensitive interest group with a hair trigger reacting to it. Our government promulgates policy all the time, but it ain’t part of a conspiracy.
” Gun buyers here would have been more than happy to pay for those M1s a second time …”
And gun manufacturers would gladly have a lobbyist protest such a policy and enact a protective tarif or prohibit their importation to protect profit they make on similar guns. Your argument is that Obama administration, or perhaps the President himself, has some agenda to drastically change firearm policy, and you’ve given me only two half baked examples of it. One wasn’t even half baked.
Seems to me, the Koreans should be giving the M1′s back, geez, the American tax payers paid for and produced them.
If you can find an expansive, accurate, factual account of how the administration intends to limit gun rights, send it on. But I’m not gonna waste my time on this particular conspiracy.
There are so many more that are far more entertaining.
Dan and Dave,
Let’s switch to something you do know about. Given our likely choices, do you like Romney or Obama? Rino Romney is no friend of gun owners’ rights either, but has to be better fiscally. Gun rights-wise, Romney was my very last choice of the travelling primary circus.
Ammunition I bought for $9.96/box (100 rounds) ten years ago is about $44/box (100 rounds) now. Same manufacturer, configuration, etc. Apples to apples.
Regardless of how it went down, somehow the prices were artificially inflated.
Jack,
Gasoline and candy bars and beef costs more, too. I don’t think that was a government conspiracy.
“Dan just said he wouldn’t take 100 to 1 odds on 0bama getting re-elected.
No sh*t. Who would?”
Comment by Suzie — February 12, 2012 @ 9:59 am
Interesting, suz: We’ve already established that you won’t (can’t) pony up a Benjamin on the outcome of the election, so exactly what are you willing to wager? Seriously, if you’re really that confident President Obama won’t be reelected, how ‘bout putting skin in the game?
if you’re really that confident President Obama won’t be reelected, how ‘bout putting skin in the game?
I already did, chump. My bet’s still there like it’s always been. You’re the one who backed out.
Mike Scat,
Obama recently told Sarah brady that he’s working on gun control “under the radar.” I’m a little surprised Giffords wasn’t shamelessly used as a poster child for a magazine ban proposal, but I guess it was a little too close to the election for him to chance it.
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9614
Sandi, I knowingly came to and am participating in an anti’s blog; I’m not trying to persuade anyone here. This is stimulating conversation just for fun. There are however a lot of pro-freedom men and women who need to know what’s going on. A lot of people think that paying dues to the NRA and voting Republican every four years protects their rights, but then are saddened and surprised to read where beginning July 1, their right to carry or own “insert arbitrary gun ban here” is gone. They need to get involved. It’s those people I want to reach and I encourage them to read, study, and research anywhere they want because separating the emotion out of it, the facts, logic, and reason are all on our side.
@49. Liar. Dan still has my check to prove it. You’re the welcher that backed out.
Suz, just quit lying. The simple fact of the matter is that you’ve already proven beyond any doubt that you won’t (can’t) put up the cash. Everybody knows that you’re too broke to come up with the dough. It’s okay, suz, what without a job and all and the enormous amount of cash you spend keeping those four ac units that are always on the fritz at Château suz running. But even in spite of the fact that you can’t put up any cash, I’m sure that if we got creative we could come up with a non-denominational wager that would allow you to express your confidence that the eventual right-tard nominee will “Mop the floor” with President Obama.
I mean, your first four picks turned out to suck so bad, surely the law of averages would dictate that at some point even you will enjoy accuracy rivaling the mythical broken clock that’s right twice a day?
If you’re really that sure that President Obama will be defeated, which I seriously doubt that you are, how ‘bout convincing us? For once, I’m giving you the opportunity to prove that you’re something more than your average two bit, run of the mill, over the hill, extra hormonal harpy that doesn’t even have enough convictions in her own beliefs to stand behind them.
Congratulations to the RT for running:
http://tinyurl.com/6wdyy6y
Under the title Subcommittee the goon of Gun Bills as lead in the Virginia section.
Welcome to the world of Realpolitik!
“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” — Otto von Bismarck
From the “leadership” point-of-view that should read, “Laws are like sausages, it is better that the voters not to see them being made.” That way politico can say they “support in the Second Amendment” with a straight face — as long as the voters don’t know what’s actually happening it the halls of Congress and the State capitals.
BTW, both parties do this. The Democrats did it, in the Senate, to some very good gun bills last year.
Jack -learn to reload your brass. Good grief.
@49. Liar. Dan still has my check to prove it. You’re the welcher that backed out.
I made the bet. You accepted. Then you started involving Dan, something I never agreed to, and he started demanding crazy stuff like me sending him a blank check, etc. You changed the terms of the bet after the fact, ergo, you backed out.
I suspect Steve is getting rather nervous, since he crowed about Romney winning, and now Santorum has the most states and is favored to beat 0bama.
I never picked anyone yet, but if Rick wins, you can bet I’m going to rub Steve’s face in it. That’s my policy when someone acts like an asshat.
#46 So, Jack, are you begrudging the businessman making as big of a buck as possible? I thought that was good capitalism. Charge what the market will pay. Tough luck if it hurts them.
And, damn, at $44 bucks for 100 rounds, I know where I’m sure as heck not going to waste my entertainment dollar — popping of rounds at a range.
#49 suzie, not even your worshipping bootlickers on this blog, like pammlalapdog, bother to post defending the way you wimped out of your bets. They’re embarrassed by your spinelessness.
Regardless of who is to blame for the fear-based ups and downs of gun prices, it presents me with great opportunities. When times were tough I bought a lof of guns at low prices. People needed the cash. I have shot, carried, and enjoyed them for several years. Now that the prices are going to be driven back up I can make a good return on my hobby. I’ve had everything that I want and need for years…now its just a matter of buy low, sell high. We go through the cycles every few years. Keep a base stock of larger caliber ammo and buy a 22 plinker for when ammo prices go up and enjoy shooting on the cheap. The people who get duped by this cycle are the “Johnny come lately” crowd. For most of us who have been into this for a while, this isn’t our first rodeo.
Yeah, you suggested I put my check under a rock in salem somewhere and have your husband “hold” it. Like i’m batshit crazy. I don’t even know if you HAVE a husband. You’re a lying, scumbag welcher and everybody knows it. If you don’t trust Dan to hold the money then why do you use his blog to spread your lies and propaganda. Please leave you POS.
One thing about fear based price cycles with guns and ammo: sometimes they’re right! The assault weapon ban jacked up those prices four fold and even now that it’s gone, they’re still three times as high, ahead of any natural inflation. If there’s something worth buying now, it’s the high capacity magazines. After that shooting in Arizona, they got scarce and aren’t easy to find now. That’s just fear based, but like the assault weapon ban, very well may happen.
John W, I agree that you have indeed “knowingly came to and am participating” but I am not remotely fine with you saying this is an “anti’s blog”. In fact, Dan had NEVER to my knowledge written about the need for banning guns, handguns, or even concealed carry. Neither have the majority of us. What we HAVE called for are sensible gun control laws that actually protect people, make sure those who carry weapons among us are competent, trained and not criminals or deranged. We have not seen any support from MOST of the gun advocates for such common sense restrictions, in fact, all we get is insults like we are “anti-gun”, “anti-freedom”. “anti-hunting” and “anti-rights” when that is simply a lie.
Of course you and your propaganda are “trying to persuade anyone here” who will listen and give credence, whether you have credible information or distortions of fact to suit your purposes. YOU took away your credibility, NO ONE did that to you. You needed to hate Obama more than you love the truth and it bit you in the butt. Happens quite often to those who claim to love liberty, freedom and “less government”.
How about you tell us how “pro-freedom” you really are. Do you support gay rights? Are you pro-choice? Do you believe we should pay for people to send their children to private school?
Pro=freedom people and pro-gun people are quite often two different things for some strange hypocrite looking reason.
I encourage YOU to read, study, and research wherever information is, because separating the emotion out of it, the facts, logic, and reason might prevent you from making yourself lose something much more important than an argument.
You will find that people brave enough not to hide in anonymity also cannot phone it in with canned “facts” and faux points of “evidence”.
We’ve got a couple 22′s we use at the range the most, because we can get a box of 500 rounds for under $20 at regular prices, cheaper if we find a sale going on. That’s more than enough for my wife and I to use between the handgun and the rifles…and about the same price as seeing a movie (minus popcorn and drinks). But range time is utimately more enjoyable than seeing an overpriced movie with overpaid actors in a mediocre script, plus it helps with maintaining a valuable skill. We’ll shoot some other firearms from time to time to make sure they’re still in good operational order and that the sights are still dialed correctly, but won’t put more than a few rounds through them. The 22′s though, we’ll go through a couple hundred rounds in a day, then take them home and clean them up. As strange as it sounds, my wife loves the smell of gun oil and powder in the morning. Her dad taught her well. Looking forward to later this spring when I’m planning to pick up another rifle, and later on probably a Glock, or maybe another Sig Sauer.
OMG, the quote of the day is from Other John:
“As strange as it sounds, my wife loves the smell of gun oil and powder in the morning.”
Doubtless, John Wilburn will want to use that one in his class as well.
What can I say, Dan…I’m a lucky man. My wife can handle the typical things like cooking, cleaning, and laundry with ease (though we share the responsibility), but she also knows her way around a car and with power tools as well (she’s helped me dozens of times, and helped her dad build a garage, for example). With her handgun, she can field strip it, re-assemble it, load the magazine, and get a round chambered and ready to fire…while blindfolded. And she can shoot the 10-ring out of a paper target too.
You know,
This fear based cycle does have economic advantages. I WISH Obama would threaten to put restrictions on guitar ownership. I could make me some money off my current inventory.
Other John,
You may want to do some meaningful practice from time-to-time with real defense calibers. It’s great to practice and have fun with .22s, but it helps keep the skills up to practice with the calibers that have the recoil, noise, and muzzle flip of what you carry. That said, you make a great point about the entertainment bang for the buck of a 550 round box of .22s. A couple of shooters can graze on tha all afternoon and not break the bank.
Sandi,
I think you just see this as a contest, some kind of net-based fight where you can debate the gun-lovers! You’re right. To me, it’s fun. I’ll never convince you, you will never convince me, and that’s fine. Dan is widely considered an anti and I’m sure many of my colleagues in pro-gun circles think I’m crazy for posting here. That makes me wonder about your bravery and anonymity thing ???? I post under my real name and it looks as though you do too. Sorry, cowardice isn’t among my virtues. I don’t agree with you on much, but I don’t think you’re cowardly either.
As for being pro-freedom. I told someone else in here that being pro-gun is not part of this big bundle of qualities that means one is conservative. Likewise, being anti-gun isn’t an automatic qualifier for being a liberal. I won’t open a minefield of socail issues off topic for your benefit, but my views on things other than gun rights would likely surprise you.
Fear-based record guitar sales? More power to you. Obama hasn’t done squat to help my small business!
Sandi,
No, I’ll leave that quote alone…lol.
Other John,
It probably won’t surprise you to know then, that the women shoot a little bit better than the men on average. I love it.
I thought they banned imported wood used in guitars, and that send the price of old ones through the roof.
Maybe that was done under Bush, though.
#67 I’m holding out for Obama to ban used bowling balls.
JW, we do practice with 9mm on a regular basis, and some .45 too. One of the things we do is practice with a .45 Kimber that has a .22 conversion. It’s not the best with the 22 conversion, since sometimes it doesn’t cycle completely from time to time, but it works and after putting some 22 rounds through it, we’re a little more accurate with the .45 rounds. It’s not ours, but we enjoy using it when we borrow that one. My wife and I both qualified through an NRA class to get our CHP’s using a Glock 19. I’m a little more accurate with that than my wife is, but she loves her Sig and is better on that than I am.
JW, it actually doesn’t surprise me. My wife was taught by her dad, she was aiming for a career in the Army (he spent 25 years between active duty and reserves) but her health at the time prevented her from being able to join. A little while back we did a rifle range simulator at an Army base, and she outscored me by a few shots, and the person running the simulator said she would have out-shot about 3/4 of the graduates from basic training with what she did. I was impressed. She got 18/20, the average graduate gets 15/20.
haha gdad, you and me both. I’ve got several…
Now used bowling pins, those make good targets for a range. And given how poorly I’ve bowled lately, it might be the only way I can take out the 7 or the 10…
Other John,
I’m in the market for a .22 conversion for a Glock (preferably a model 17); please let me know if you see one for sale. I’m glad to see Senator McEachin’s private sale bill fail as I’m a big fan of private sales and I would love to make a gun buy from this blog. That would be hilarious!
gdad,
You might get your wish. There’s a market developing for old bowling balls for use in home-built cannons made from old oxygen tanks. They’re incredibly powerful and I wouldn’t be surprised to see crackdowns on them.
JW, I’ve been looking for one too. I saw one a while back, but my FIL said it was too high a price (he knows more than I think I could ever hope to learn). We have been looking for one at the C&E gun shows, but haven’t found one. Trader Jerry’s didn’t have one either last time I checked with them.
No, John Wilburn, not a “contest” at all. You might be surprised to see this, but many “freedom” and “liberty” lovers do not really mean that on any other than their main issue. Gun lovers are a good example as are tax reducers.
I merely want to know if you REALLY have the right to say you are fighting for freedom, or if you should admit it is only “freedom”, as there is a difference. I believe I am consistent across the board and when people are not, it matters. Nice dodge though.
I am pro women and pro choice even as I hate the fact that abortion happens so I fight for reproductive knowledge, widely available and free contraceptives, and safety net programs so a woman can “choose life”.
I am “pro” every Amendment in the BOR but I do not believe any right comes with no restriction in a nation of 307 million people. None of them can be if we are a society of laws (which is what the Constitution is and what our nation is based on).
No one’s speech can be totally unlimited, not the rock band next door at 2AM, not the Phelps Klan who wants to protest a private funeral and not anyone else who seeks “their fist touching the end of my nose” ideology.
No one’s gun rights can be unlimited, unregulated or unchecked for quite obvious reasons. I defend gun rights but not gun crazy.
Again, no right can be pushed that exceeds some level of societal comfort without that right being restricted. In a free nation, NO ONE ever lost their rights by exercising them, but many have done so by abusing them. Sometimes the person exercising does not see or care about someone else’s nose. Therein lies the problem.
If you are going to couch your support for guns in “liberty”, “Freedom” and “fighting for rights” then that would mean ALL liberty, ALL freedom and ALL rights by the very definition. Otherwise, you are just a gun advocate. Nothing wrong with that, but either own it or stop using the terms so loosely if they have no meaning. For some of us they have very much meaning.
Sandi,
Since it was directed at me, I read your whole manifesto. I though you saved those for Jason; I feel special now… lol. Like I said up front, I am not going to open a mine field of social issues with you, but let it suffice to say that I am far more pro-liberty than many of the pro-gun people I know. That doesn’t have to be your definition either. There are a lot of liberals and conservatives who support some ugly infringements on liberty, just in different ways. I understand exactly what you are saying and I am not one of those who believe in your freedom so long as you believe the same as I do. That hurts both the far left and far right, but that’s their choice.
As for:
“In a free nation, NO ONE ever lost their rights by exercising them, but many have done so by abusing them”
That is not true. A good example is airport carry, which we fought to restore this year. Virginians lost the freedom to carry a handgun in an airport in 2004, but not because of any abuse. It was an arbitrary restriction born out of a political deal. If Delegate baCote had gotten her way, library carry would have been criminalized too. Again, there have been no problems with carry there, but she tried to curtail our rights there regardless. There was, however, a recent stabbing at a Norfolk library.
http://www.wvec.com/my-city/norfolk/Norfolk-police-on-scene-of-stabbing-at-Ocean-View-library-138009883.html
Sandi,
If you defend gun rights, do you think re-legalizing airport carry should have passed this year and if not, why?
Dan, how about you?
John Wilburn,
The line regarding airport terminals was drawn long ago. That bill is nothing more than an effort by the pro-gun crowd to move the line incrementally.
First, the whine, is: “Why can’t there be guns in airport terminals?”
Next it will be, “Why can’t there be guns past the security gate in airport terminals, so long as nobody takes them on airliners?”
THEN, it will be, “Why can’t there be guns on airliners?”
I never said I defend gun rights everywhere, I do not. I see no reason to support gun carry in airports and some good reasons not to.
Dan-
“The line regarding airport terminals was drawn long ago. That bill is nothing more than an effort by the pro-gun crowd to move the line incrementally.”
Your evidence? Can you cite any essay, op-ed, forum post, anything, where a pro-gun person says that the ultimate goal is to carry anywhere in an airport?
“First, the whine, is: “Why can’t there be guns in airport terminals?””
It’s not so much a whine as a baffled expression of exasperation. As with most arbitrary limits on carry, it’s, well, arbitrary.
“Next it will be, “Why can’t there be guns past the security gate in airport terminals, so long as nobody takes them on airliners?””
Nope, you are being as paranoid as we are supposed to be.
Also, what’s wrong with carrying in the unsecured portion of an airport?
What’s wrong with carrying in a church if the church allows it?
Well thanks for slogging through the whole post, I appreciate that.
But, for the love of Heaven, are you seriously going to argue that the gun laws enacted were in reaction to fantasy? The airport determination was likely in response to Homeland Security and TSA wanting to control every aspect of activity in and around airports; do they have no reason for that? Do not try and pretend that shootings in crowded places do not happen and cannot be lessened by not allowing guns. That you think an airport or library mass casualty shooting has to happen for people to care if folks carry guns in them is far more troubling than me thinking that is not the point.
You SAY you are “not one of those who believe in your freedom so long as you believe the same as I do” but you have certainly not presented that way. You have labeled me “anti-gun” when that is not the truth. I also asked you simple, direct questions pertaining to liberty, freedom, independence, privacy and government interference (and answered them myself), and you have bobbed and weaved like a boxer while still maintaining you are only about “liberty” and “rights” and “freedom”. I submit you either are or you are not. If you are a one or two issue “freedom and rights” guy then you should stop pretending you are some freedom rider crusading to save people’s rights. So far, it has only been one right you are even willing to speak of and others seem to muddy your waters. Not very “freedomy” of you.
Dan,
As Dave Hicks said, that’s the way it works. In this case, however, we want the line moved back to where it was a few years ago. There was no problem then and there was nothing that merited pushing the line back. The same incremental argument could be made of all kinds of social issues too. At least with the secure area, there are X-rays and metal detectors.. That didn’t help, though, when armed pilots were needed and let to confiscation of everything from shampoo bottles to snow globes.
Sandi and Dan,
Let me put it another way. Do you support the decision that was made in 2004 to push the line back without any reason to jusitfy doing so? If so, why? Restaurant carry went away, then came back and no blood flowed in the streets as the media predicted.
Speaking of whining, that reminded me of this:
http://vagunforum.net/virginia-laws/dan-casey-crying-about-air-rifles-t9339.html#axzz1mI2tTgHT
Sandi,
“Do not try and pretend that shootings in crowded places do not happen and cannot be lessened by not allowing guns.”
That is nothing short of ridiculous. All of these church, school, and mall shootings have happened in “gun-free zones.” There is no point in arguing that one.
I know you’re very curious and demanding to know my social positions so that you can debate them, but for the third time, I’m not going there. Offering up your social opinions does not obligate me to offer up mine. If I felt like discussing my very strong feelings about, say, religion or gay rights or abortion or immigration, I would post in one of those threads. Until then, you need to either accept it or continue to speculate that I’m just another one-size-fits-all stereotypical gun owner.
Your reference to “government interference” did made me crack a smile…
Sandi-
“The airport determination was likely in response to Homeland Security and TSA wanting to control every aspect of activity in and around airports; do they have no reason for that? Do not try and pretend that shootings in crowded places do not happen and cannot be lessened by not allowing guns. That you think an airport or library mass casualty shooting has to happen for people to care if folks carry guns in them is far more troubling than me thinking that is not the point.”
Good point. I know that in Israel, where airport security is very tight, they’ve found that the single best way to prevent mass shootings is to put a sign up that says, “No guns allowed.”
Once again, I am not caring about your “social positions”, I am caring if your “liberty” and “freedom” loving is more than on one issue. That is all, it is really pretty much a yes or no question. I do not need specifics or any discussion on the issues whatsoever. I could not care much less how you feel on any issue, I just want to know how many rights and liberties you really hold dear and are “fighting” for. I think I have my answer.
You are so curious! Yes, I’m for liberty on more than one issue. Think whatever you want; you will anyway. There are plenty of people in here to unload on for disagreeing with you. Go get em’.
Or go find the original, uncropped Suzie picture so we can prove it really is Amanda Pflugrad. I saw that… LMAO.
#85 After rereading that column, John Wilburn, all I can say is you’ve got a pretty low threshold for declaring “whining.” MOST of it was pretty straight reporting.
It is not “ridiculous” in any way. If an establishment has a “no guns allowed” policy and someone brings in a gun and kills their spouse, goes on a rampage or otherwise shoots up the place that is one more charge or crime they have committed. Having to screen everyone at the doors and decide who is OK to carry and who is not, based solely on a permit, is time, money and convenience robbing. All for the sake of people needing to “exercise a right”. It should be up to the owner/manager of the premises what is allowed there. Period. If they want to allow guns, that is also their choice. YOU do not and should not get to decide for the rest of us or them. Just because we already know that criminals disregard laws is no excuse for the rest of us. Never has been, never will be. We do not “trust strangers” and there is no reason to trust strangers with guns either.
Perhaps I am inarticulate on the issue but my point is really that it is not always liberals who are for gun control and who give lip service to “freedom”. I am sure Homeland Security and the TSA, just like the BATFE have very valid reasons for their positions and that they are not all liberal. I am equally sure that the issue is not disarming criminals as the laws could be a lot stronger in that area and yet they are curiously not, no matter who is in charge. Also, even some of the most sincere NRA butt kissers are not happy when a gun shows up at one of their events. Hypocrites abound on both sides of this issue.
I do not want to take anyone’s right to own and bear guns away, I just want us all to work on gun laws that prevent what carnage we can and while you can say gun advocates do that, it is a mighty quiet campaign as far as I can tell. I do not shoot them, but I have guns in my home, most people I know do as well. I would march with you if I felt anyone had a “no guns” agenda. But I cannot accept that this is the best we can do and these laws are the best answer we have. If you do not think there are idiots with “legal guns” who will commit a crime or cause an accident, you are as tripping as you think I am.
Sandi,
One, you just described exactly why I choose to carry everywhere. It is ridiculous to claim that “no guns” signs deter crime. The notion that they do is utterly stupid.
Two, who on earth that goes into a place and murders people where a “no guns” was posted cares about the slim the chance they could also be charged with a low-level misdemeanor trespassing charge or any other charge, for that matter? What person who loses a loved one takes any comfort in knowing the homicidal maniac has a $250 fine on top of his 12 consecutive life sentences? Thinking that serves as any boost to public safety is ridiculous.
You don’t trust strangers, but you trust a “no guns” sign? You don’t trust me who is a known non-criminal, but you’re okay with keeping the criminal element at bay with a sign. That certainly makes no sense. What are you going to do with it, roll it up and shoo a gunman away with it!? Your argument has devolved.
When the crime comes to me, I live
When the crime comes to you, they live
As long as Sandi is happy playing government-knows-best, more power to you.
gdad,
The artice says he was “Crying,” I just remember reading it. He was however demonizing an air gun because it looked scary. Chicken salad looks scary, but there’s no need to vilify it.
John Wilburn, I am not trying to catch you disagreeing with me, that is a given, I am trying to catch you disagreeing with yourself. YOU are the one who was berating Ernie with the idea that you were fighting for all rights and everyone, I just questioned that point. You can whine that it is an attack, or my need to “unload” as you like, (you will anyway) but I think it remains a valid point of discussion and I pursued it. Again, it is a very simple concept and a very simple answer.
Hey, as for the NRA butt-kisser comment, I agree with that. VCDL protested the Republican Round-up at Innsbrook a few years ago because it was being held at an anti-gun rights venue. If the Republicnas are going to solicit gun owners’ votes, they should have welcomed lawful carry at their event.
I remember that Sandi’s philosophy long ago carved out an exemption for guns in the home ONLY. Now I know why. That allows her all the gun liberty she wants for her own guns. Carving out self-serving exceptions… a lot of tyranny is born that way.
Dan,
Re: airport.
There you go again with your strawman clutching at a red-herring of a slippery slope.
As I have posted before, the security gate is far less arbitrary and far more reasonable line to draw.
There are meeters, greeters, farewellers, cab drivers, folk picking up rental cars, and assorted other folk in a terminal but outside the secure area who have no access for or intention of boarding a plane.
Therefore, the legitimate regulatory objective of stopping hijacking does not apply to them — as they will not board a plane.
OTOH, nearly all the Air Terminals I have been in only allow ticketed passengers and employees inside the secure area. Hence, that is the reasonable place to check / draw the line — as the security gate / secure area is created to meet the legitimate regulatory objective of stopping hijacking by keep firearms bombs, etc off the planes.
This legitimate regulatory objective is recognized in Federal law and regulation that draws the line at the security gate / secure area. That’s where the line is drawn for the nation. There are 40 States that agree that that is where the line is. I see no valid or legitimate State regulatory objective that exceed the Federal regulatory objective, law and regulation. Do you? If so, explain it w/o resorting to the logical fallacy of an incremental slippery slope.
Virginia allowed into the non-sterile area of the terminal building of an airport until 2004. If there is any incremental advancing of an agenda that’s where it happened.
Do you have any data to support that there have been less problems in Virginia since 2004?
Do you have any data to support that there are more problems in every State bordering Virginia, which have no such draconian arbitrary lines drawn?
Do you have any data to support that there are more problems in rest of those 40 States that have no such draconian arbitrary line?
Do you have a rational justification for the line drawn in 2004?
If there is one please explain your rational and spare us your usual strawman clutching at a red-herring of a slippery slope.
“What’s wrong with carrying in a church if the church allows it?”
Jason, it’s going to lead to unnecessary injuries or deaths.
Sandi,
I’m fighting for your gun freedoms; freedom to have and carry or not to have or carry. I’m pro-gun-choice and generally don’t believe in mandatory armament. So, I’m not taking any right of yours. That’s hardly “berating”, but Ernie’s philosophy does irk me a bit. He enjoys his firearm freedoms, but then mocks those of us who he should thank for fighting for him to keep them. Like I said, I guess he’ll just audition new hobbies once his are whittled away… his choice to make.
That’s unfortunate and a reckless pastor for sure. With his breech of safety, that could have happened anywhere. There’s nothing sacred about church carry, no pun intended.
Sandi-
“And you still have the gall to insist that gun control advocates are the ones who resort to distortion, emotion and dishonesty? Just wow.
Thank you for your honesty Jason.”
I must have missed this one. Um, assuming this is all aimed at me, once again, you are attacking me for something I’ve never said. I have never said that either side is “the one” who resorts to those things. I’ve always been up front with my contempt for the fear-mongers in the pro-gun movement. I’ve always called out pro-gunners who use spurious reasoning and bad research. There is no side of any major political debate that doesn’t descend into emotion and dishonesty.
“It is not “ridiculous” in any way. If an establishment has a “no guns allowed” policy and someone brings in a gun and kills their spouse, goes on a rampage or otherwise shoots up the place that is one more charge or crime they have committed.”
This is awesome.
DA: Detective, we’ve only got him for six counts of first degree murder, you’ve got to get something else to stick!
DETECTIVE: Dammit, if only we could get an illegal gun possession charge, then we’d have them nailed!
“It should be up to the owner/manager of the premises what is allowed there. Period.”
Who here disagrees with that?
“We do not “trust strangers” and there is no reason to trust strangers with guns either.”
Exhibit #946 of Sandi showing just how damned scared of humanity she is while saying that we are the ones that live in fear.
John Wilburn-
“When the crime comes to me, I live
When the crime comes to you, they live
As long as Sandi is happy playing government-knows-best, more power to you.”
And this is one of those stupid emotional pro-gun arguments I was referring to. Guns don’t make you invincible John, they guarantee nothing. There’s a million ways for a gun owner, even one with a gun handy, to still get killed.
Dan-
“Jason, it’s going to lead to unnecessary injuries or deaths.”
Heh, I knew you’d find that, I’m a little disappointed that your best use for it is to finally answer a question that’s been put to you a dozen times. And your article showing church-carry fear was printed before this, so using it as your answer is disingenuous.
So you are using one of the vanishingly small examples of a CCW screwing up in public big time as an excuse to ban carry in one particular location. So had that been in a dry cleaner’s store, should we ban carry in dry cleaners? Of course not, and you know it, and you still know that you have no legitimate excuse for banning carry in a church if the church allows it. This was a hilariously idiotic, Suzie-like argument. The logical extension of this is to ban carry everywhere, which you’ve claimed you are against.
And if I can produce more examples of people in churches defending themselves, does that cancel out your answer?
@Sandi Saunders: “If an establishment has a “no guns allowed” policy and someone brings in a gun and kills their spouse, goes on a rampage or otherwise shoots up the place that is one more charge or crime they have committed.”
I think we’ve been over this before. It wouldn’t be one more charge or crime. Carrying a gun into an establishment with “no guns allowed” signs is not a crime.
Sandi, question…
If the now dead students from the Cho shooting at Virginia Tech had been wearing shirts that read “Don’t Shoot Me” would they still be alive?
This is a serious question. If a sign will keep someone with a gun at bay, I’m thinking that maybe turning the sign into a t-shirt might work, too… and if so would be quite a lucrative business venture.
The security checkpoint at the airport is where you lose your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, so it seems it would be a reasonable place to lose the Second Amendment rights, too.
Personally, I’d be fine with that.
It would, however, be much more effective if it weren’t run by an agency that, by their own numbers, misses 76% of the prohibited items that pass through their checkpoints.
TSA is a conversation I’d love to have, but on a different day.
Jason,
I was making it very simple (oversimplified) for Sandi. Your fan club is growing
My apologies for not being clearer Jason, the first part of my #43 was “aimed” at John Wilburn and his “M-1 Ban” and “brass casings meme” being used as propaganda for Obama’s gonna get your guns while he pretends only the “antis” are “the ones who resort to distortion, emotion and dishonesty”!
And it was a genuine thank you for your comments in #27 and #34.
In no way, was I “attacking” you and I don’t believe I was “attacking” John Wilburn either.
Where have I ever said that I was or anyone should be “happy playing government-knows-best”? I have repeatedly said that the solutions will have to come from us, from the gun advocates and the gun control sides to work together. No where have I advocated for a bought and paid for pol to decide anything.
PS, I am the one going into the fray you believe exists, unarmed, so lay the hell off calling me the one who is “scared”. That dog won’t hunt.
Don’t forget to patronize Starbucks tomorrow. The Brady campaign is beginning a boycott of them starting tomorrow because they will not put up signs banning firearms in their stores. The last time the Brady bunch boycotted them, it was a complete failure and Starbucks had a profit spike that day from gun owners showing their appreciation. May this time be even better for pro-freedom Starbucks.
I freely admit I misspoke there. I am not saying that the sign keeps anyone at bay, not even you as we all know. What I am saying is that if carrying a gun where guns are banned is a crime, maybe we could catch some of these people before they start shooting. Like a restraining order or a badge does not keep a revenge minded spouse from shooting, a sign does not either. I did not mean to imply that it would, or that breaking that law would bother anyone. Perhaps I should not have phrased it that way since if gave you all such ammo, but in all truth, I do not think that if anyone in that crowd (or any other mass shooting) had been armed it would have been different either. Remember the armed guy who was there in Arizona? It is not the panacea you believe it is in such cases either.
Make it a crime to have an unregistered concealed weapon without a permit, fine them into poverty for generations and lock them up for a long, long time.
Make real efforts to ensure felons on parole/probation do not have guns or easy access to guns.
Make sure that traffic stops, and any law enforcement interaction checks for illegally possessed/carried guns.
Make concealed carry permits mean more than a computer class taken. Fine and jail people who shoot anyone, accident be damned. Fine people seriously for gun accidents, public discharges etc, require safety training, trigger locks, whatever to get their guns back.
Make any crime, including ignoring a restraining order – misdemeanor or not – a reason to lose your CCP. AND remove the guns.
I will agree to leave you and your gun rights alone in anyplace that does not ban guns, as soon as you start adding to the list of ways to get guns away from people who should not have them. Not until.
I WANT to support you, with my bloodline, I am almost duty bound to do so, but damned if a one of you can manage to make me want to do so for more than a moment.
#95 That made no sense whatsoever, John W, except maybe in your head.
#105 You are once sick POS, Jack.
Sandi @ 78 -”I defend gun rights but not gun crazy.”
In all the things I have seen you post about guns, you have assailed all forms of concealed carry, open carry and any guns in public places. You’ve spoken against the use of deadly force to defend the home. You’ve spoken against gun sales at retailers,gun shows and private sales.
I’m just curious. Which gun rights do you defend?
92. …I just want us all to work on gun laws that prevent what carnage we can…
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 13, 2012 @ 3:47 pm
———————
Laws cannot prevent human carnage regardless of if they are related to guns, cars, booze, knives, etc. If laws could prevent human carnage, the one that states it is illegal to kill another person would be the only one you need. You can pass 900 laws banning everything from guns, steak knives, number 2 pencils, and everything in between. If it is one thing history has proven about human nature is that people will commit carnage agaist other people by whatever means is available, be it sticks, rocks, or whatever else. You just cannot legislate safety and security…human nature won’t allow it. It is unfortunate and I wish it wasn’t the case, but it is what it is.
Jack-
“This is a serious question. If a sign will keep someone with a gun at bay, I’m thinking that maybe turning the sign into a t-shirt might work, too… and if so would be quite a lucrative business venture.”
Put me down for one. For that matter, could you also make pants and hats with this special anti-bullet power? I’d hate to have a clever bad guy look at my shirt, adjust his aim, and catch one in the junk.
Sandi,
Thanks for a relatively constructive post. No, you’re not “attacking.” You’re just naturally combative. One problem I see right off is that law enforcement search you proposed. That will undoubtedly lead to massive Fourth Amendment violations and frequently does now. The idea of criminalizing concealed carry without a permit and fining the offender into poverty is way out of line. People that think like that are what’s wrong now. That is what prohibition did; make the liquor illegal and not deal with the criminal gang activity. It was a failue, too.
There’s just no really effective way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, especially without eliminating the second amendment. Let’s get real about drugs too: Forgive the chronology, but we ban cocaine and they make heroin, we ban heroin and then there’s marijuana, that gets the pressure and now there’s meth. That was a hot topic until bath salts, which are being added to the controled substances list this year. It’s to the point that honest people have trouble buying cold medicine at Wal Mart. The point being that criminalizing the drugs rather than the illegal behavior hasn’t worked for so long it’s ridiculous.
Legislating what people do in their own bedrooms sure has modeled a respectable, moral public(insert sarcasm).
Preemptive abridgment of rights is not the answer with a number of things.
Chuck, you are just plain wrong.
In all the gun threads over the years since I started blogging at Roanoke.com, I have said repeatedly that I come from a long line of hunters, gun collectors and advocates. I have said repeatedly that we have guns in our home. I have said repeatedly that I believe in the second amendment like I do all others. I have said repeatedly that there are most certainly situations where people actually do need to carry a gun, places people might be smart to have a gun, and that if people are trained, competent and not angry reckless reactionary people and they have a permit to carry a gun, I do not begrudge them that right within reason (like not when the sign says “no guns”, not in bars, not in churches). BUT, I have also said repeatedly that no right is or should be without restriction, regulation or oversight because of the potential for abuse.
What I have indeed “assailed” is the idea that just anyone should carry guns just anywhere they like. I have also “assailed” every arrogant “freedom”, “liberty” and “rights advocate” who only cares about the 2nd Amendment and refuses the same for gay rights, women’s reproductive choice and voting rights, among others.
I do not believe everyone who wants to should just carry guns in public. I do not believe that most of the gun advocates need to carry a gun at all, much less every day, every where. I do not believe gun carry is the solution to crime or victimization. I understand and support sensible gun control laws.
I do no believe some of the angry, insulting, reactionary people who post about the sanctity of guns rights should be armed in public. They cannot control their emotions and vitriol, which is not reassuring about their guns.
I have never “spoken against the use of deadly force to defend the home”, if you can find such a statement, you bring it. I do not believe that and I do not believe I would say that. I have never “spoken against gun sales at retailers”, but yes, I disagree with private sales at gun shows and private sales that skate by the background check.
Hope that clears up your mistaken perception.
So the greatest, most exceptional, wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth has more gun carnage than other industrialized nations because nothing can be done? Seriously?
We may have more gun deaths than all the other industrialized nations combined, Sandi.
I guess that’s “our right.”
Wow, Sandi, I’m now convinced! Jack, Dave Hicks, Jason let’s shred or hardware and sell it for scrap, then make a burn plie for the holsters. Enlightenment has now set in.
Getting serious now… In my experience, if you’re told something needs 1,000 exceptions, then you’re really told it isn’t needed. If you believe in the Second Amendment just as much as the rest of the Bill of Rights, I would love to hear about your views on the Fourth Amendment. You seem to want some legal remedy to everything you see a potential danger in. I guess you’re okay with pulling over anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant and shaking them down? You certainly wish to profile gun owners and suggested their unwaranted searches by the police, which of course wouldn’t happen if the cops didn’t know about the guns. A Sandi-like solution…. further invasion of privacy. Where does that end? Stirp searches in the middle of the grocery store of anyone at random? That is not freedom, but is a fast approaching reality with some of the stuff TSA is doing and the “virtual pat-down” that’s being tested for the public streets in NYC. Our freedoms are rapidly eroding and I’m greatly concerned about this plethora of “reasonable” restrictions list that never stops growing. My great grandparents’ generation had zero gun control. I think the first few words were added to the federal code in 1894. We do not need the sea of gun control (read people control) we have now.
No charges for CC permit holder who accidentally shot another man in a Catholic Church (and didn’t even realize it until the next morning).
I wonder who’s going to pay the victim’s medical bills or make up any earnings lost due to the recovery from the gunshot wound??
John Wilburn-
My apologies. I’m a little too used to the overly macho wing of the pro-gun movement.
Sandi-
No problem. I wasn’t sure.
“Make it a crime to have an unregistered concealed weapon without a permit, fine them into poverty for generations and lock them up for a long, long time.”
I assume you mean carrying concealed without a carry permit, since gun registration is rare and a non-starter in most of the country. It’s already illegal to carry concealed without a permit in almost all of the country.
“Make real efforts to ensure felons on parole/probation do not have guns or easy access to guns.”
The easiest access is cut off to them (gun stores). However, by using a straw purchaser, they regain that access.
“Make sure that traffic stops, and any law enforcement interaction checks for illegally possessed/carried guns.”
What?! So if I (or you) get pulled over for speeding, I have to get out of the car and be frisked? Or he gets to search my car? That’s wrong from a million directions, not the least of which are humongous Constitutional issues. Speeding does not amount to probable cause to look for an illegal gun.
“Make concealed carry permits mean more than a computer class taken.”
I’m not hugely opposed to this, but I’ve seen no evidence that it will help.
“Fine and jail people who shoot anyone, accident be damned. Fine people seriously for gun accidents, public discharges etc, require safety training, trigger locks, whatever to get their guns back.”
I like this, but then I get smacked by reality. Parents of small children who kill themselves or someone else with an unattended gun are rarely charged because they’ve just lost a child and people figure that a fine will probably have little additional effect. But for public discharges, yeah, throw the book at them.
Again, there’s little evidence that safety training works. Trigger locks? Do you mean require them to own them? Ok, but how do you enforce making them *use* them? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the problem with almost all accidental shootings isn’t that the people didn’t know how to store or handle them safely, it’s that they were too stupid to bother. You can’t legislate stupid away.
“Make any crime, including ignoring a restraining order – misdemeanor or not – a reason to lose your CCP. AND remove the guns.”
Violating a restraining order, particularly in a domestic violence situation, should be grounds to lose your permit. But ANY misdemeanor? That’s insane.
“I will agree to leave you and your gun rights alone in anyplace that does not ban guns, as soon as you start adding to the list of ways to get guns away from people who should not have them. Not until.”
Most of what you proposed is either already in place, a waste of time, or out and out impossible. I and others have repeatedly given realistic and potentially effective ways to reduce illegal gun ownership, but they seem to get ignored.
Yep, you are almost as “convinced” as I am. This is a useless conversation.
How dare you compare your paltry “restrictions” to what immigrants (legal and illegal) go through and do not pretend to be an illegal immigrant’s friend or supporter while you are at it! Or is supporting scofflaws a hobby?
Different rights and privileges come with different restrictions and regulations for a reason. There is no “one size fits all” in a nation of 307 million.
That the gun deaths, rampages and accidents do not mean enough for you to sacrifice is your problem, the rest of us see a problem and want to fix it. As imperfect as the gun laws are, they are at least trying to save lives, you on the other hand, only appear to care about your “right”. As long as gun advocates remain as flip and insulting as some of you manage, I think the issue will remain “hot button” and for good reason. No one dreams up gun laws just to inconvenience you.
Re: Catholic church negligent discharge.
http://wildbillsconcealment.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=20
I tell people if they have to choose between upgrades on the gun and a quality holster, get the quality holster!
#121 Thank goodness the gun owner in the case didn’t have to put up with any of these heinous and unconstitutional limits to his right to drop a gun and seriously injure bystanders:
“Banas did express two concerns dealing with the law. There is no requirement that the weapon be holstered or secured properly while it is carried, he said. Also, the law does not require permit holders to take a test qualifying them to use the specific weapon they intend to carry.”
But Ron: It was an accident, dude!
Sandi says:
There is no “one size fits all” in a nation of 307 million.
Gun carriers seem to be one-size-fits-all to her, though.
I take offense to the notion that I am the illegals’ friend. I am opposed to the profiling and warrantless searches and shakedowns of the legals. Some disagree with me, but that’s okay. I say that just becuase you’re white doesn’t mean you aren’t next. The Fourth Amendment is in serious jeopardy too.
gdad,
True, the carrier is responsible for the security of his/her weapon, but the test for specific weapons would become a mess very quickly. Imagine if your driver’s license was only valid for certain very specific vehicles.
Sandi-
“I understand and support sensible gun control laws.”
But then:
“not in bars, not in churches”
We’ve been over the bar thing and history has proven us correct. Now can you, since Dan won’t, explain to me what is sensible about not allowing carry in churches as long as the church permits it?
Dan-
“No charges for CC permit holder who accidentally shot another man in a Catholic Church (and didn’t even realize it until the next morning).”
That is outrageous and I’ll be at the front of the line calling for tougher laws against idiots who can’t handle the simple act of safely carrying a firearm.
#123 Jason
First, if an individual doesn’t want to lose their right to purchase or transport a gun, or be denied a permit to carry a weapon it’s a simple solution, they should not commit an act of domestic violence, and secondly, if they DON’T VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER they will not be charged with a PO violation which is a criminal offense, which will show up in a criminal background search. A violation of a Protective Order is a Class 1 Misdemeanor. Don’t do these things and no penalty. See how simple that was? Simply following the judges order to stay away from the victim cannot be claimed a hardship. If you can’t comply with the judge’s order, why should you be trusted to follow any gun laws?
Also, there are four classes of misdemeanor offenses in Virginia. Class three and four misdemeanors are punishable with fines only, while class one and two misdemeanors carry a potential one year or six month jail sentence respectively.
Examples of the “misdemeanors” you handily dismiss as “insane” for removing or preventing the purchase of a weapon:
simple assault, sexual battery, stalking with intent to cause fear or death, discharge a firearm in a public place/no injury, brandish or point a firearm, abuse of a child…
And some info you don’t evidently know…
According to both Federal and VA state law, an abuser in a domestic violence incident cannot buy a gun or transport a gun if there is a Protective Order against them and that was issued by a VA civil court and for Federal law it must meet the Federal requirements.
VA state law also says that if the abuser has a concealed handgun permit, s/he must surrender it while the PO is in effect. This will be stated clearly on the protective order form as a warning to the respondent ( abuser).
Whether or not the abuser can keep any guns he already has in his possession while the PO is in effect may depend on whether or not the judge specifically orders that the guns need to be taken away from the abusive party. Federal law says that the guns should be taken away automatically, but VA state law does not say this, so it may be up to a judge to make it clear that any guns owned by the abuser should be taken away [usually this is turned in or removed by law enforcement].
Va. Code §18.2-308.1:4
We may have more gun deaths than all the other industrialized nations combined, Sandi.
I guess that’s “our right.”
Ah, more apples-and-oranges comparisons. Let’s throw in Provo, Utah while we’re at it. That’s a lot closer to the tiny homogeneous western European countries than the United States is.
“Make it a crime to have an unregistered concealed weapon without a permit, fine them into poverty for generations and lock them up for a long, long time.”
We do not register guns in Virginia. However, it already is a crime to carry concealed without a permit.
On your other note, it is likewise a crime to carry in a place where guns are “banned”.
“Make sure that traffic stops, and any law enforcement interaction checks for illegally possessed/carried guns.”
Sorry I missed this little gem. Are you suggesting that if a police officer stops you for speeding he should be allowed to search for illegal guns?
How would this jive with the Fourth Amendment that specifically prohibits this?
Your true intentions are really starting to shine through now.
@gdad: “#105 You are once sick POS, Jack.”
First off, kudos to Dan for finally allowing people to call each other pieces of sh*t on this blog.
Second, if Sandi was implying that signs would save lives, then I was merely trying to come up with a way to save the lives of future students. If the sign could go everywhere with you, then you’d be safe anywhere you go. The fact that I would make a lot of money doing it is just a side effect of running a successful business.
@Sandi Saunders: “I have said repeatedly that we have guns in our home. I have said repeatedly that I believe in the second amendment like I do all others.”
I’m sorry, in post #110 you indicated that you do not believe in the Fourth Amendment.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/02/the-dementia-and-depravity-of-the-national-rifle-association/comment-page-3/#comment-159472
“Make sure that traffic stops, and any law enforcement interaction checks for illegally possessed/carried guns.”
I carry every Sunday in my church. I’m not sure if the church has a policy on carrying firearms, but nobody has indicated that they are prohibited, and I haven’t asked. I do not plan to ask any more than I plan to ask permission anywhere else.
Hillary-
“First, if an individual doesn’t want to lose their right to purchase or transport a gun, or be denied a permit to carry a weapon it’s a simple solution, they should not commit an act of domestic violence, and secondly, if they DON’T VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER they will not be charged with a PO violation which is a criminal offense, which will show up in a criminal background search.”
Um, ok. I agree. That’s why I said, “Violating a restraining order, particularly in a domestic violence situation, should be grounds to lose your permit.”
“A violation of a Protective Order is a Class 1 Misdemeanor. Don’t do these things and no penalty. See how simple that was? Simply following the judges order to stay away from the victim cannot be claimed a hardship. If you can’t comply with the judge’s order, why should you be trusted to follow any gun laws?”
I agree. The solution should be to designate specific misdemeanors as grounds for losing your guns, not to say that ANY conviction is grounds.
“Examples of the “misdemeanors” you handily dismiss as “insane” for removing or preventing the purchase of a weapon:
simple assault, sexual battery, stalking with intent to cause fear or death, discharge a firearm in a public place/no injury, brandish or point a firearm, abuse of a child…”
Again, I didn’t say that NO misdemeanors should be eligible, I said it was insane that ALL misdemeanors should be grounds. IMHO, any violent crime should be considered as grounds to lose your guns or permit.
“And some info you don’t evidently know…
According to both Federal and VA state law, an abuser in a domestic violence incident cannot buy a gun or transport a gun if there is a Protective Order against them and that was issued by a VA civil court and for Federal law it must meet the Federal requirements.”
I own a gun, and that’s part of the standard form you fill out. So I did know it. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
“VA state law also says that if the abuser has a concealed handgun permit, s/he must surrender it while the PO is in effect. This will be stated clearly on the protective order form as a warning to the respondent ( abuser).”
Why are you telling me this? I agree with it. I didn’t dispute any of it.
Jason – when you posted, “Violating a restraining order, particularly in a domestic violence situation, should be grounds to lose your permit. But ANY misdemeanor? That’s insane.”
Yes, any misdemeanor…a misdemeanor offense is a criminal offense. If you already have a PO against you, it is your responsibility NOT to commit another criminal offense. Let’s not equivocate. Period, end of sentence.
Bottom line: There needs to be signifcant due process before stripping someone of their gun rights.
Yes but nothing in that “Protective Order” takes the gun or guns away from someone who has already proved “unworthy” does it? The “permit” is a piece of paper just like a sign or the Protective Order. Saying it is “invalid” or asking someone to “surrender” a piece of paper is pretty short shrift IMO. Just that one simple effort and admission would go a long way with gun control advocates, but some cannot bring themselves to “speak ill” of the brethren, even though that is what is hurting them the most.
“@gdad: “#105 You are once sick POS, Jack.”
gdad….did your parents have any children that lived?
Bottom line: There needs to be signifcant due diligence before walking among the public armed and your actions can change the extent of your rights in a moment.
At least no one on here are still arguing the “militia” clause of the 2nd amend.! Many of you have grown…..constitutionally speaking, of course.
Sandi:
“…takes the gun or guns away from someone who has already proved “unworthy”…”
Please define who is “worthy” of gun ownership and also who is “worthy” of carrying a gun, if the parameters are different.
Hillary-
“Yes, any misdemeanor…a misdemeanor offense is a criminal offense. If you already have a PO against you, it is your responsibility NOT to commit another criminal offense. Let’s not equivocate. Period, end of sentence.”
One of us isn’t understanding the other. I’m telling you that people with violent offenses, misdemeanor or not, should be subject to revocation/confiscation. I am saying that many misdemeanors are not relevant to gun ownership or concealed carry and should not be attached to revocation/confiscation.
Sandi-
“Just that one simple effort and admission would go a long way with gun control advocates, but some cannot bring themselves to “speak ill” of the brethren, even though that is what is hurting them the most.”
You keep saying that so and so is, “hurting” us, as if we are fighting a desperate losing battle. We aren’t. As far as concealed carry goes, we’ve already won. Gun control in general is losing almost as badly nationwide. It’s nice to switch people to our side, but we don’t need to anymore. And let’s face it Sandi, your “mind”, such as it is, can’t be changed. I don’t continue posting here in the hopes that I’ll convert you. I post more with the idea that there might be people who lurk and who might be mislead by what you say.
Do you realize what “reasonable” things you believe?
*Signs will stop criminals (to be fair, you had a rare moment of clarity and backed off that one)
*Guns shouldn’t be allowed in certain places like churches, even though you can’t say why.
*Traffic stops should include searches for illegal guns (showing a hatred for the fourth amendment at least as potent as your contempt for the second).
*There’s no statistical reason to carry a gun (though you can’t say what methodology you are using to come to this conclusion, nor can you say what the Sandi Saunders threshold is for when it *would* be a good idea to carry).
*You are afraid of legal carriers in public despite your chances of being shot by the general public being many many times higher.
Jason – you posted, “should be to designate specific misdemeanors as grounds for losing your guns, not to say that ANY conviction is grounds.”
Misdemeanors are criminal offenses. What part of that is not clear? If someone has a PO against them, it is not the responsibility of the law to, with a wink and a nod, ignore that misdemeanor because it is “not relevant to gun ownership or concealed carry” – with a PO every misdemeanor is relevant, because, repeat after me, “Misdemeanors are criminal offenses.” There isn’t an asterisk in front of the VA Code section for misdemeanors that notes, except if they are a gun owner and have a PO against them.
I understand perfectly well what you are saying, and I wholeheartedly disagree. But that’s fine, we have disagreed before…
Sandi:
“There needs to be signifcant due diligence before walking among the public armed and your actions can change the extent of your rights in a moment.”
Like the dilligence drunks show that are freely allowed to grab the keys, jump in the car, and throw all regard for human life out the window? Should we put breathalyzers on everyone’s cars since everyone can inflict just as much carnage with their car? Shouldn’t you have a breathalyzer ignition lock on your car Sandi?
“One of us isn’t understanding the other. I’m telling you that people with violent offenses, misdemeanor or not, should be subject to revocation/confiscation. I am saying that many misdemeanors are not relevant to gun ownership or concealed carry and should not be attached to revocation/confiscation.” And Hillary is saying that ALL misdemeanors should disqualify someone from gun ownership. I’m quite sure she feels this way about our other freedoms, too.
“You keep saying that so and so is, “hurting” us, as if we are fighting a desperate losing battle. We aren’t. As far as concealed carry goes, we’ve already won.” You are soooo right. File this one away next to “CO2 is harming the planet.” The political debate is over.
There are moving violations that are misdemeanors, such as exceeding 80 mph regardless of the posted speed limit. So how many people here have exceeded 80 on the interstate where it is posted at 70? So if you got a reckless driving ticket for going 81 mph in a 70 interstate zone you should not be allowed to own or carry a gun? Do you think you should also lose your right to free speech for a misdemeanor moving violation? Why not?
Hillary-
“Misdemeanors are criminal offenses. What part of that is not clear?”
That much is definitely clear.
“If someone has a PO against them, it is not the responsibility of the law to, with a wink and a nod, ignore that misdemeanor because it is “not relevant to gun ownership or concealed carry” – with a PO every misdemeanor is relevant, because, repeat after me, “Misdemeanors are criminal offenses.””
This all started with this exchange:
SANDI- Make any crime, including ignoring a restraining order – misdemeanor or not – a reason to lose your CCP. AND remove the guns.
JASON- Violating a restraining order, particularly in a domestic violence situation, should be grounds to lose your permit. But ANY misdemeanor? That’s insane.
You’ve chosen to lock on to the restraining order portion. I was responding to the “any crime” portion, INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER THEY HAVE AN RO.
“There isn’t an asterisk in front of the VA Code section for misdemeanors that notes, except if they are a gun owner and have a PO against them.”
*sigh* I am saying that AS A PROPOSAL, saying that ANY CRIME should disallow gun ownership or revoke a permit is insane. If you can’t see that, yeah, we’ll have to agree to disagree. And that AS A PROPOSAL, if you are going to reexamine the criteria for revocation, you SHOULD (I understand that we currently don’t) tie it to the relevance of the offense. If a guy with a history of domestic abuse has an RO against him and assuming he’s had due process, sure, take his guns and revoke his permit. But if a person runs a red light or gets caught with some pot or tagged a building when they were 14, then no, they shouldn’t lose their ownership/carry rights.
#151 Yes, if you have a PO against you – it is also up to the judge’s discretion if there is an appearance on the PO. Isn’t taking responsibility a bedrock conservative principle?
#152 Jason – “If a guy with a history of domestic abuse has an RO against him and assuming he’s had due process, sure, take his guns and revoke his permit”
If a person has a Protective Order [VA doesn't use the term Restraining Order] against them, you can surely assume they have had “due process” – PO’s are not given out easily. So let us agree on the above statement, and call it a day.
Yes John Wilburn, in a simple minded world, if the only way you can save a fetus from being aborted is to ban abortion, maybe the only way you save people from being shot is to ban guns and the only way you save DUI deaths is to demand the “breathalyzers on everyone’s cars”. IDK, when you define everything in absolutes I guess that is where you end up. YOU started the “significant due process” argument.
Jason, why do you want a criminal to have a gun? Why the differential for some crimes being acceptable? ESPECIALLY in the case of a “Protective Order” where obviously someone feels unsafe or alleges someone is unstable. Why do they get to keep their guns so they can carry them as they “walk right through that restraining order”? Why is that “right” more important than (generally) a woman’s safety? Even if it is symbolic and for a limited time, it should be automatic.
When someone is convicted of a felony and loses their “gun rights” who confiscates them or sees that they are “removed”? When?
What, if any, gun control measures do you all support? Even if you did need to be armed to risk being in public, why do you not demand more criminals lose their guns? If you do not want armed criminals stopped and searched how does anyone ever prevent their crimes?
For winners, you still sound like whiners so I don’t think you feel all that secure in your “decided” argument.
Before you get all apoplectic again Jason, please take a breath and note that I said: “Make any crime, including ignoring a restraining order – misdemeanor or not – a reason to lose your CCP. AND remove the guns.” I did not say THE reason. I would expect the law could be crafted not to be automatic for every single misdemeanor on the books, or even most of them, but I see NO REASON to have to wait for a felony or violent crime. A lot of criminals start small. Especially in the case of a Protective Order AND other misdemeanors, it should get someone’s attention if they are known to have a gun or a CCP. Domestic violence of any kind should warrant attention to guns in the home or hands.
#143 Tell you what, Phil Chitwood, go back and reread the “funny” Jack tried to make about the 32 people who were shot to death. If you think it was a cool post, my opinion of you is no different than what I think of sicko Jack.
#136 Jack, Dan let troll suzie set that standard a long time ago. I’m just calling it like I see it in your case.
Sandi, I likely support more gun control measures than you do.
I support:
proper grip
breath control
trigger squeeze
follow through (all essential elements to controlling the shot)
secure holstering with proper retention (would have prevented 121)
internal or external safety (would likely have prevented 121)
hard cases with locks for security
no one else has a key to my safe
I support a wide range of GUN control measures. Had you asked me what people control measures I support, that would take a bit more deliberating. Gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.
As for confiscation, I believe the sheriff’s office does that. Thankfully, it has never happened to me, but I read today where it happened to someone else.
I’m not as tenured a poster here as many, but I’m catching on. Sandi ends every long post in which she seeks support with an “us” vs. you outing. Her “us” is the people in Casey’s blog land, though. Like an episode of Survivor!
“#143 Tell you what, Phil Chitwood,”
How do you get numbers by the posts?
“What, if any, gun control measures do you all support?” I’m happy with the high bar one must jump over to own an automatic weapon or silencer.
Phil, to get the number by the post, you have to scroll over to the left of the thumbnail, hold down the left key, and highlight that. When you paste, it has the number. I wish it showed up on my screen, it would make things easier.
I can’t remember for anything how to change the thumbnail image, though.
John Wilburn,
If you use Firefox as your browser, the number is displayed. To create an avatar, upload any image to gravatar.com. It’ll automatically update on this and other blogs.
“157.#143 Tell you what, Phil Chitwood, go back and reread the “funny” Jack tried to make about the 32 people who were shot to death. If you think it was a cool post,…”(Notice I didn’t quote the part the zombie wrote.)
OK, gdad, what # post should I go back and reread in order to judge Jack’s entire existance.
@Phil Chitwood,
I’ll happily repost it here. The consensus seems to be that putting up signs banning guns would actually do some good and maybe even save lives. My idea is a “portable” sign… one that you wear. That way, you’re safe everywhere.
If you make some money in the process of saving lives, so be it. What better way to make money than to do so saving lives?
—–
Sandi, question…
If the now dead students from the Cho shooting at Virginia Tech had been wearing shirts that read “Don’t Shoot Me” would they still be alive?
This is a serious question. If a sign will keep someone with a gun at bay, I’m thinking that maybe turning the sign into a t-shirt might work, too… and if so would be quite a lucrative business venture.
If one of you makes a run of those shirts, I’d like an XL.
“If the now dead students from the Cho shooting at Virginia Tech had been wearing shirts that read “Don’t Shoot Me” would they still be alive?
This is a serious question. If a sign will keep someone with a gun at bay, I’m thinking that maybe turning the sign into a t-shirt might work, too… and if so would be quite a lucrative business venture.”
That’s it? You’ve got to be kidding me. There is no way THAT turned gdad into a zombie.
@Phil,
That’s the one. Apparently wanting to save lives makes me a sick POS. I’ll take it.
If the shirt business pans out, I’m thinking children’s lunchboxes, police/military uniform patches, etc.
Jack, don’t forget “Go away Carjackaer” bumperstickers while you’re at it.
#165 Still just as sick as the first time, POS Jack.
John Wilburn… thanks for the idea. I might as well be printing my own money at this point.
Jack, why not print baseless money, the government has been doing it for years! If you do, make sure to put “not for illegal purchases” on each bill. We can wipe the criminal drug trade out in a week. I’m getting into this absurd utopian way of thinking.
Loved the picture. Carmakers should seriously put purpose-built gun compartments on new cars. A wide, canted, triangular slot below the radio would be ideal. Line it with leather that matches the seats. Then have modular inserts that snap in for different size guns.
Thank you, gdad. I aim to please.
Sandi-
“Jason, why do you want a criminal to have a gun?”
Not all criminals are equal Sandi.
“Why the differential for some crimes being acceptable?”
Because many crimes are non-violent and not indicative of a proclivity for violence.
“ESPECIALLY in the case of a “Protective Order” where obviously someone feels unsafe or alleges someone is unstable. Why do they get to keep their guns so they can carry them as they “walk right through that restraining order”? Why is that “right” more important than (generally) a woman’s safety? Even if it is symbolic and for a limited time, it should be automatic.”
If they’ve had due process, I agree with you.
“When someone is convicted of a felony and loses their “gun rights” who confiscates them or sees that they are “removed”? When?”
I have no idea.
“What, if any, gun control measures do you all support?”
Why should I bother? I’ve done this dozens of times and you ignore it. What the hell:
*Background checks are fine.
*Revocation of rights for appropriate criminal offenses.
*STRICTER FREAKING ENFORCEMENT OF STRAW PURCHASE LAWS.
*Protecting the rights of private property owners to bar carry on their premises.
*Training requirements, though I don’t think they do much good.
*Much much harsher penalties for people who negligently discharge in public.
“Even if you did need to be armed to risk being in public, why do you not demand more criminals lose their guns? If you do not want armed criminals stopped and searched how does anyone ever prevent their crimes?”
Can you tell me how a cop knows that an armed criminal is armed before he searches him? How does he know he’s a criminal? Are you sticking by your proposal that all traffic stops should include searches for illegal weapons? Do you not see the problems, both practical and legal in that?
Phil Chitwood-
“I’m happy with the high bar one must jump over to own an automatic weapon or silencer.”
I’d be fine with the hoops for automatic weapons if the registry was re-opened and new weapons made available. The silencer stuff is ridiculous, though at least new ones are allowed. Some countries in Europe *require* suppressors for safety and noise pollution reasons.
I’ve got a novel idea. If someone has done enough to warrant issuing a Protective Order against them, then why are they still running around free? Lock them up. Create a new law that says if a person has beat the heck out of someone and then threatens to harm them again, they get locked up.
(o\ ! /o),
One problem that comes to mind with locking such a person up is the possibility that the person whom the PO has been isseud against may have to work to earn income that is for the benefit of the protectee. This could certainly be the case with a spouse or ex.
@Sandi Saunders 110: “Make sure that traffic stops, and any law enforcement interaction checks for illegally possessed/carried guns.”
Another question regarding above statement.
If this were, in fact, allowed to happen, and the officer finds not a gun in the center console of the car, but two kilos of heroin, what would happen next? Or, in a really extreme (from a movie type of thing) case, a couple of dead bodies in the trunk. What happens then?
I guess the point I’m trying to make, and I’m having a hard time expressing it in words is that if you have probable cause for the search, you have cause and you can look for the gun or anything else you want.
If you don’t have probable cause, and look for the gun, even if the search for the gun became lawful (it would obviously be limited in scope much like search warrants are), and you found something else highly illegal, you’d end up excluding what you find as evidence because the only way you knew it was there was through your search for the gun.
In any case, the only way to make your statement lawful would be to completely do away with the Fourth Amendment. You can’t have protection from unlawful searches and then make exceptions for searches without cause for one specific item… because you end up performing the entire search without the probable cause.
I just don’t see how it would be possible. Even if I agreed with you and thought it was a good idea (I don’t, but let’s say I did) I still couldn’t imagine a way in which it would work and still allow for the existence of the Fourth Amendment.
Jack, much of the 4th Amendment already has been done away with (and I’m not saying that’s a good thing, either). In a fine bit of Newspeak, it was titled “The Patriot Act.”
That’s right Dan, and once they start whittling away at the corners of some rights it is only a matter of time until they start chipping away at the rest of them too. That is why it is important to defend all of our rights, not just the ones that are personally important to each of us. Start placing limits and qualifications on certani rights and before you know it you’ll have to take a training course, proficiency test, pay a large fee, and get a permit to speak freely.
And there began a real rift I have with conservatives. To be sold the repeal of the Fourth Amendment under the name “Patriot Act” was completely unacceptable. Ron Paul called BS on that in one of the debates, but Gingrich seems to want to take it further for gun owners. He has proposed a biometric background check that works off of a thumbprint. He says it will make things easier for gun owners. I say people are getting wiser to this nonsense and for this and other reasons the former Speaker finds himself out of the hunt.
http://www.defensivehandguns.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1323009457
gdad scribbles, “#165 Still just as sick as the first time, POS Jack.”
Jack, I’ve been dealing with this type my whole life. If I met them face to face….nary a peep. Hiding behind 4 letters you can’t even pronounce….gimme a break.