Guess who got top billing on new Virginia gunners website?
From VCDL.org
The Virginia Citizen’s Defense League, the state’s largest pro-gun organization, has revamped its website. Click on the link to check it out.
Notice what leads it off: a quote from your humble metro columnist, who on Dec. 5 called the organization, “the commonwealth’s dominant gun lobby.”
Thanks, guys! I reckon that this upcoming weekend I’ll be serving up some more stuff for you to talk about!
But can you return the favor? Just change the identifier to “Roanoke Times Metro Columnist Dan Casey, Virginia’s most talented anti-gun columnist.”
(h/t to John Wilburn).
January 15, 2013 - 3:44 PM
Reminds me of the standard type of post common to one of our past blog commenters who shall remain nameless. Or when movie ads pick out a review quote that makes the movie sound good when in fact the reviewer panned it.
LOL. I’ll be sure to share.
Dan,
Re: “most talented anti-gun columnist.”
I am curious… if you and your daughter were in a situation where you were confronted by an armed person who knew from your writings you were “anti-gun”.
So, testing you, he laid down his gun and said he would, first, do (unspeakable things) to your daughter and kill her and then kill you (with or without unspeakable things), unless you picked up that gun and stopped him.
Would you:
A) Allow things to go forward hoping he might change his mind.
B) Suggest that he read your blog and know what a nice guy you are
C) Pray
D) Grab the gun and shoot the SOB
hey mike o,
i think ol’ dano would go with door letter “B”.
mikeo and Frank
Just for information purposes, idiocy was not a requirement for posting on Dan’s blog the last time I checked.
Mike o, that’s quite possibly one of the dumbest hypotheticals anyone’s ever asked on this blog.
That’s a hypothetical so ridiculous it shows absolutely nothing except what it says about you, mike o.
A disturbing amount of gunner ideation revolves around rape.
“Dan,
Re: “most talented anti-gun columnist.”
I am curious… if you and your daughter were in a situation where you were confronted by an armed person who knew from your writings you were “anti-gun”.
So, testing you, he laid down his gun and said he would, first, do (unspeakable things) to your daughter and kill her and then kill you (with or without unspeakable things), unless you picked up that gun and stopped him.
Would you:
A) Allow things to go forward hoping he might change his mind.
B) Suggest that he read your blog and know what a nice guy you are
C) Pray
D) Grab the gun and shoot the SOB”
–Comment by mikeO
mikeO,
I know we trade barbs about politics and other things here, but (if you’ll forgive me for not answering) imagining a violent crime involving my family is taking things a little too far.
One of the things that right here and now I’ll promise you and every other reader/poster is this: I will never stoop so low as to contemplate the rape (or potential rape, or murder) of any of your children.
That’s some pretty sick stuff.
And, btw, I accept your apology.
Comment by mike o — January 15, 2013 @ 6:22 pm
I would do (C) and (D) simultaneously, but that’s just me.
8.A disturbing amount of gunner ideation revolves around rape.
Comment by Kristen
So true, Kristen. You might recall that John Wilburn has said that one of the reasons he carries multiple guns is so he doesn’t have to worry about being raped. However, he’s never addressed if he’d feel emasculated without lots of guns, other than to sneer at “pantywaists”.
BTW, until JW’s use, I hadn’t heard that derogative used unironically in years, and I’ve always ONLY heard it from blustering macho wannabes of an older generation. I guess it still circulates among the demographic of aging gun fanatics where JW finds his role models. After all, how long’s it been since anyone heard it used for it’s original meaning, a child’s undergarment? Not in my lifetime.
Warren, then there was Frank and his ongoing fixation – based on nothing- of the forced sodomy of that dead Ambassador. Weird.
So, ya know that group the NRA? The group that blames violent video games yet chose the one month anniversary of the Newtown massacre to release a traing video for children to learn how to shoot people shaped coffin targets with guns including assault rifles?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-spits-graves-new-shoot-em-up-app-article-1.1240207
Yeah, That NRA.
You know, the same NRA that claims such political power yet got a miniscule .81% winning return on it’s national PAC expenditures in 2012:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/08/1166291/the-nra-got-its-clock-cleaned-on-election-day-and-planned-parenthood-cleaned-house/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/07/what-the-nras-all-in-failure-means-for-the-medi/191205
That’s right, THAT NRA. Well, this week in New York those poor little massacre weapon and gun profit defenders had another chance to show the awesome political power they claim to have:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/nyregion/tougher-gun-law-in-new-york.html?_r=0
If one didn’t know better, one might think that the deep connection between the NRA and the GOTP’s ODS patients is going to leave them both shackled to each other like gun trafficking felons bound for Attica.
President Oblamer, Gun and Ammo Salesman of the DECADE.
You can all thank him and his merry band of fear-mongering libtards for putting hundreds of thousands of more firearms in the publics hands over the last month. Congratulations. You actually cause that which you want to stop.
Hardly Obama’s fault if the gunners are stupid and easily scared.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the NRA, and other gun loving groups should be classified as terrorist organizations.
Ignoring the poor taste of mike o’s comments, I wonder why shooting the guy after taking his gun is necessary. And therein lies the problem…
Mikeo, your hypothetical was totally inappropriate.
Kristen:
“A disturbing amount of gunner ideation revolves around rape.”
A disturbing amount of rapes occur! I have yet to ever hear of an armed woman being raped.
Warren…. what can I say. You contribute absolutely nothing without insults and obsession with me. You have dedicated your whole blog identity, on this blog anyway, to doing so. It’s pathetic and apparently closer to the limits of your capabilities than I first believed. I would like to have thought you would have added something worthwhile to this thread, but no… same old crap aimed at me.
As much crap as you give me, you’re only validating my posting by spending so much effort refuting it. Thanks!
Wow! Look at Warrens sources! I bet I can guess his thought process…
1. Read far left liberal talking points
2. Recite far left liberal talking points
3. Act as if they are centrist talking points
4. Act enraged when questioned
5. Ask Dan to back him up
JW, where’s any insult in this thread?
Observation ain’t insult, shooter.
Are you sure I’m a pantywaist and not a knickerbocker?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knickerbockers_(clothing)
Chrysler just announced it is moving Jeep manufacturing back to China. But, I thought Oblamer was going to keep jobs in America? What about the bailout money? Didn’t that buy him any loyalty? I guess he doesn’t have time for jobs and economy since he is too busy stomping all over the Bill of Rights. Anyone else notice their paychecks in 2013? Let’s see, he has raised taxes, increased spending, and will push to increase debt while losing jobs to China and crapping on the Constitution. All of this before his second term even starts. Yep, YOU built this.
“Chrysler just announced it is moving Jeep manufacturing back to China. But, I thought Oblamer was going to keep jobs in America? What about the bailout money?”
-Comment by (o\ ! /o)
Bugdude (sigh) this is not news. This came out during the last week of the presidential campaign.
Congratulations to the state of New York for doing something constructive and passing meaningful gun control legislation. This was done by an overwhelming vote, even in the state’s Republican controlled Senate. It would be even more meaningful of other states, like Va., which are the source of much of the flood of weapons flowing into adjacent states would adopt the same rules. Or better yet,Congre4ss could finally do something useful and pass the same legislation. Now they need to continue to address mental he3alth issues and the culture of violence fostered by the video games and movies which reflect that culture.
(To the tune of “I’m Henry The Eighth I Am”)
I’m FDR the ninth I am,
FDR the ninth I am, I am,
I choose that to be my blog screen name,
To let everyone know, like him, I’m lame,
Since he who Roosevelt it dealt it,
I wish I was a Beck or LaPierre (quelle paire!)
But I’m an NRA internet Eleanor
FDR the ninth I am!
(o\ ! /o),
The first link below is an article that came out in mid-November 2012. It’s essence is that Chrysler is adding 1200+ jobs at 3 U.S. locations. The second link is to the announcement today that Chrysler & Fiat are going to open a plant in China to build one Jeep model & one Fiat model for the Chinese market. Total jobs created about 500.
I thought, from your prior comments, that you were a free market guy.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2012/11/15/chrysler-ram-michigan-us-jobs-bailout/1707661/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/01/15/jeep-guangzhou-china/1566380/
Mike o comment ls not appropriate. No one be subjected to such poor taste in conversation.
“A disturbing amount of rapes occur! I have yet to ever hear of an armed woman being raped.”
I’m conf
Supposed to say, confident there are many things you haven’t heard of. And the rape ideation remains creepy.
Bug is wrong, but that’s already been pointed out. And what’s with the “Oblamer” stupidity? Sometimes I forget to be super pleased Obama was reelected… And then someone like bug shows up. People like him make me even happier that Obama ate Romneys lunch.
mike o.
Looks like you been to the NRA website which is currently using the President’s children as pawns in their twisted logic of gun world. Suggesting a contrived situation that supposes sexual violence or unspeakable things to someone’s children speaks more to your twisted frame of mind than any point you might have awkwardly tried to make.
Neither you, or the NRA is doing a very good job of convincing middle america that you positions merit any serious consideration. In fact, you are doing more to help the cause of sane people seeking additional controls on firearms.
The method by which New York passed that new legislation is in violation of state law. I’m sure that will come up at some point.
The people of NY can breathe a collective sigh of relief…I’m sure the criminals are turning in their hi capacity magazines as we speak. They are so much safer now.
Congratulations to the state of New York for doing something constructive and passing meaningful gun control legislation. This was done by an overwhelming vote, even in the state’s Republican controlled Senate. It would be even more meaningful of other states, like Va., which are the source of much of the flood of weapons flowing into adjacent states would adopt the same rules. Or better yet,Congre4ss could finally do something useful and pass the same legislation. Now they need to continue to address mental he3alth issues and the culture of violence fostered by the video games and movies which reflect that culture.
Comment by wayne goodman — January 16, 2013 @ 1:07 am
Meaningful. . .LOL. Might want to read that law. Now; anyone in NY; anyone, who possesses a firearm is a class E felon. This, based on the wording of the law, would appear to include police officers, security personnel, Federal agents and officers. . .anyone. LOL. . .good luck enforcing that trash passed in haste. Political gain for the liberal agenda on the bodies of innocents slain by a lone nutcase. Epic FAIL.
Just for information purposes, idiocy was not a requirement for posting on Dan’s blog the last time I checked.
Comment by wayne goodman — January 15, 2013 @ 7:23 pm
Wayne. . .it’s OK for you to post!
Warren! You are a great rapper! You you sure you are not Eminem in real life?
* Are you sure*
Good golly, bug, catch up with the present. We destroyed that Repub talking point long, long ago.
John W, Warren was merely making truthful observations. I’m sorry to see that got your panties in such a wad.
The New York law is full of inconsistencies. For example, they define the “assault weapons” two different ways in two different places in the legislation.
Of course they only voted on it twenty minutes after it was presented and without waiting the three days required by law.
Leon:
“Now; anyone in NY; anyone, who possesses a firearm is a class E felon….good luck enforcing that trash passed in haste”
Exactly. Now, the ratio of criminal to lawful gun owners will change for the worse in TWO ways. One, from the lawful getting rid of guns and, two, for the lawful who have become felons for not submitting to the tyranny. Unfortunately, they will enforce it against every peaceful person they can just for the sake of enforcing it.
That seven round magazine BS is over the top. I think they just wanted to out do NJ – 15 and MA -10.
“Warren”:
“JW, where’s any insult in this thread?”
Okay, instead of my saying “You contribute absolutely nothing without insults and obsession with me.”, I should have said “You contribute absolutely nothing without insults and/or obsession with me.”
Whatever.
The New York law is full of inconsistencies. For example, they define the “assault weapons” two different ways in two different places in the legislation.
Of course they only voted on it twenty minutes after it was presented and without waiting the three days required by law.
Comment by Jack — January 16, 2013 @ 10:45 am
You mean like Sec 41.a – Sec 265.01-b which makes any possession of a firearm a felony? All inclusive; not inconsistent!
Dan,
Sorry you didn’t like the hypothetical.
No need to respond, I think most everyone would protect their own.
Mike O, your offensive “hypothetical” proves only what you are. It has no bearing on anyone protecting “their own”. I am sorry Dan allowed it and I am sorry any human being would respect it enough to answer. Why don’t you find a place people like you are welcomed.
I know mike o’s comment was pretty abrasive, but honestly, preparing to preotect your loved one BEFORE something bad happens was his point. No, that stuff isn’t pretty to think about, but for me and my family, we have more options should that awful scenario come to us.
We all make our choices as to how to prepare or if to prepare.
JW,
I would never fantasize about a loved one of mikeO’s being threatened with “unspeakable acts” or death. That’s pretty sick, IMHO.
I reckon that’s just one of the (many) differences between mikeO and me.
I wouldn’t fantasize about “unspeakable acts” either, but I darn sure want a point-and-click method of stopping them cold should they occur.
JW,
The last time I had to defend a member of my family from an external threat I used an Al Kaline 30 inch Louisville Slugger. Unfortunately, I broke it, but then the attacker also suffered two broken legs and spent several days in the hospital before going to jail. Nobody has bother me or my family since.
You may claim it was a freaking PSA if you like. It was a veiled threat that if Dan (or anyone else) is not a gun advocate armed for whatever violence can happen, he is a sitting duck for the cretins who are. That is not backed up by statistics or reality but it is always a good, cheap, low blow from those who are pro-gun. Never mind anything that might not have the cretin with a gun stalking a family that may or may not have one.
I don’t suppose it ever occurs to you people that not advertising whether you have a gun in the home means you cannot have one. Or that being against military styled weapons and huge magazines means you have no way to defend your family.
It was repulsive, unwarranted and crass.
Ron May:
“The last time I had to defend a member of my family from an external threat I used an Al Kaline 30 inch Louisville Slugger. Unfortunately, I broke it, but then the attacker also suffered two broken legs and spent several days in the hospital before going to jail. Nobody has bother me or my family since.”
I’m glad you were successful in stopping that threat. I choose not to limit myself to a bat. Why should I choose an upper limit of defensive tool that requires me to get that close to an intruder? Hope he doesn’t decide to come back as he certainly will come more prepared if he does.
John W.
I agree that circumstance and luck played a role in my success at defending my family member. I was 14 at the time and fortunately I’ve never had to resort to violence against another person since that time. I would have preferred not to have done it then.
I know for many it is difficult to understand, but I believe that violence begats violence.
I have no problem with you having firearms to defend yourself and your family. The challenge, it seems to me, is the penchant for our first response to be violence. We have to deal with that and we have to deal with mental health issues that lead many to use violence against others.
Ron May, I don’t want to hurt anyone. But my FIRST response is not violence. There are, hopefully, several steps before needing to shoot someone. The next to last step, is to draw. Hopefully, the criminal will turn and flee. After that, it’s him or me and he picked the wrong house.
Ron May,
I’m also happy that you’ve never had to resort to violence since then, too. I am also fortunate in that regard. Other than a little fight I got in with the next door neighbor when I was about nine, I have never had any type of physical altercation with anyone. I am very fortunate.
John Wilburn and other gun advocates, you do not just “choose not to limit myself to a bat”, which is fine, you and most of the other gun advocates openly mock, deride and attempt to browbeat all of us into agreeing that it should also be our choice. THAT is where the problem lies. What I or anyone else chooses is our choice and even if you think it is ridiculous, shut up with the implications that we are not safe, our families are not safe and that only having a gun can make us safe or that not having a gun makes us sitting ducks for the cretins society creates and arms. People with guns get hurt and killed too.
No one has said you should not have all the gun protection you feel you need as long as you follow the laws. The laws now and the laws to come. Get off the kick that it is your business to decide how others should protect their families and maybe they will return the favor.
No one is even attempting to “take your guns” that is pure BS from the propaganda machine that would rival the best of them, and yet another cudgel to pretend Obama just woke up and decided to take military assault rifle type weapons as an afterthought.
There is no group that argues as dishonestly and dirty as right wingers and gun advocates.
mike o’s comment wasn’t abrasive, it was sick.
Sandi Saunders:
“John Wilburn and other gun advocates, you do not just “choose not to limit myself to a bat”, which is fine, you and most of the other gun advocates openly mock, deride and attempt to browbeat all of us into agreeing that it should also be our choice.”
BS. I just said on this blog that if you anti-gun rights people would keep your nose on your own side of the fence and out of my holster, you’d be a lot happier. I’m not at all telling you what choice to make. You are free to make any choice you want and I think you should be free to do so. I will not opine on the wisdom of choosing to pretend it will never happen to you.
“THAT is where the problem lies.”
THAT lie is the problem.
There, fixed it for you.
I think in general speculating about the sexual assault of any bloggers or their family members – or hey, any ambassadors – is something the blog could do without. And that it only comes from the men is creepier than I could ever describe.
John Wilburn and other gun advocates, you do not just “choose not to limit myself to a bat”, which is fine, you and most of the other gun advocates openly mock, deride and attempt to browbeat all of us into agreeing that it should also be our choice.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 17, 2013 @ 9:43 am
Absolutely not. I do not believe that anyone should have or carry a gun if they do not want to or are not comfortable with it. If I have ever come across as berating you because of your choice not to, then I certainly apologize for that and it was unintentional.
However, it seems that the pot may be calling the kettle black here. You seem to believe that I should be limited in my choices as to what gun I choose to have or carry, or how I carry it based on your own feelings.
No one has said you should not have all the gun protection you feel you need as long as you follow the laws.
So I take it to mean that you (as part of “no one”) do not have a problem with the AR-15 Semi-Automatic Rifle that I have with the 30 rd magazines? They are legal, and I acquired them legally.
The laws now and the laws to come.
Laws that you obviously won’t support since you don’t think that we should not have all of the gun protection that we feel we need.
No one is even attempting to “take your guns” that is pure BS from the propaganda machine that would rival the best of them, and yet another cudgel to pretend Obama just woke up and decided to take military assault rifle type weapons as an afterthought.
Diane Feinstein fall in to that “no one” category? http://youtu.be/blXkl9YVoHo?t=7s
The laws now and the laws to come.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 17, 2013 @ 9:43 am
Sandi,
I meant to ask… do you think the NYPD should hand over all of their magazines and rifles to be destroyed? Keep these things in mind when you answer…
- It is now illegal in New York to have a magazine that holds more than seven rounds;
- There is no exemption in the law for law enforcement officers;
- There are no magazines in existence for the guns that NYPD officers carry that hold only seven rounds.
In order for the officers to not be felons, their magazines for their guns must be immediately destroyed. The AR-15 rifles that they are issued also are illegal.
So, do you think that law enforcement officers are above the law, or do you think that they should abide by laws that their legislators voted on and passed, even if they do not like it?
Jack, Sandi has said before that people caught with a gun that has had it’s serial number removed, should be improsoned for life with no possibility of parole.
Surely, in the name of being consistent and not hypocritical (Despite ignoring the whole David Geegory debacle), she won’t advocate for another class of citizens here.
53.John Wilburn and other gun advocates, you do not just “choose not to limit myself to a bat”, which is fine, you and most of the other gun advocates openly mock, deride and attempt to browbeat all of us into agreeing that it should also be our choice. THAT is where the problem lies.
Accurate comment by Sandi
One would say John Wilburn is lying, but with his demonstrated arrogant dismissiveness of calmly differing opinions, it’s possible he’s absorbed so much gun industry propaganda that he can’t see how he’s contradicting himself. When he says he’s only concerned with his own safety, beyond the utterly selfish lack of concern for others that shows, is the FACT that John Wilburn boasts about his active efforts to ensure that American mass murderers are the best equipped in the western world.
He can’t have it both ways, although he obviously wants it both ways. If he’s only concerned about himself, and not for those for whom firearm use isn’t a feasible tactic, he would only arm himself, follow the law, and not support allowing mass murderers their choice of firearm and ammo with the least hassle possible. But instead, he actively works to make that possible, by opposing massacre weapon limits and giving guns a literally easier path into public spaces. His real actions make his words hollow, like the hollow point bullet that he’d like available by internet without background check to any ready buyer.
Jack, what I think about the NY bill is that the legislature can now amend the bill to account for necessary exemptions.
Granted, the legislation passed quickly, and that meant the NRA’s overhyped political power was as impotent as an enraged middle aged white gun fanatic with obesity related ED and no gun. The bill will be fixed, but the NRA’s increasing impotence? Not so easily fixed with its’ current leadership.
Just to be sure, were you this worked up about a dozen years ago when the Va. GA passed tougher anti-stalking laws and didn’t exempt taxicab drivers? Or is your sniveling about the NY bill just because you don’t know other examples, and you need something that you can imagine matters?
Kristen, I agree with you about the creepiness of rape ideation among the male gun huggers, and I think you’ll understand that I sometimes use the term impotence in regard to the NRA because it seems apt, in fact hardly even metaphorical. But as a metaphor, middle aged obesity related ED describes the NRA radical leadership’s tenure (over 35 years since 1977), the bloat engendered by gun industry financial support, and the softening of political power, proven by the miniscule .81% winning return on its’ national PAC spending in the 2012 elections.
That the middle aged men who comprise the more fanatic element of the NRA’s base are particularly sensitive to impotence references is just a coincidence, perhaps.
Dear readers of 60-62. I encourage you to think for yourselves rather than have a cowardly anonymous blog entity stalker with a proven obsession with me tell you about anyone else’s credibility. Make up your own minds.
Poster 60, I absolutely don’t give a defecation what you think about anything, sphincter orifice.
Jack, what I think about the NY bill is that the legislature can now amend the bill to account for necessary exemptions.
Comment by Warren — January 17, 2013 @ 4:28 pm
So are you suggesting that it is okay to commit a felony right now if you’re pretty sure (even 100% certain) that at some point in the future what you are doing will become legal?
Thanks for clarifying.
“Warren”:
“the NRA radical leadership’s tenure (over 35 years since 1977)”
After the “sportsmen” and moderates of the organization were playing along in watching our rights get flushed down the toilet, it was time for better leadership. The NRA’s lack of opposition to the gun control act of 1968 shows that clearly. We see those same hunters who think their rights are guaranteed forever. They very much benefit from the work the rest of us are willing to do. We’d be much better off if they got with the program too.
Okay, to clarify for you Jack, of course I don’t think anticipation of a a law change allows one to break existing law, but I know that for the short time until the NY bill is amended there will be prosecutorial discretion used to allow police use. That’s not unheard of, and not unjustified.
So I’ve answered your question, but you didn’t answer my questions: were you this worked up about a dozen years ago when the Va. GA passed tougher anti-stalking laws and didn’t exempt taxicab drivers? Or is your sniveling about the NY bill just because you don’t know other examples, and you need something that you can imagine matters?
Ron May:
“The last time I had to defend a member of my family from an external threat I used an Al Kaline 30 inch Louisville Slugger. Unfortunately, I broke it, but then the attacker also suffered two broken legs and spent several days in the hospital before going to jail. Nobody has bother me or my family since.”
I’m glad you were successful in stopping that threat. I choose not to limit myself to a bat. Why should I choose an upper limit of defensive tool that requires me to get that close to an intruder? Hope he doesn’t decide to come back as he certainly will come more prepared if he does.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 16, 2013 @ 6:16 pm
Sandi Saunders:
“John Wilburn and other gun advocates, you do not just “choose not to limit myself to a bat”, which is fine, you and most of the other gun advocates openly mock, deride and attempt to browbeat all of us into agreeing that it should also be our choice.”
BS. I just said on this blog that if you anti-gun rights people would keep your nose on your own side of the fence and out of my holster, you’d be a lot happier. I’m not at all telling you what choice to make. You are free to make any choice you want and I think you should be free to do so. I will not opine on the wisdom of choosing to pretend it will never happen to you.
“THAT is where the problem lies.”
THAT lie is the problem.
There, fixed it for you.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 17, 2013 @ 11:02 am
JW, the problem, as I see it, lies with the disconnect between what your words say to posters like me and Ron and Sandi, and what you represent as the real meaning of your words. You would like us to believe you support our choices to choose a lifestyle without guns as a tool of protection, but your words say otherwise.
When you say to Ron that you hope the intruder doesn’t return because he will most assuredly return “more prepared,” you are diminishing Ron’s decision as inadequate.
When you say to Sandi that she is free to make whatever decision she chooses and then, in the next sentence, smugly announce that you will not opine on the wisdom of her choice, you reveal your disdain for Sandi.
When you post “It is not morally superior to be willfully unprepared,” it is crystal clear that you think your decision to arm yourself is morally superior.
You essentially supported mikeo’s use of an inappropriate hypothetical referencing Dan’s family by clarifying his point and
touting your own readiness to combat such a hypothetical threat.
So, don’t be surprised, John, when folks push back against such posts. Understand that many of us have used reason and logic and common sense, just as you have, to come to an entirely different conclusion, and that conclusion is every bit the moral equivalent of yours.
I love you Jason Perdue!!
Jason, John W. & others,
The incident I spoke of in my earlier post occurred when I was 14. That was more than 50 years ago. I was reared in a non-violent home and taught to live a non-violent life. The person I broke Al Kaline Louisville Slugger on died many years ago. However, I still feel sad and somewhat ill when I think about what I did to another human being way back then.
My family has guns and has had for generations. We’ve never felt the need to have automatic firearms, assult weapons nor gun clips with 30 rounds in them. Even the NRA estimates it takes one second to change a gun clip.
Thus, just to make it perfectly clear where I stand, I agree with a ban of civilian ownership and use of assault weapons. I agree that gun clips should be limited to no more than 10 rounds. I agree with a very robust national database of gun ownership and closing any gun show loopholes in the sale of firearms. Those who have such weapons and gun clips need to register that ownership. None of that, in my thinking, violates anyone’s right to own firearms. All of that is part of the “well regulated” wording of the 2nd Amendment. I also believe we should take every step possible to keep firearms from felons & those who mentally unstable.
I realize that many on this blog disagree with me on this. That’s fine. Just as you are entitled to have your views on the matter. So am I.
I don’t have an Al Kaline Louisville Slugger anymore. I do have a 32 inch aluminum replacement that will do the job just as well and won’t break. I also have a keen sense of when I’m in danger and how to get out of that danger.
Ron May..Shame you don`t have the same `keen sense` to keep from saying something silly. Pardon me if I say so myself, but you`ll look pretty silly trying to swat at 9mm bullets with a 32″ alum bat. I forsee a strike out.
Thus, just to make it perfectly clear where I stand, I agree with a ban of civilian ownership and use of assault weapons. I agree that gun clips should be limited to no more than 10 rounds. I agree with a very robust national database of gun ownership and closing any gun show loopholes in the sale of firearms. Those who have such weapons and gun clips need to register that ownership. None of that, in my thinking, violates anyone’s right to own firearms. All of that is part of the “well regulated” wording of the 2nd Amendment. I also believe we should take every step possible to keep firearms from felons & those who mentally unstable.
Comment by Ron May — January 18, 2013 @ 12:59 pm
Ron, I agree, especially regarding the initiatives to register guns and magazines. I believe the ability to effectively trace guns used in violent crimes will eventually provide real, objective evidence on which to base a coherent and fair strategy to reduce deaths via gun.
BTW, while I do believe violent felons should forfeit their firearms rights permanently, I see no reason for certain felons convicted of a well-defined class of non-violent crimes to automatically have their civil disabilities restored upon successful completion of any terms of incarceration and community supervision.
Ron, Al Kaline sure could play. I think Johnny Bench was the name on my Louisville Slugger. He could play, too. I definitely miss those times when a baseball fan knew with reasonable certainty who was going to be on their beloved teams from year to year …
Sorry, Ron, I meant to say:
BTW, while I do believe violent felons should forfeit their firearms rights permanently, I see no reason why certain felons convicted of a well-defined class of non-violent crimes cannot automatically have their civil disabilities restored upon successful completion of any terms of incarceration and community supervision.
#67 Jason, I’m sometimes bot sure whether John W doesn’t recognize the self-satisfied smugness his posts sometimes radiate or he does recognize it and is doing it on purpose. But man did you hit the nail on the head.
Ron, I agree, especially regarding the initiatives to register guns and magazines.
Comment by Jason Perdue — January 19, 2013 @ 10:45 am
Okay, I’ll play along for a moment. How would you propose that magazines be registered? Keep in mind that they are not serialized.
Comment by Applewood — January 19, 2013 @ 10:17 am
To quote Shakespeare:
“The lady doth protest too much. Methinks.”
Applewood, I doubt if ol Ron even knows how to hold a 32″ bat, much less defend himself with it.
Jason Perdue:
“When you say to Ron that you hope the intruder doesn’t return because he will most assuredly return “more prepared,” you are diminishing Ron’s decision as inadequate.”
I have already said that I support everyone’s right to make their own choices, but I’m not going to pretend that I think his choice is adequate. I think it isn’t. But it’s his to make.
“When you say to Sandi that she is free to make whatever decision she chooses and then, in the next sentence, smugly announce that you will not opine on the wisdom of her choice, you reveal your disdain for Sandi.”
Sandi gets the civility she gives.
“So, don’t be surprised, John, when folks push back against such posts.”
I don’t care. You might not like hearing that I choose to maintain a defense that you are not willing to, but I think it bothers you because of the reality of your inability to deal with one of those awful things with the same resourse that I can. And you choose to not have it. If you did not have the choice and it was taken away from you, the conversationwould be different.
“Understand that many of us have used reason and logic and common sense, just as you have, to come to an entirely different conclusion, and that conclusion is every bit the moral equivalent of yours.”
A little less reason, logic, and common sense and a more emotion. The same ingredients just in different proportions, IMO.
Jason Perdue:
“When you post “It is not morally superior to be willfully unprepared,” it is crystal clear that you think your decision to arm yourself is morally superior.”
No sir. You didn’t even read what you’re complaining about. There are a lot of people who think they are somehow holier than thou and closer to God because they choose not to carry. I claimed no moral superiority, but insist there is none for them to claim either.
Congratulations on getting Sandi’s juices flowing over post 67, though. OMG.
Okay, I’ll play along for a moment. How would you propose that magazines be registered? Keep in mind that they are not serialized.
Comment by Jack — January 19, 2013 @ 11:24 am
It is a fair question, Jack. I favor capping magazine capacity at 10 rounds. As you note, magazines are not serialized, so registration of them would be difficult.
No sir. You didn’t even read what you’re complaining about. There are a lot of people who think they are somehow holier than thou and closer to God because they choose not to carry. I claimed no moral superiority, but insist there is none for them to claim either.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 19, 2013 @ 4:33 pm
John, you are profoundly passionate about firearms and the laws surrounding them, and it angers you that some people would try to limit access to firearms. I feel differently, but it is an honest disagreement. I stand by what I said. And you are accurate, emotion does inform any decision I make, as it does everyone.