Ophus raps Casey over gun-permit column
h/t to Steve C
Your daily Letter to the Editor — Jan. 27, 2013
Re: Dan Casey’s column on nonresident concealed carry gun permits (“Legislative panel shoots down delegate’s handgun bill,” Jan. 20):
Casey’s article leads one to think all a nonresident has to do is take an online weapons class and send in his money, and the state police will ship a permit to him.
Well, as usual, that is not the whole story.
A nonresident has to send for a nonresident concealed handgun application package from the Virginia State Police (tinyurl.com/ajbfput). The package contains instructions and a list of required material to be sent back, including:
A fingerprint card. The applicant’s fingerprints have to be taken by a law enforcement agency in his state.
Proof of ID issued by a government agency.
Proof an applicant has taken a weapons safety class.
The application has to be made under oath before a notary or other person qualified to take oaths.
Since Casey did not mention how many crimes have been committed by resident or nonresident concealed carry permit holders, I can only conclude those numbers would not have helped his article.
Ophus A. Hutcherson III
GLADE HILL
January 27, 2013 - 1:30 PM
Good post, Mr. Hutcherson.
Dan writes to please his base, which is rife with low-information folks. Consequently, they swallow dan’s “biased-as-hell” journalism…hook, line, and sinker.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
How many of those shot & killed (see graphic) occurred in cities with already strict gun control laws on the books (Chicago, NYC, etc.)?
Oh wait… that wouldn’t help “the cause” now would it?
So Frank, I’m one of those “low-information” folks, please tell me how many hours of in class instruction and/or instruction from a professional at a firing range are required for a out of state concealed carry permit.
Interesting:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-homicides-and-injuries-down-as-firearm-sales-soar/article_f573c648-2e22-5534-a2a8-56fa0fef0fdb.html
Even MORE interesting:
http://seachants.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/2011-fbi-gun-violence-vs-2012-voting-pattern/
Howdy Scott.
I have no idea. I am not a gun owner, nor do I have a concealed carry permit.
However, I do know that ol’ dano, according to his own description of himself as a journalist, is “biased as hell”. Consequently, I make the assumption that ol’ dano provides information in his, ah, “stories”, which support his already preconceived notion of what he wants to write about.
Therefore, while I didn’t personally question anything in dan’s gun-permit “story”, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Mr. Hutcherson’s rebuttal.
And, folks who swallow ol’ dano’s “biased as hell” writings…hook, line, and sinker…are exactly the folks I refer to as “low-information” folks.
Hey, I have a great idea (for Dan)! Hey Dan, why don’t you look up all of the gun-crimes committed by folks who have concealed carry permits, and publish the results?
And Scott, why is it such a good idea to impose stricter gun laws on law-abiding folks?
Frank, like most in the world today cannot seem to accept the fact of when the majority opinion is what is the populist opinion, quite often that is what rules, as well it should….What on God’s green Earth does he mean….”Low information people”….sound sto me that is just short of calling us stupid….Certainly stand to be correct and apologize if that is way off base.
Excuse me…..If Dan was not writing as he see fit and if it is pleasing any “base” then for me that indicates he’s doing a hell’ava job….Would anyone write to please someone elses base. I write my opinions as to what I feel is felt by a large base, other wise I would not waste my time.
Fellow bloggers,
Weigh in on who should be held accountable for this 13 year old’s death.
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/police-boy-13-shot-and-killed-12yearold-girl-chesapeake
Ron, nobody is to blame, and I hope you won’t suggest a gun had anything to do with this.
Stuff happens!
Yes, Ron. We do not care about “accidents”. In fact, we don’t mention them.
As long as car accidents occur, one must never mention gun accidents.
I’m sorry. I made a mistake. It was a 12 year old who was killed. The shooter was the 13 year old.
The last line of Ron May’s link is interesting…
“I’m not questioning God, but this didn’t have to happen,” Lisa Walker said. “It all boils down to this child knows better.”
Had she thought long enough, she would have logically blamed the gun! Per the article, it was an accident. I shot handguns when I was 13 and never handled a gun foolishly like that. Teaching young people gun safety when they are young pays big dividends.
Mr. Howard,
I agree in large part with what you say. I also don’t believe, “hook, line, and sinker” that what any opinion writers have to say is correct.
Dan IS writing as he sees fit. To that end, I give him credit.
To those who swallow what he writes as somehow being the truth, I say ptui.
Hey Ron and May,
Here we go again.
You libs are just heck-bent on ignoring any facts which don’t comport to your lib agenda.
Please note: the dead 12 year old’s mother wants the person who did this held accountable. According to Lisa Walker, the dead girl’s mother, “it all boils down to this child knows better.”
The gun didn’t kill that little girl.
Howdy Ron and May,
above, …I meant Ron and “Dan”….sorry to “May”.
Give it up, Frank. It was an accident. No one is to blame! No thing is to blame!
No, the gun didn’t kill anyone. It could as easily have been a candlestick. Or piece of bacon. Or Spam.
I believe Dan is a columnist and not a reporter. So he is allowed to be biased.
Frank, what strict gun laws are you talking about? I’m not sure what gun laws Obama is proposing that would affect law abiding citizens. It seems to me his proposals, other than those banning the sale of assault rifles, are geared to effectively weed out those who are not law abiding citizens. If you are a law abiding citizen then you would not be impacted. I want this and all law abiding citizens should want this, including gun advocates.
Frank, as incredible as it may seem to you, I have never been swayed by anything Dan writes and certainly don’t follow him like a lemming to the sea as say most RWers do Limabugh, Hannity and Fox News. I like his perspective but read him more for entertainment and some good coverage of local events that otherwise would not be reported. Most of the folks here,including you and me, pretty much have our minds made up well before we read Dan.
I’m not sure what gun laws Obama is proposing that would affect law abiding citizens. It seems to me his proposals, other than those banning the sale of assault rifles, are geared to effectively weed out those who are not law abiding citizens. If you are a law abiding citizen then you would not be impacted. I want this and all law abiding citizens should want this, including gun advocates.
Comment by scott whitaker — January 27, 2013 @ 8:20 pm
I own one of the imaginary made-up assault rifles. I am also a law-abiding citizen. If you could please point out the part of the proposed legislation (assuming you mean Feinstein’s) that indicates that I do not need to register my firearm, pay a $200 tax stamp, submit to fingerprints and a photograph and an additional background check and ask nicely for the chief of police to give me permission to keep the gun I already own, I would appreciate it.
I must have missed that part where none of that impacted law-abiding citizens.
I’ll wait while you find it… and my apologies for misinterpreting the legislation.
Re: scott whitaker @ 8:20 pm
If you owned a black car and they passed a law that you could not sell a black car (or one that had been black when you legally bought it), would banning the sale of black cars seem reasonable, to you?
How would such a law be geared to effectively weed out those who are not law abiding citizens?
Dan,
Found a Thomas Jefferson writing you will love:
“every American who wishes to protect his farm from the ravages of quadrupeds and his country from those of biped invaders” should be a
“gun-man”. I am a great friend to the manly and healthy exercises of the gun.” (from Jon Meacham’s Thomas Jefferson – The Art of Power)
Thank you Mr. Hutcherson for a most excellent rebuttal.
Feinstein’s bill has no chance and Jack knows it. Hell, Feinstein knows it. She’s making a statement, which is the same thing Bob Goodlatte does with his silly balanced budget amendment.
Still, I’d be interested in hearing Jack’s views on the constitutionality of Feinstein’s proposal.
I do not need to register my firearm, pay a $200 tax stamp, submit to fingerprints and a photograph and an additional background check and ask nicely for the chief of police to give me permission to keep the gun I already own, I would appreciate it.”
So…what’s the problem with any of this? I’m sure you’d pass with flying colors as a law abiding citizen.
Ron, re: 6:09
From the article, it looks to me like the “gun went off” on it’s own…
We see this happening all the time, these days; guns going off “on their own”… SUV’s “running over people”… Must be a serious malfunction in the equipment we produce in the USA…
Surely can’t be the person responsible for their actions…
Interesting that multiple people now say the person had the gun for days, and nobody said a thing (even at school where he was playing with it).
Do we know if the kid was a gang member? Was the gun stolen? I assume he had no “license to carry”.
Kristen, btw… what ever happened to your mantra that “people die everyday”???
mikeO, which part of the 2nd Amendment says kids do not have the right to bear arms?
Mike o, my “mantra”? I’m sorry…do they not indeed die every day?
Perhaps my next “mantra” should reference the sun rising in the east.
I have a serious question for you gun lovers. Are you perfectly fine with letting ANYONE legally purchase a firearm without a background check, such as those that have been diagnosed with a mental illness or have a violent history? If so it would seem as though you condone mass killings which I’m sure isn’t true. But if you are more concerned about how further background checks would inconvenience you than how those background checks would keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them then it seems as though you are.
I mean I don’t drink and drive but I’m more than happy to stop at a sobriety check point if it keeps one drunk from killing someone, even if it is a inconvenience to me.
Kristen, re: 8:39
Do you think you should have to have a government registered IP address and be limited to your computer access by a background check and photo ID, just in case you might be a subversive? (think McCarthyism)?
What need is there for the first amendment? “I’m sure you’d pass with flying colors as a law abiding citizen.”
Don’t strain youself, mikeO! Just quote Kristen the section of the 1st Amendment that has the words “well-regulated.” She’s bright. She’ll see the light of day.
Now, would you please answer my question about the 2nd Amendment? Which part of it denies children the right to bear arms? Or do you have some inside track on what the forefathers meant when they wrote it?
Dave Hicks, the color of guns is not the issue here and you know it.
If you owned a black car and they passed a law that you could not sell a black car (or one that had been black when you legally bought it), would banning the sale of black cars seem reasonable, to you?
How would such a law be geared to effectively weed out those who are not law abiding citizens?
Comment by Dave Hicks — January 27, 2013 @ 8:38 pm
Dave, if I owned a black car and a law was passed to outlaw the sale of black cars, I would drive the black car until it was no longer useful. Since all cars are registered, it would be reasonable simple to know when someone illegally sold a black car. Registration of those black cars makes a lot of sense.
Dave, are you suggesting that guns should be registered to help weed out those who use guns illegally?
Scott Whitaker,
We don’t yet know what the additional laws will be. And, I sincerely believe that any additional laws will affect honest, law-abiding citizens. Additional laws will not stop crazy people, or criminals, from perpetrating murder…mass or otherwise.
All the obama is doing is getting his lib-minions all whipped up into a spiral dance to nowhere…howling at the moon…and so forth.
…all for votes from low-information voters.
Ahh, Dan,
Another ill informed rebuttal to something that was never said…
Actually I believe there are plenty of current laws that should have kept this youth from the ills of his ways… do you believe more laws would have made a difference? I suppose you believe that this person would have been deterred by more stringent laws against him having a weapon…
Hey, sometimes I believe your comments are an attempt to surpass our protections under the second amendment… are you trying to subvert our constitutional government… ?
What should be done???
Scott Whitaker at 8:30 pm.
Well said. I’m with you.
Re: Dan Casey @ 9:20 pm
Why, Dan, surely you remember that the last “assault” weapon prohibition was based on appearance not functionality.
Black cars also appear different.
Same, same.
Mike O, unless you have very limited experience with the Internet, there are MANY (read, most) sites that require a login email and password before being allowed to post. It doesn’t bother me in the least. Would that gun owners were as sanguine.
On the other hand, I can stand on my corner and proclaim my manifest at will as I wish. And my first amendment rights are so intact.
Dan Casey comment at 9:18 p.m. +1
Re: Jason Perdue @ 9:23 pm
First, all cars are not registered. There are some fine privately owned collections that never set tire on a public road. Some high performance vehicles will be running on 2/24 at Dayton that are not registered.
Second, you would trash a beautifully restored Ford Model “T” because you couldn’t leave it to your son in your will or sell it?
scott whitaker:
“I’m not sure what gun laws Obama is proposing that would affect law abiding citizens.”
Despite having a clean background and passing numberous background checks for other purposes, I choose to buy from individuals and choose to not participate in the current background check system because it is a registry of people and their guns. I’ll have no part of it. The registration proposal (“universal background checks”), would force people like me to become registered.
mike o:
“…Do you think you should have to have a government registered IP address and be limited to your computer access by a background check and photo ID, just in case you might be a subversive?… What need is there for the first amendment? “I’m sure you’d pass with flying colors as a law abiding citizen.””
+1
“First, all cars are not registered. There are some fine privately owned collections that never set tire on a public road. Some high performance vehicles will be running on 2/24 at Dayton that are not registered.”
I have more than one unregistered vehicle.
“Second, you would trash a beautifully restored Ford Model “T” because you couldn’t leave it to your son in your will or sell it?”
Don’t give New York any ideas!
Dan, you don’t see gun lovers wanting to talk a whole lot about that whole “well regulated” thing.
“Some high performance vehicles will be running on 2/24 at Dayton that are not registered. ”
That was just silly, Dave H. Give up on that one.
Ah yes, the predictable retreat of overzealous gun rights advocates to car analogies, IP address analogies (at least this is new, though anemic), and incomprehensible Thomas Jefferso quotes.
I ventured over to the RT Outdoor blog and looked in on a spirited gun discussion. The sportsmen in this area seem far more supportive of some of the proposed restrictions on guns than do the concealed carry crowd. I apologize to those sportsmen who find reason in further restricting guns and magazines not needed for hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. I have wrongfully painted these folks with the broad brush of gun owners paranoid about having their guns confiscated. In the future, I will make the distinction by identifying those fearful of having their guns confiscated as the overzealous gun rights advocates.
I’m starting to think some of these gun lovers are actually ok with people with mental illnesses or a violent history buying guns with out background checks. Are you people serious think of the lives that could be taken away for once and not of yourselves or the inconvenience it will cause you. Remember the f-ing world doesn’t revolve around you and your damn guns. I’m not for taking away you precious guns but at least make it as difficult as possible for those that may have bad intentions from purchasing guns. Why can’t you people at least agree with that, are you heartless or something. If so god help you because you must be miserable.
Comment by Dave Hicks — January 27, 2013 @ 9:39 pm
Oh, forgive me Dave. I thought you were talking about black cars. I must have totally missed the point of your reference to black cars smack-dab in the middle of a gun discussion. Sometimes I fall behind when you change gears in mid-discussion. In the future, I will try to better distinguish between useless car analogies in a gun discussion and discussions of classic, high-performance, and antique cars.
How about this gun nut carried an AR-15 into a Kroger today just because he could, and people say things don’t need to change. SMDH
And the guy that carried the AR-15 into the Kroger it happend in Charlottesville.
Re: Jason Perdue @ 10:03 pm
Don’t like car analogies?
OK. How about knives? After all I have seen data that suggest that the number of folk killed in this country with knives is about 2:1 higher than with all style rifles.
And the guy that carried the AR-15 into the Kroger it happend in Charlottesville.
http://mobi.dailyprogress.com/progress/pm_5199/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=TCTHo6hB
Just clicking on this link makes me feel dirty. It was a weak moment. I hate giving this liberal rag a hit count, which is what it’s all about folks. Dan has his followers and the folks he agitates, it’s win-win for him and the dying newspaper business. Stop reading and posting. Back to my regularly scheduled programming.
Dave Hicks, I don’t care for irrelevant analogies of any kind. We are not talking about black cars or knives or all types of rifles. We are talking about a specific kind of rifle that seems to be the weapon of choice in some large-scale killings.
I get that you are passionately opposed to any restrictions on your right to legally purchase/possess/use firearms. I really do. However, I passionately disagree with you and your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I have often admired and learned from your posts, especially regarding our justice system, but I don’t think you add anything to the discussion at hand with analogies to cars and knives.
Jason Perdue:
“I have wrongfully painted these folks [hunters who aren't concerned with their rights] with the broad brush of gun owners paranoid about having their guns confiscated.”
Oh yes, I see those guys everyday. They don’t get it. BUT, when their 12 gauge buckshot is hard to find or priced through the ceiling, their .308 ammo is unobtainium, their beloved Remington 870s and 700s become prohibited or they are no longer allowed to have black stocks and must choose walnut becuase it looks less scary, they will begin to scratch their heads.
Dave Hicks is right. No second amendment hater can explain why one shotgun is legal, but the same shotgun with a added pistol grip is illegal under Feinstein’s bill. It just goes to show that this proposed legislation is a useless waste of time. If you libs think gun control works, why don’t you just move to Chicago. I hear its really making a difference up there. But just heard the state’s credit rating was lowered and now they rank dead last in the nation. Unchecked liberalism is a scary thing.
“And the guy that carried the AR-15 into the Kroger it happend in Charlottesville.”
http://mobi.dailyprogress.com/progress/pm_5199/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=TCTHo6hB
Now that’s just plain stupidity. Gun lovers, if you do this, expect someone to call the cops on your ass. And to get barred from businesses.
Ah, BCBC, more sock puppet theater.
They could always spray paint their assault weapons pink.
I’m amused by all the uniformed libs on here that don’t understand what Dave Hicks is talking about. Also would one of you please tell Sen. Feinstein that spray fire is a term meant for fully automatic firearms, not semi-automatic. It’s embarrassing every time she says that. And she’s who you libs consider educated on the subject of guns. What a joke.
The Chicago argument is just plain stupid, most of the guns used in killings in Chicago are purchased in states like Indiana, or Virginia where literally ANYONE can purchase a gun at gun shows. So if it shows anything it just proves us liberals point that tighter control is needed nationwide. Not just on a state to state basis.
JW, if you are going to quote me, please limit what is in quotes to what I actually posted. Some of the comments made by the sportsmen on that blog seemed well-reasoned, logical, and unemotional. It was refreshing.
No one answered my question.
Every adult should have a gun and a concealed carry permit and I am sure you are going to see more and more folks getting both. If you won’t protect your family and friends, you are worse than an infidel. The liberals and gays have no backbone and are giving this country away to Hollywood and all of the immoral folks that want to control us. Make sure to get your gun and teach your spouse how to use it as well. So glad the guy in Georgia a couple of weeks ago taught his wife how to use one, it saved some lives.
Re: Dan Casey @ 10:46 pm
Are you just having fun by pretending to be dense?
Actually are dense?
Have some other explanation of why you don’t understand the last law of prohibition of so-called assault-weapons was based primarily on appearance?
Do you understand that the current bill defines the so-called assault-weapons based primarily on appearance?
Jason Perdue, there is a reason that the NRA has over 4 million members, VCDL has over 5,000, and that sham organization, the American Hunters and Shooters Association had only 150. A lot of hunters don’t get it. The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association
I bracketed the group you were referring to as to set it apart from your quote, BTW.
Dan, it’s not an “assault weapon”, but you can certainly get a pink AR-15:
http://tinyurl.com/arhzh8a
So gun nuts do you agree that the guy in Charlottesville should be able to carry an AR-15 into a Kroger, should this be legal or do we need some reform on gun laws? Let me hear your answers.
Dave Hicks – you realize you’re talking to someone who stated above that a balanced budget amendment is silly. It’s silly to pay our bills when we can just pass them off to our kids. Kids of America to libs: “forget the guns you dummies, you’re crushing all of us to death with your spending.”
John Wilburn,
There is a reason that 99 percent of the USA does not belong to the NRA. It’s because the vast majority of this country correctly see the organization as extremists who are carrying water for the firearms manufacturing industry.
Eddie,
A balanced budget amendment to the constitution is worse than silly, Eddie. Bob Goodlatte knows it’s never gonna happen.
You realize we could never have entered WW2 with a balanced budget amendment, right? You realize the federal government would have been unable to do any disaster relief after Katrina, and after 9/11, had there been a balanced budget amendment in place, right? It is a stunt by Goodlatte that’s useful insofar only as he is able to fool stupid constituents into believing there’s an easy solution and that he’s doing something about it. What a laugh. He’s no doing anything about it and he knows that. I don’t believe he even wants such an amendment, because he’s not dumb and he understands the bad consequences it will have. But he offers it anyway because he knows it’ll never happen/.
You’re right hokie hater. It’s the second amendment supporters in Virginia’s fault gun crime is so high in Chicago, not the culture. Big city America: where libs rule and so does gun crime. Glad I live in a Conservative values dominated area. used to be a red state, now just a region even though I feel like I’m in San Fran when I’m reading the liberal junk on this blog.
Show me where this kid took and passed a background check to get this weapon? Show me how ANY law regarding background checks, more checks, deeper checks, etc. would have kept this kid from getting this weapon. They wouldn’t have. Show me how an AWB would have changed this situation. Show me how having a 7 round or 10 round mag limit would have changed this event. You can’t.
If the Federal Government REALLY wants to do something that might actually make a difference in preventing people stealing legally owned weapons, then why don’t they offer a tax credit for purchasing a gun safe? They range from small 1 to 3 pistol safes to large multi rifle and handgun safes.
Comment by Dan Casey at 12:10 a.m.
Exactly!
Dan, your liberal mind doesn’t allow you to understand that you balance your budget and you have an emergency fund for emergencies. That’s how I live my life and that’s why my children will receive an inheritance rather than my debts. Although they will have to sale the farm since they probably can’t afford the death tax.
“It is a stunt by Goodlatte that’s useful insofar only as he is able to fool stupid constituents…But he offers it anyway because he knows it’ll never happen.”
Sounds like something he’s had practice doing, Dan; perhaps by term limiting himself.
Seriously whether its guns or the economy, on a state by state basis, conservatism works and liberalism fails.
Dan:
“There is a reason that 99 percent of the USA does not belong to the NRA.”
There is a reason that 99.99271+% of black Americans do not belong to the NAACP.
There is a reason that 99.99685% of women do not belong to the National Organization for Women.
There is a reason that 99.99841% of the USA does not belong to the ACLU.
Tell us the reason for those too, please.
hokie hater:
“So gun nuts do you agree that the guy in Charlottesville should be able to carry an AR-15 into a Kroger, should this be legal or do we need some reform on gun laws? Let me hear your answers.”
Notwithstanding that there was not enough info in the story to know exactly what happened, like was he carrying with a sling or in his hands, or why he re-entered, etc:
1. What did the guy do wrong?
2. If he was going to do something wrong, what law would have prevented it?
3. Criminals don’t open carry. Would you feel better if he had carried it under a long coat?
Let me hear your answers.
63.Every adult should have a gun and a concealed carry permit and I am sure you are going to see more and more folks getting both. If you won’t protect your family and friends, you are worse than an infidel. The liberals and gays have no backbone and are giving this country away to Hollywood and all of the immoral folks that want to control us. Make sure to get your gun and teach your spouse how to use it as well. So glad the guy in Georgia a couple of weeks ago taught his wife how to use one, it saved some lives.
Comment by Kendra — January 27, 2013 @ 11:15 pm
Dan. Are3 you sure this isn’t just pammala posting using capital letters and somewhat complete sentences.?
62.No one answered my question.
Comment by md — January 27, 2013 @ 11:14 pm
That was a question? Sounded just like another rhetorical right wing pro=gun comment to me.
Wow, now Bugman wants taxpayer subsidies for firearm owners!
Tell you what, Bugman — let’s charge them a $200 stamp for each firearm,and then rebate half of that back to them if/when they buy a safe!
Eddie’s conservative mind doesn’t understand that you don’t finance wars with other nations off Christmas Club accounts.
But since we’re on the subject Eddie, let me ask you a few more questions.
I remember a time, a little more than a dozen years ago, when this federal budget entered projected surplus territory. They were talking $1 trillion or so. From your conservative perspective, that would have been a real opportune time, I imagine, to squirrel that money away in a War Club account, right? Or, at the least, pay down some of the accumulated federal debt, huh?
What did the conservatives who held the White House and had majorities in both chambers of Congress do when presented with this opportunity?
Guess what! They did not pay down the national debt. They did not open a War Club account at the local Savings & Loan. They didn’t do ANYTHING else sensible with that projected surplus, either.
Nope! They stood around with their thumbs up their butts and they cried, “Why, a SURPLUS? We CAN’T HAVE THAT!!!!!” And they said, “LET’S GIVE THE SURPLUS BACK TO THE PEOPLE! IT’S IMMORAL FOR US TO KEEP IT!” So they enacted a bunch of tax cuts to make sure there was no projected surplus that they could have saved up for a war. Next those conservative passed an unfunded Medicare drug benefit in the scurviest way possible, with conservative Rep. Tom DeLay making political threats to other conservatives about their futures if they didn’t vote for the bill. And THEN they led us into two wars, one of which was completely unnecessary (and they lied us into that one). We didn’t have the money to pay for either.
That’s what conservatives do, Eddie. And then they forget they pulled that stuff real quick. Just like you did. You people crack me up.
John what did he do wrong? Are you serious he scared the living sh*t out of everyone in the store, I’m not saying anything would have prevented him from doing it, but how about making it illegal to carry a gun into a store. Then others might think twice about doing it, also what if one of you “law abiding” gun owners would have been in the store and felt threatened and open fire. He could have been killed while in your opinion doing nothing wrong, and ended up in a gun fight killing dozens of innocent men women and children in the cross fire. Once again you gun lovers prove that as long as it doesn’t happen to you then who cares, you have no compassion for the life of others.
I as well as thousands of other Virginia citizens have already contacted our governor asking that something be done to punish those that walk into a grocery store with a rifle in hand.
Now let me ask you something, for what reason would one need to carry an AR-15 into a grocery store other than to kill or scare others inside?
Also John you say criminals don’t open carry, obviously you have never seen an armed robbery. They usually walk right in with gun in hand is that not open carry? Also did Adam Lanza not open carry into Sandy Hook? Please get out once in a while and watch something other than Fox News the fantasy world you live in is just that fantasy.
Interesting how many “high information” pro gun readers have no clue that the guns from Virginia are the ones doing the killing in cities with tight gun laws like Chicago and New York. I95 and I81 are notorious for gun runnng. Why do you thing Bloomberg wanted to sue Virginia?
Dan @#82,
Please stop reminding the Teapublicans about their unfunded RX plan, 2 wars and the worst recession this side of the Great Depression. They don’t like that! That was obvious this last election. W didn’t set foot at the Republican National Convention and didn’t appear in any campaign adds. I was surprised they let Chaney out in public. They just want to pretend that stuff didn’t happen on their watch. Let them ignore it and it will go away.
you want to talk lies dannyboy..what about no taxes for people that make under $250k, what about Benghazi, what about Fast & Furious, what about when he said taking the oath for bar that he never used a different name than barack obama, lets talk lies buddy, your god tells them all day long.
“Dan. Are3 you sure this isn’t just pammala posting using capital letters and somewhat complete sentences.?
YOU can be sure sweetiepie, it wasnt me..besides I agree with it, she protected her family but I suppose you would have them get murdered or raped instead of having a gun …maybe you need glasses as I didnt see any capital letters in that post. you show that you are a typical low information person
Re Dan’s 2:16 am comment:
Somebody get Dan a paper bag to breath into!
Nice rip! Wasting your breath, though.
32.Don’t strain youself, mikeO! Just quote Kristen the section of the 1st Amendment that has the words “well-regulated.” She’s bright. She’ll see the light of day.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 27, 2013 @ 9:18 pm
Dan,
Your response to MikeO at #31 reveals your ignorance of the 2nd amendment.
“Well regulated” was desirable for the militia; therefore, the right of the People to bears arms was not to be infringed to guarantee this. This apparently is also the reason this administration seeks to control, ban and/or confiscate firearms as the perceive themselves too “well regulated”. Kristen fails to realize that registration is the first step to confiscation. . .now an issue in NY. . .facing massive non-compliance with their hasty new gun control abomination.
And the guy that carried the AR-15 into the Kroger it happend in Charlottesville.”
http://mobi.dailyprogress.com/progress/pm_5199/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=TCTHo6hB
Now that’s just plain stupidity. Gun lovers, if you do this, expect someone to call the cops on your ass. And to get barred from businesses.
Comment by gdad — January 27, 2013 @ 10:43 pm
The man was not arrested as he broke no law. . .sounds like Kroger just opened up the “free grocery” lotto. . .will be cheaper than the lawsuit for the ban. . .Kroger’s has no signage barring guns in it’s stores and open carry is legal. Virginia is a free open carry state.
43.Dan, you don’t see gun lovers wanting to talk a whole lot about that whole “well regulated” thing.
Comment by gdad — January 27, 2013 @ 9:56 pm
More ignorance about the 2nd amendment. “Well regulated” does not apply to the People owning guns. . .the intent of the amendment being to have the militia “well regulated”. Therefore only the stupid would expect gun owners to talk much about “well regulated”. BTW, it goes without saying that with everyone having the right to keep and bear arms if one has the urge to abuse the right he/she in turn will also be “well regulated” by others.
John Wilburn@42;
Agreed and well stated. Registration is the first step toward confiscation and no allowance should be made to tread any further down this slippery slope.
25.Feinstein’s bill has no chance and Jack knows it. Hell, Feinstein knows it. She’s making a statement, which is the same thing Bob Goodlatte does with his silly balanced budget amendment.
Still, I’d be interested in hearing Jack’s views on the constitutionality of Feinstein’s proposal.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 27, 2013 @ 8:39 pm
Feinstein violates her oath of office by putting this garbage on the table. Does she not understand the constitution?
This administration’s attitude toward the constitution is more than enough
reason to oppose it. . .recess appointments, fast and furious, eligibility disclosures, and now gun registration.
See, you don’t really want solutions Dan. Let’s just keep pumping $542 Million of TAXPAYER money into Planned Parenthood every year so they can continue to kill 311,000 children per year. Yep, that’s an investment in keeping kids safe. Taxpayer subsidized murder is OK with you?
But you will say “they don’t use tax money to perform abortions.” That’s like your kid telling you he didn’t spend your allowance money on pot. He spent HIS money. So keep giving him that allowance so he can spend his money on pot.
The thing about tax credits is you only get to use it if YOU pay taxes, and only up to the amount you pay, and only if you can prove you spent the money on what was identified in the first place. But it’s not really about the money or a solution.
Fellow bloggers,
Weigh in on who should be held accountable for this 13 year old’s death.
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/police-boy-13-shot-and-killed-12yearold-girl-chesapeake
Comment by Ron May — January 27, 2013 @ 6:09 pm
Well, I pretty much got the responses I thought I would. In my view, the 13 year old shooter was immediately responsible. However, the person(s) who either gave the kid the loaded gun or failed to secure the gun properly is also responsible. Finally, assuming reports of the 13 year old taking the gun to school & showing it around are accurate, whoever failed to report such incidents is also responsible.
I’ll grant that it is possible to teach children as young as 13 to safely handle firearms. I was among those taught to use firearms appropriately at an age younger than that. Despite that it is criminal behavior, in my view, to permit 13 year olds to have ready access to firearms without adult supervision.
Eddie, the “balanced budget amendment” isn’t even silly. It’s a gimmick to get the attention of the low-information crowd. And guess what else, Eddie….I’ll take Feinstein’s experience and knowledge of gun violence over that of the screen berets like you on here, all day long.
So…what’s the problem with any of this? I’m sure you’d pass with flying colors as a law abiding citizen.
Comment by Kristen — January 27, 2013 @ 8:39 pm
I certainly would pass with flying colors. I have several times in the past and nothing has happened that would change that.
The problem is that Scott indicated that these proposed laws would not impact me. A drive to the police department to ask for a signature that he can refuse to give because it is cloudy one day, and paying $200 and then waiting ten months (that’s actually the current wait period, I’m sure it will be longer with an influx of another couple hundred million applications all at once) most certainly would impact me.
So if a 13 year-old steals a car and steals a car, should the car owner be held responsible?
“So gun nuts”
I love that new civility policy.
When Obama buys AR-15′s, they aren’t assault weapons. They are Personal Defense weapons. Didn’t someone here claim that assault weapons were only good for murdering large numbers of people? Who does Homeland Security want to murder?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/
And the guy that carried the AR-15 into the Kroger it happend in Charlottesville.
Comment by hokie hater — January 27, 2013 @ 10:14 pm
I was out most of the day yesterday and didn’t hear about that. Carrying a gun in Kroger is not illegal (including the AR-15). I assume he killed a bunch of people? How many?
So if a 13 year-old steals a car and kills someone, that is
Just saw the link, thanks hokie hater. I carry in Kroger near my house all the time, openly, never a problem. However, the gun I carry is a holstered handgun.
Also, the article is a little bit misleading about concealing the rifle. A Concealed Handgun Permit, which is what Virginia issues, is just that, a Concealed HANDGUN Permit. It does not authorize the holder to conceal anything other than a handgun.
The CHP would not have made it legal for him to conceal the rifle.
“you want to talk lies dannyboy..what about no taxes for people that make under $250k, what about Benghazi, what about Fast & Furious, what about when he said taking the oath for bar that he never used a different name than barack obama, lets talk lies buddy, your god tells them all day long.”
–Comment by pammala
For once pammala is RIGHT! RWer nutcases have told lots of lies about all those things. It is galling and I’m happy she finally appreciates that.
Speaking of illegal activities with a gun, Media Matters’ David Brock takes the cake. He armed his aide because he was paranoid about right-wing assassins. Wait until George Soros finds out about this.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/illegal-guns-david-brock-media-matters/
Dan – responsible people pay as they go and when unexpected stuff comes up, they make sacrifices and set priorites. if we had this mindset, maybe we wouldnt have had the second Iraq war. Clearly dems have never understood that and never will. I’m not here to defend the mistakes J. Wellington Wimpy conservatives made in the recent past. If you want a hamburger today, pay for it today. I’m trying to to figure out how people still don’t get it today. This culture of if I don’t have it, I’ll ask someone for it or ill just charge it is destroying our country to the point it might be impossible to repair. If we can’t even understand simple math such as pay-as-you-go we’re in big trouble. How we have fallen from the greatest generation to the mindset we have now is beyond me.
Naturally, you didn`t hear about this on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC,CNN, or read about it in NYT,WP,RT LAT…recently, 2 illegals, Ralphel Resindez(23)armed, and Enrico Garza(26) armed, broke into a home in Montana. 11 year old Patricia Harrington,gun trained and a champion at Clay-shooting, ran to her fathers bedroom and obtained a Mossburg 12-gauge shotgun. Long story short, both ARMED intruders are as DEAD as 4 o`clock. GREAT JOB, PATRICIA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you serious he scared the living sh*t out of everyone in the store, I’m not saying anything would have prevented him from doing it, but how about making it illegal to carry a gun into a store.
Comment by hokie hater — January 28, 2013 @ 3:10 am
First, you have no Constitutional Right to not be scared.
If the rifle was in his hand, that is illegal and it is “brandishing.” I’m pretty sure it wasn’t, though, since he was not arrested. It’s probably safe to assume, based on the outcome, that it was not in his hand, but most likely on his back in some kind of sling. I can’t know for sure, but it’s an educated guess based on the results of the police investigation and what I know to be legal and illegal.
If you can convince the government that a grocery store, or any other store for that matter, is a “sensitive area,” you might be able to get them to ban guns there, much like they do in a jail or courtroom. I don’t think it is wise to ban guns in the grocery store, but you’re certainly welcome to try. That’s what makes Amerika so great.
Like I said, I carry in Kroger on a regular basis (probably three times a week, openly) and have never had a problem. Only once has anyone ever said anything, that I could hear, about my gun. It was some kid speaking to his dad, one of those “look at his gun, dad” things. They were in line behind me at the self checkout. His dad assured the kid that there was nothing wrong with the gun. This was several years ago.
Kristen – no offense. I’ve read many of your posts and i’m not going to waste my time debating you. I fear you’re beyond repair. Also, libs should stop using the term low information when referring to conservatives. When you guys get to the point you dont fear a basic civics test before being allowed to vote, then you’ll be creditable. There’s a reason we want one.
Pertaining to #104…Or would the liberals rather have the little girl murdered by the 2 worthless pieces of illegal garbage, then, sit around and just whine about gun control for the next 10 years?
“Well regulated” was desirable for the militia; therefore, the right of the People to bears arms was not to be infringed to guarantee this.”
Absolutely. And, absent membership in a “militia”, there’s no protected purpose for gun ownership.
Right you are, Leon, next time a I see a guy walk into Kroger carrying an AR-15, I’ll just hang around doing nothing while waiting to see if whether a) he’s a nutcase bent on killing a bunch of people or b) he’s a nutcase bent on showing everybody that by god he can carry a big deadly weapon wherever the heck he wants and if you don’t like it or it bothers you because in our society only nutcases carry guns like that into grocery stores well then that’s just tough you know what.
On second thought, I’ll just leave the store and then call the cops.
“Pertaining to #104…Or would the liberals rather have the little girl murdered by the 2 worthless pieces of illegal garbage, then, sit around and just whine about gun control for the next 10 years?”
–Comment by applewood
Straw man! Applewood, there is nothing in any gun proposal on the table that would prevent a homeowner from owning a shotgun, or keeping one in the home for self-defense. The only thing in current law that would prevent it is if the homeowner is a convicted felon.
Henry,
The rifles mentioned in the article are select-fire, which makes them machine guns.
Considering the semi-automatic versions serve no other purpose than to murder hundreds of people quickly, I cannot imagine why they want fully automatic versions… hmm.
“So glad the guy in Georgia a couple of weeks ago taught his wife how to use one, it saved some lives.”
Kendra, would like the long list of examples where people would still be alive if they hadn’t had guns around? Nah, I didn’t think so.
“If you won’t protect your family and friends, you are worse than an infidel. The liberals and gays have no backbone and are giving this country away to Hollywood and all of the immoral folks that want to control us.”
You should get out of your trailer in the woods more often, Kendra.
Straw man! Applewood, there is nothing in any gun proposal on the table that would prevent a homeowner from owning a shotgun, or keeping one in the home for self-defense. The only thing in current law that would prevent it is if the homeowner is a convicted felon.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 28, 2013 @ 9:24 am
Depends on the shotgun, Dan. Many are included in Feinstein’s proposed legislation.
Try asking a real question, md.
Jack, I’m confused…are you defending that guy bringing an AR-15 into Kroger? Sorry but that was irresponsible and completely stupid. I’m guessing if you were in Kroger and saw a guy walking toward you with an AR-15 you would have your hand on your piece ready to draw and fire. What in hell is America coming too?
#89 Take a breathe there, Newman.
Jack, please don’t suggest there’s no difference in the reaction you’ll get between packing a discreetly holstered handgun and striding in carrying a AR 15. I know you can’t read this guy’s mind, but in all honesty do you think this guy was really carrying the gun for basic defense? Or do you think maybe he was just getting a few twisted kicks scaring people. Even without being able to read minds, which do you think is more likely?
“Criminals don’t open carry. ”
Gee, John W, I guess that next time the store could just make a public announcement reminding everybody that this guy couldn’t possibly be a criminal because he isn’t concealing. Does that mean that you guys who do go to the store concealing are more likely to be criminals?
Dan beat me to it, applewood, but let’s reiterate — please show us where anybody has proposed anything that would keep you from owned a gun to defend your home.
Crickets. Either that or a post accusing me of lying about something or other.
#119…No…But we do, and will CONTINUE to go to the store, the movies, a restaurant…ANYWHERE WE CHOOSE….concealed. Period.
“Jack, I’m confused…are you defending that guy bringing an AR-15 into Kroger? Sorry but that was irresponsible and completely stupid. I’m guessing if you were in Kroger and saw a guy walking toward you with an AR-15 you would have your hand on your piece ready to draw and fire. What in hell is America coming too?”
–Comment by Bill Perdue
I’m with the hunters on this one. Imagine this scenario: It’s deer hunting season and you’ve been in a tree stand for hours. daylight has long broken, no dead bambis (darn it!), you’re starving, and it’s time for lunch and you have forgotten your Clif bars. You walk through the woods to the strip shopping center and spy a Kroger, so you decide to go inside to buy some sushi and almond milk to quell that rumbling tummy. Now seriously, WHERE ARE YOU GONNA PUT YOUR GUN? It’s not like you can leave it outside the store — that would be irresponsible because a criminal could steal it and go shoot up a movie theater or an elementary school. It’s not like Kroger has a hat-check operation for firearms or anything. The ONLY thing to do it to carry it around the store, and if you don’t have a strap to sling it over your shoulder, well, you can’t help but carry it in your hand. Besides, it might come in handy in preventing a rape or other mayhem inside the store.
Jack, I’m confused…are you defending that guy bringing an AR-15 into Kroger? Sorry but that was irresponsible and completely stupid. I’m guessing if you were in Kroger and saw a guy walking toward you with an AR-15 you would have your hand on your piece ready to draw and fire. What in hell is America coming too?
Comment by Bill Perdue — January 28, 2013 @ 9:31 am
Yes, I am defending his right to carry the rifle. Irresponsible and stupid? Maybe. Legal? Yes. Should it remain legal? In my opinion, yes. Would I have my hand on my “piece” ready to draw and fire? Doubtful. If the rifle were on his back in a sling, no, I would not have my hand on my “piece” ready to fire. If the rifle were in his hand, then he would be brandishing it illegally, and if I felt threatened, I probably would attempt to move into a safe position.
I would not feel threatened by a rifle in a sling on someone’s back, though.
Jack, please don’t suggest there’s no difference in the reaction you’ll get between packing a discreetly holstered handgun and striding in carrying a AR 15.
Comment by gdad — January 28, 2013 @ 9:41 am
I have no doubt that in reality the reaction would be very different. I will not, however, speculate as to why he carried it in there. I know of many people who carry a rifle for self defense. I don’t know necessarily why they do it as opposed to a handgun, which is sufficient enough for me, but I won’t question their motives because they have a right to do it in most places.
Some carry a rifle with them simply because they can. That, too, is a good enough reason for me. If you’re in the store, and you’re scared, that is your own problem, not his. He has the Constitution supporting his actions, you do not.
Keep in mind that unless the store manager had already asked him to leave, he was under no obligation to interact with the police officers in any way, shape or form, including presenting them with identification, answering any questions about who he is or why he was carrying the rifle, or even stopping to acknowledge their existence.
If the police do not have reasonable articulable suspicion, then they have no legal authority to stop you, regardless of the length of the stop.
Re: gdad @ 10:00 pm
So, you think that the are registered as claimed by an earlier comment?
Hum?
Re: Jason Perdue — January 27, 2013 @ 10:31 pm
“We are talking about a specific kind of rifle that seems to be the weapon of choice in some large-scale killings.”
—————
Oh, like the VT tragedy? On wait a minute. He didn’t use a so-called assault weapon or even use the two high cap mags, which he owned.
Also see: http://tinyurl.com/a4yszc2
**
Firearm-related homicides, injuries decline in Virginia
The Associated Press
8:33 a.m. EST, January 28, 2013
RICHMOND, Va. (AP)—
State figures show firearm-related homicides and injuries are declining in Virginia.
Figures from the state’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show firearms-related homicides fell 32 percent, from 357 in 2005 to 242 in 2011.
Virginia Department of Health figures show firearm-related injuries requiring hospitalization declined 28 percent, from 392 to 283, during the same period.
SNIP
Forensic epidemiologist Dr. Anna Noller says one of the staff’s pathologists thought assault rifles were different enough that they should be placed in a separate category.
The report lists one assault rifle homicide in 2011.
[Emphasis added]
**
[sarcasm font] Yup. That is a big problem that you are willing to throw freedom under the bus to fix.[/sarcasm font]
So if a policeman walks into a Kroger with an AR-15, people will freak out?
It’s the same scary weapon so it is just as dangerous in either hand.
And remember, the St Valentine’s Day Massacre was carried out by men dressed as the police.
So why does Obama’s Homeland Defense department need 7,000 of these “dangerous” assault weapons?
“First, you have no Constitutional Right to not be scared.”
No offense, Jack (taking my cue from Eddie), but, honestly, this is one of the dumbest and most callous comments I see from gun folks.
“Ya know whut, I culd carry this here handgun without anybody hardly even noticin’ and I’d have aul the firepower I need in case somebody starts rapin’ or robbin’ the wimminfolk, or I culd slang this here nasty looking piece over muh back and scare the bejeezus out of a pile o folk. Yup, no choice thar. Let’s cause a seen and scare people.”
Re: hokie hater — January 27, 2013 @ 11:04 pm
So, they will just be smuggled in like drugs — with all the accompanying violence and other unintended consequences.
What is it you don’t understand about Prohibition?
If you like the War on Drugs, you will love the War of Gun — if Dianne Feinstein gets her way.
See: http://tinyurl.com/a7yc66y
Re: Kristen — @ 9:22 am
As always, you are welcome to your opinion.
However, SCOTUS has opined otherwise.
Jack, that’s a really broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
A quick personal experience story…several years ago when I was living in Richmond, I went elk hunting in northern New Mexico. I was checking my bolt action 9mm magnum hunting rifle and the lady checking me in asked if the gun was empty. I said, “Of course.” She told me that I needed to check it and make sure. I asked if she really wanted me to do that right there and she said yes. I put the case on the counter, took the rifle out, pointed it in the air and pulled the bolt back to show her it was empty. Basically, everyone in the check-in area hit the floor. It was kinda funny at the time. I’ve thought since that it’s a good thing that was pre-9/11. If that happened today, I would most likely have shot on the spot.
Re: gdad @ 9:54 am
… a gun….
———————
Take a look at Feinstein’s list. She goes way beyond “a gun.”
#119…No…But we do, and will CONTINUE to go to the store, the movies, a restaurant…ANYWHERE WE CHOOSE….concealed. Period.
Comment by applewood
IF the place has a no weapons policy, that would mean you are tresspassing and thereby breaking the law…. until you stow your weapon in your car.
It’s nice to know you believe you aren’t breaking the law unless you get caught. (Just like most criminals.)
@Bill Perdue,
Great story. I’ve checked handguns several times when flying. You always have to open the gun case because the firearm declaration form must go inside the case with the gun.
On only maybe two instances have they ever had me demonstrate that the gun was empty, and I do so without issue. Each time has been post-9/11.
I must admit, though, the first couple of times you do it does make you a bit nervous.
IF the place has a no weapons policy, that would mean you are tresspassing and thereby breaking the law…. until you stow your weapon in your car.
Comment by scott — January 28, 2013 @ 12:12 pm
They must have made you aware of that “no weapons” policy before it is trespassing.
Just because they have some policy stored in an employee handbook or manager’s handbook in the back office doesn’t mean that you are aware of the policy.
It is true that we have no Constitutional right “not to be scared”. Or even inconvenienced without mercy. However, the other side of that coin is that you have no Constitutional right to any arms you care to bear either. You just don’t. It is the old “Madam, we have already established what you are, we are merely haggling over the price” routine. You are arguing from a place you do not command. You are fighting from a place long ago abandoned.
IDK if the votes will be there for action, band-aids or more silliness, but stop flailing around in the dishonesty puddle and claiming a right you do not in actuality have.
Well regulated” was desirable for the militia; therefore, the right of the People to bears arms was not to be infringed to guarantee this.”
Absolutely. And, absent membership in a “militia”, there’s no protected purpose for gun ownership.
Comment by Kristen — January 28, 2013 @ 9:22 am
Wrong Kristen. The militia is the Government. The people are the people.
A “well regulated” militia being necessary therefore means the people (armed) are the bulwark against the state or government should it become less than “well regulated”. Ties in nicely with the Declaration of Independence. Glad I could help you understand.
It is true that we have no Constitutional right “not to be scared”. Or even inconvenienced without mercy. However, the other side of that coin is that you have no Constitutional right to any arms you care to bear either. You just don’t. It is the old “Madam, we have already established what you are, we are merely haggling over the price” routine. You are arguing from a place you do not command. You are fighting from a place long ago abandoned.
IDK if the votes will be there for action, band-aids or more silliness, but stop flailing around in the dishonesty puddle and claiming a right you do not in actuality have.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 28, 2013 @ 1:11 pm
Wrong. Read (and understand, if possible) the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
“Wrong Kristen. The militia is the Government. The people are the people.
A “well regulated” militia being necessary therefore means the people (armed) are the bulwark against the state or government should it become less than “well regulated”. Ties in nicely with the Declaration of Independence. Glad I could help you understand.”
–Comment by Leon
OMG. Wrong, Leon. 100 percent wrong. In our forefathers’ view, the militia was the people. And their firearms ownership was to be well-regulated.
Leon, I would suggest researching the definition of “militia”. You realize you destroyed your own argument.
And if the “militia” were the government, what exactly would the multi trillion dollar standing military be? As Dan said…you are completely wrong.
Here is Virginia’s definition of militia:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1
Interesting reading of the Amendment by Leon. I would love to hear his historic basis for such a reading as well as his logic behind such.
“They must have made you aware of that “no weapons” policy before it is trespassing.
Just because they have some policy stored in an employee handbook or manager’s handbook in the back office doesn’t mean that you are aware of the policy.”
This is probably true. I have seen places with No Weapons signs displayed. I have also seen signs with “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” signs. But I bet 99.9% of the retail locations still require you to be shirted upon entry, or you’re trespassing, even if there’s no sign.
There are certain things that are just common decency. Walking into a supermarket topless not one of them. Walking into a supermarket with a loaded gun is not one of them. If you can’t go shopping without your gun, you probably should just stay in your doomsday bunker anyway.
A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).
And there are people in this country that somehow think passing ANOTHER LAW
banning guns would protect us from someone like this. If you haven’t noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws – they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda.
The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves
Put cops or trained armed security or volunteers in schools.
Yes, Dave Hicks, I read the link regarding the decrease in gun dwaths in Virginia, and that is a good thing. I also see the stat abot one death from an assault rifle, again a good thing. I do not dismiss these statistics as irrelevant, either, and it does appear there might be a relationship between increase in gun ownership and a drop in gun deaths. Perhaps gun buy back programs have had an impact or background checks have helped to prevent higher risk people from getting a gun. It will be interesting to follow the data long term.
I posted a study a while back that indicated the people who own guns are 4 times more likely to be shot with a gun than those who do not. My point is, we are debating the merits of an implement that has one purpose – to kill. In my view, such implements should be strongly regulated, with some classes of guns banned. If banning the assault style rifle prevents just one mass killing like we saw in Connecticut, it will have been worth it.
You say I throw freedom under the bus. I say we are enacting common sense legislation to protect the public. So be it.
Wow Leon, way to remove any remaining doubt!
I do not believe for one moment, the Founders expected the people to use their arms AGAINST the government. The well-regulated militia was used during the Whiskey Rebellion: “The farmers who resisted, many war veterans, contended that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the Federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.” George Washington was President and the militia put down the rebellion, they did not join it or uphold it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
Also, if you have heard of the Civil War, I am pretty sure they thought also that they could just “object” to the “tyranny” of the United States of America…it did not go so well for them either. We have decided, as a society that the United States is not about you deciding what you support at any given moment. Believing your guns will allow you to better “protest tyranny” is not a well received ideation.
Leon, I would suggest researching the definition of “militia”. You realize you destroyed your own argument.
And if the “militia” were the government, what exactly would the multi trillion dollar standing military be? As Dan said…you are completely wrong.
Comment by Kristen — January 28, 2013 @ 2:19 pm
“Wrong Kristen. The militia is the Government. The people are the people.
A “well regulated” militia being necessary therefore means the people (armed) are the bulwark against the state or government should it become less than “well regulated”. Ties in nicely with the Declaration of Independence. Glad I could help you understand.”
–Comment by Leon
OMG. Wrong, Leon. 100 percent wrong. In our forefathers’ view, the militia was the people. And their firearms ownership was to be well-regulated.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 28, 2013 @ 2:11 pm
Interesting reading of the Amendment by Leon. I would love to hear his historic basis for such a reading as well as his logic behind such.
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 28, 2013 @ 2:51 pm
Not so fast lazy liberal progressives:
http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_well_regulated_militia.html
Howdy dan,
I was quite surprised that today’s Roanoke Times ran an above-the-fold article titled, “Trends in gun sales, deaths not linked”.
I immediately thought of you, dan, and the copious efforts you have put forth to whip up your lib-lemmings into being even more anti-gun than they may have been of their own accord.
Given that your bosses know about your efforts to lead the gun control charge, I have to wonder whether they even consulted you with today’s article….which was written by a Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter…go figure.
By the way, some of the following data had also been referenced above by Dave Hicks…from the AP.
The link to the article is below, but I thought I’d note some of the, ah, “more interesting” quotes here:
“Figures from Virginia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show firearm-related homicides …declined… in four of the seven years 2005 through 2011 – the latest reporting years available – from 357 killings to 242, for an overall …decrease… of 32%.
“When state population increases are factored in, gun-related homicides …fell 37%…, from 4.72 deaths per 100,000 in 2005 to 2.99 in 2011.”
Here’s the best, in my opinion, and we’re still on the first page!:
What’s more, “the increased availablity of guns does not seem to correlate with an increase in the proportion of suicides and homicides by gun,” said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas Baker, who in an analysis compared state vital records data on homicides and suicides with Virginia gun dealer sales-estimates obtained by the Richmond Time-Dispatch. And, here’s the BEST part: It’s actually quite…surprising…and the …exact opposite… of what I would have…hypothesized, Baker said. I would have thought that aggregate increases in gun sales would directly correlate to aggregate increases in the proportion of suicides and homicides by gun. But, that doesn’t seem to be the case.”
Well, there go your biased-journalism efforts, dano, going …POOF! …. up in smoke!
Hey, I know! Hey dano, why doncha write a HUGE column ‘splaining what the reporter for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Mark Bowes, REALLY meant to report, eh?
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-violent-crimes-drop-as-gun-sales-soar-in/article_54cca13a-35ee-11e2-83f0-0019bb30f31a.html
“143.Yes, Dave Hicks, I read the link regarding the decrease in gun dwaths in Virginia, and that is a good thing. I also see the stat abot one death from an assault rifle, again a good thing. I do not dismiss these statistics as irrelevant, either, and it does appear there might be a relationship between increase in gun ownership and a drop in gun deaths. Perhaps gun buy back programs have had an impact or background checks have helped to prevent higher risk people from getting a gun. It will be interesting to follow the data long term.”
And the only causal relationship established between these statistics is that they happened to occur at the same time. That does not take into account any other data including improved law enforcement techniques,
more stringent laws, the larger number of people who are now incarcerated
and many other potential causes. It is also a very limited snapshot in time.
This just occurred to me and it made me giggle but it is true. This is America where you cannot force me to buy health insurance even though I need it and you cannot stop me from buying an AR-15 .223 Assault Rifle even though I don’t need it. What a mantra!
Oops! Sorry for the misspellings in my 3:20 p.m. post. Should have read:
“Yes, Dave Hicks, I read the link regarding the decrease in gun deaths in Virginia, and that is a good thing. I also see the stat about one death from an assault rifle, again a good thing.”
As we’ve come to expect, the commie liberal gun-grabbing folks at the RT didn’t print the story about the decline in deaths by gun. You’d think that would be something they’d put on the front page, even though it was written by a reporter for a competing newspaper.
I know, folks, just making a point.
This is America where the CONSTITUTION gives me the right to decide what I need and don’t need even though the progressive liberals have been whitling away at that right since before the new deal.
129.“(you have no Constitutional Right to not be scared)”
“honestly, this is one of the dumbest and most callous comments I see from gun folks.”
comment by gdad
It is dumb and callous, but for truly selfish callousness let me remind everyone that last night both Dave Hicks of Pulaski Co. and John Wilburn of Blacksburg had this to say when reminded that more of their neighbors would die from gun homicides today: “yawn”.
howdy gdad,
I figured out why the RTs ran the piece on the front page….they figured, due to ol’ dano’s biased gun-control efforts, that they’d try and get out in front with the facts, rather than stand with dano’s crowd, against the facts.
I think they made a good decision. I hope it’s but one of many good decisions to come. I won’t hold my breath.
Dave Hicks should be aware that his fellow VCDL shooter John Wilburn and many other anti-government gun fetishists disagree with him about the 2A being unrelated to militia, despite Heller. JW frequently cites a potential need to defend himself against a hypothetical “tyrannical” government, which takes JW back to a militia 2A justification, although JW would prefer to ignore the well-regulated aspect.
148 Leon – Now that bit of reasoning lacks historic perspective even more than youro. At the time of the COnstitution, the Bill of Rights was included inorder to get the States to ratify the new central government. The original confederation did not work and one of its main flaws was the inability to pay for an Army along with itsinability to tax and to pay its old war debts. Washington simply could not pay the troops for the Revolution nor the States for their contributions of militia. As part of the giving of power to tax and to have an Army, the States were expected to maintain militia should the federal government need them for protection. The 2nd Amendment put the cost burden on the States to maintain the manpower should the US need them. It had nothing to do with protecting the citizen from the governments. Not only had the citizens never had such rights under state laws, never had it under British Common Law, they never had it under new US law as George Washington established in the Whiskey Rebellion. Historically, you simply have no leg to stand on.
The 2nd Amendment simply put the burden on the States to pay for the well regulated militia so that the federal government would not need a huge standing army that it could not pay for. Accordingly, it also put much of the cost of the War back on the States. Taxes and control my friend, not the freedom to rebel fromt he federal or state governments.
If that does not convice you, then move forward to 1861-1864. Mr. Lincoln proved by force that neither state nor individual has the right to rebel. He settled it once and for all by beating the bejeebers out of the South. Sorry, you are claiming the right for treason and you simply do not have it.
148: Leon, way to go. Yet another biased source. Why don’t you just buy a website, write your opinions on it, then link to that, instead? It would save you some time in googling, and be just as convincing when you self-reference.
I’ve hesitated sharing the story I’m about to share. It involves one of my sons and I got his permission prior to talking about it on this blog.
One of our sons lives and works near to my wife & I. One week ago yesterday he went to a local restaurant to eat dinner & have a beer. While eating dinner he noticed 4 young men also in the restaurant who were drinking and carrying on. Others in the restaurant complained to the owner and he came out and asked the 4 to calm down or leave. Shortly after that my son finished his meal, paid his bill and left to get in his truck and go back to his house. As he opened the door to his truck to get in, 3 of of the 4 young men who had been carrying on in the restaurant attacked him from behind. In doing so, they knocked him into his truck. Unknown to them my son had his female English Bulldog in the truck waiting for him. As my son was knocked into the truck the dog leapt out of the truck and attacked his attackers. Two of the three attackers were bitten by the dog. The dog attack gave my son sufficient time to retrieve a tire iron he carried in his truck and as he came out the truck he was armed with the tire iron. My son is about 6’2″ tall and weighs more than 230 pounds. Using the tire iron he was able to put two of his attackers on the ground and was headed toward the third attacker. His faithful dog was also ready to attack the third person who had attacked my son. At that time the owner of the restaurant came out and told everyone he had called the police and they were on the way. He apparently had video cameras watching the parking lot and had seen the attack. When the police arrived my son & his dog had all three of his attackers seated on the ground. The 4th young man in the group was still there but he made no effort to join in the attack or run.
My son survived his attack. One of the two attackers bitten by my son’s dog required 20 stitches to close his wounds. All four were arrested. The sole attacker who didn’t actually participate confessed that the intent of the group was to steal my son’s truck. All four are still in jail, but I understand that the one who was more of a lookout than participant is likely to be released on bail.
First, I must admit that this son has permits for both open and concealed carry. On this evening he was not carrying. Second, my conversations with my son since the attack indicate that had he been carrying the outcome would have been different. I asked what he meant by that. His response was that one or more of the attackers would likely have not survived the attack.
My wife & I are thankful that our son was not seriously hurt. We are also thankful that he did not have his gun with him on that occasion. I know that some on this blog will disagree with our sentiments. That’s okay. You are entitled to your views. I talked again with my son this afternoon and he admitted to me that he too was glad he did not have the gun. I’m still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation right now.
By the way, when my son got home that night he cooked a steak and fed it to his bulldog.
Ron, so glad your son is ok but so especially glad his fur baby is ok. And so, so glad he won’t have to go forward with a death or two on his conscience, no matter how justified.
I have sons and dogs. So I’m a dog person. Sue me.
Thanks for the story, Ron. I think you just convinced me that we need a right to bear dogs.
And so, so glad he won’t have to go forward with a death or two on his conscience, no matter how justified.
Comment by Kristen — January 28, 2013 @ 7:50 pm
Wow, you’ve found a situation in which Kristen seems to agree that using deadly force would have been justified.
I guess there is a first, and only, time for everything.
Ron,
Thats a touching story, and one with a good out-come. Thank god, and goodness.
I certainly understand your posit about being glad that your son didn’t have a gun with him…as was your son. However, it also begs the question…would your son, and you and your wife, felt just the same had your sone been seriously injured or worse…and perhaps the outcome would have been different had he had his gun with him?
Ron,
Sorry, several mistakes…didn’t proof. My bad.
Good dog.
Bill Perdue:
“I’m guessing if you were in Kroger and saw a guy walking toward you with an AR-15 you would have your hand on your piece ready to draw and fire.”
Unless he has it pointed in the direction of others or in a low-ready position, no I would not. If on a sling on his back, I would ask him if he wants to sell it.
Other than honestly answering Bill Perdue’s question, all I missed was hokie hater displaying tremendous amounts of gun-related ignorance, Warren’s personal attacks, and a few good responses from Jack which I’m glad he made since I am working out of town today.
Frank,
I’ve thought about how I would feel if the situation had turned out differently. It’s a challenge I’ll admit. I’m still working through the situation.
Jack, you’re being ridiculous. On more than one occasion I’ve said that a shooting of a home invader was justified. I’ve NEVER claimed that no shootings were justified. I think that most normal people would prefer to go thru life without killing anyone else,regardless of circumstance.
Frank, “touching” is not the correct word.
When have any of us ever said that there was not ever a situation in which using deadly force would have been justified? You always have to muddy the water because your argument is so weak. Catch on will you?
Even if we do end up with a right to keep and bear dogs, I will still believe some dog control will be necessary.
Ron, glad your son and his English Bulldog are well. Peace be with your son and with you as you process the events of that evening.
Here is a link to an article that makes a good case for advances in medical trauma care being a prime reason gun deaths are down. The story notes that between 2001 and 2011, the number of people needing hospitalization due to a gunshot rose from just over 20,000 in 2001 to just over 30,000 in 2011, a 47% increase. While gun deaths have gone down, it appears that gun violence has not.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html
Is this proof of anything? Yes. Our trauma centers around this country are damn good at keeping people alive! Youncan draw your own conclusions beyond that.
One of the President’s Executive Orders makes it easier for the CDC to collect data on injuries/deaths involving guns. It is, perhaps, the most important part of the President’s proposal. With better data, the CDC can, in time, make more informed recommendations about what we can do to address this epidemic.
Folks, I’m not looking for a fight over this. Posting my comment was more about working through the situation myself. My son, in my view, was fortunate in this situation. I’m glad it didn’t turn out any worse than it did for anyone involved. My son has been advised, by some, that he could very well face a civil suit for his dog’s attacks on the two attackers. Common sense tells me that’s steaming pile, but we live in a litigious society. Time will tell.
Yes Dan, I believe we have the right to keep and bear dogs. Well regulated dogs that is.
Ron,
Isn’t it a curious comment on the American political landscape. Had your son blasted those 3 youths with a gun he would be a hero. He shows restraint and may be sued for not keeping his dog under control.
How bass ackward.
I’m glad you shared your story and am happy with its outcome. Keep us posted please.
Ron,
What about stray dogs? Heinz 57′s? And, I will not respond to Kristen.
I think your story should provide food for thought for all sides of the debate.
Thanks for sharing it.
Hay Dan,
Should potential dog owners have to pass a test in order to own a dog?
Should dog owners get a break on their annual license fee if they look like their dog…or, vice versa?
“Should potential dog owners have to pass a test in order to own a dog?”
Nope. But their dogs should be licensed. And if the owner wants to carry the dog concealed, he/she should have to pass a test.
He was carrying a high capacity concealed Assault Dog without a permit.
In all seriousness, I’m glad he is ok. I’m sure there will be some emotional trauma that he, you, and your family will have to work through. I personally turn to prayer to find guidance in difficult times.
I hope that he does not have to endure any ridiculous lawsuits over his dog. Those guys played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. I hope they are convicted and serve time, although given the state of our judicial system it will not be nearly enough.
I’ll add your family to my prayer list.
Gun-related homicides and injuries down as firearm sales soar
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-homicides-and-injuries-down-as-firearm-sales-soar/article_f573c648-2e22-5534-a2a8-56fa0fef0fdb.html
Ron, I’d like to add that your son is very fortunate. Not everyone is 6’2″ and has a dog in their truck and a tire iron readily accessible. 4 on 1 is not good odds even for a big man if he doesn’t have the dog and iron.
What if this had been a lady rather than your son that is a large man? The fact that he is a big guy may be why they attacked first without demanding the truck. Being a large guy can actually make you a target for violence first, demands second or a scenario where they produce a weapon due to the chosen victim’s size.
This just goes to show that a group of 4 unarmed guys were not detered by him being a large guy. They certainly would not hesitate to go after someone they saw as being an easy victim.
Again, I’m glad he is ok and I will keep your family in my prayers as the situation unfolds. Sometimes evil comes to us and I’m glad your son was able to handle it.
Maloof, thanks for posting this for the 76th time on this blog. It was also on the front page of the RT yesterday.
If that does not convice you, then move forward to 1861-1864. Mr. Lincoln proved by force that neither state nor individual has the right to rebel. He settled it once and for all by beating the bejeebers out of the South. Sorry, you are claiming the right for treason and you simply do not have it.
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 28, 2013 @ 5:37 pm
148: Leon, way to go. Yet another biased source. Why don’t you just buy a website, write your opinions on it, then link to that, instead? It would save you some time in googling, and be just as convincing when you self-reference.
Comment by scott — January 28, 2013 @ 6:39 pm
In summary, I accept you can find nothing to argue with regarding the link I provided as to the basis of the 2nd amendment. It is altogether
fitting that the Supreme Court as acknowledged the right to keep and bear
arms is an individual right. While I know you liberal progressives do not
like our constitution it is the law of the land. Our founding fathers provided checks and balances accross the divisions of government as well as those among the people. Supporting the constitution is not treasonous Beason and Scott. Pound salt.
Well, as we all suspected, the knuckledragging AR-15 toter in Charlottesville took the gun into Kroger to “exercise” what he called in a note he had written ahead of time his 1st and 2nd amendment rights (maybe he wrote it in case somebody gunned him down). One customer said the guy smirked at him and left without buying anything. (“He wasn’t there to shop. He was there to show off,” Girard said.) A cop who was quoted on WVTF also said the guy had a note of some sort saying he was exercising his 1st and 2nd amendment “rights” and the policeman noted that the guy scared a bunch of shoppers, including a number of children. He threw the police into high alert as well.
Now folks like Jack think this sort of thing is perfectly OK. Jack has said, “If you’re in the store, and you’re scared, that is your own problem, not his.” So Jack doesn’t care if his or anybody else’s entirely unnecessary asinine actions cause you to be concerned about your safety. Tough luck. Never mind that reasonable rational people generally recognize that there are certain things you don’t do even if you “can.”
I can’t even begin to adequately express my contempt for this type of attitude. And I’d bet that the vast majority of gun owners would agree with me. I know that the vast majority of average citizens would.
Stay classy gun owners:
http://gawker.com/5979756/father-of-6+year+old-newtown-victim-heckled-by-pro+gun-activists
(o\ ! /o),
Thanks for keeping my family in your prayers.
Let me add however, that the dog in this case was fully licensed and up to date on all vaccinations. Let me also add that this dog has never previously attacked anyone. Nonetheless, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that she was the game changer in this incident.
The gunners sure are talking a lot of ifs around the fascinating incident involving Ron’s son. It’s kinda like, they’re feeling cheated, like something didn’t make their day.
A gun makes every scenario better in some minds. But not all:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/
“…the rate of firearms deaths has exceeded traffic fatalities in several states, including Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon, records show. The rate is equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania.“
Waiting for one of these ass clowns “exercising their 2nd amendment rights” in a grocery store to get dropped by a cop.
“In summary, I accept you can find nothing to argue with regarding the link I provided as to the basis of the 2nd amendment. It is altogether
fitting that the Supreme Court as acknowledged the right to keep and bear
arms is an individual right. While I know you liberal progressives do not
like our constitution it is the law of the land.” — Leon
No Leon, I’m just saying, if you want to defend your point… Find a legitimate place to source your beliefs, rather than some crackpot’s personal website. Show me some court opinions, show me historical documents. Don’t show me Joe Bob’s Opinion-based Website. Seriously, all you have to do is post your opinion on a website and link to it. It’s exactly the same thing. Critical Thinking and Source Evaluation are an important point of debating and reinforcing your beliefs. (Notice how, at not one point have I declared whether or not I agree with your beliefs, and yet you still label me as a liberal progressive, simply because I challenge your sourcing. There’s something wrong with that.)
This kind of thing is starting to happen at every buy back in the country, and I think it’s hilarious. I love it when the police facilitate these gun shows. I can’t wait for us to have one here.
http://dcxposed.com/2013/01/27/seattle-gun-buyback-gets-jacked-turns-into-a-damn-gun-show-lol/
Well he did not stick a note in his pocket because he was unable to speak now did he?
Waiting for one of these ass clowns “exercising their 2nd amendment rights” in a grocery store to get dropped by a cop.
Comment by Kristen — January 29, 2013 @ 9:36 am
Right on cue… Kristen advocating for the police to murder law-abiding citizens in cold blood. I’m sure the Tiananmen Square protests were a highlight of Kristen’s life.
scott,
In Leon’s world, opinion = fact, if he agrees with the opinion. If he disagrees, it’s more evidence of the liberal media lie machine.
scott,
In Leon’s world, opinion = fact, if he agrees with the opinion. If he disagrees, it’s more evidence of the liberal media lie machine.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 29, 2013 @ 10:03 am
If you have nothing to offer to the discussion of an issue why don’t you just put a sock in it. You asked for source, I delivered. Now you have no arguement than sling mud. This is typical lypocrisy.
Leon, there is more than plenty to argue with regarding the “basis of the 2nd amendment”.
“The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
“The story of the Second Amendment is both more complex and more interesting than previously understood. It is a tale of political struggle, strategy, and intrigue. The Second Amendment’s history has been hidden because neither James Madison, who was the principal author of the Second Amendment, nor those he was attempting to outmaneuver politically, laid their motives on the table.
The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South’s principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions.”
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm
“Whitewashing the Second Amendment
As the Supreme Court reviews a historic gun-rights case, lost is the Second Amendment’s controversial history—when it wasn’t a bulwark against tyranny but a way of enforcing it.”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment
You seriously need to broaden your horizons, the earth is not flat either.
You seriously need to broaden your horizons, the earth is not flat either.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 29, 2013 @ 10:24 am
Wrong Sandi. The founder’s feared the new government they would create
would result in a new monarchy followed by tyranny. Therefore, as per the link I provided, the 2nd amendment asserts that the people are the ultimate arbiters of our form of government.
You should broaden your horizon as all those liberal progressives rags you
are reading limit your viewpoint.
Critical Thinking and Source Evaluation are an important point of debating and reinforcing your beliefs. (Notice how, at not one point have I declared whether or not I agree with your beliefs, and yet you still label me as a liberal progressive, simply because I challenge your sourcing. There’s something wrong with that.)
Comment by scott — January 29, 2013 @ 9:37 am
Critical points is also doing your own reading and research. this is a blog; not a research paper. If the only criticism you place is you don’t like this source or that source and you want more, more, more; then you reflect zero creditability and the typical liberal progressive attitude.
You are free to believe anything you want and do your own reading and research.
“You are free to believe anything you want and do your own reading and research.”
–Comment by Leon
This is Leon’s mantra, and he is absolutely correct. You are free to believe in the tooth fairy, and to go out and find as many internet sources you want documenting its existence.
Wow Leon, hypocrisy much? “all those liberal progressives rags you
are reading limit your viewpoint”…”If the only criticism you place is you don’t like this source or that source and you want more, more, more; then you reflect zero creditability”! Just wow!
Leon – indeed, you can believe anything you want. However, when you go around stating that you need weapons to fight the federal government because you don’t like its direction, then you have a problem. You should be careful what you write considering the Patriot Act.
The US has proven your theory wrong numerous times by removing those who have tried to use weapons to change the government. All have ended tragically for the gun owners. That reight simply has not and does not exist.
You should try one of the legitimate reasons the Constitution allows gun ownership in your 2nd Amendment arguments.
This is Leon’s mantra, and he is absolutely correct.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 29, 2013 @ 11:09 am
I’ll consider my point made as to the reasons and logic behind the second amendment. The inability if Dan, Scott, Beason or Bandi being able to argue the point other than by name calling and ridicule are quite rewarding. The earth is not flat. . .LOL.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195147863
“A cursory look at the history of the Second Amendment shows that regulation was a central part of its rationale—putting “well regulated” at the very start of the amendment was no accident. For instance, starting in the colonial period, states enacted a variety of “safe-storage” measures to deal with the danger posed by stored gunpowder. A 1786 law went as far as prohibiting the storage of a loaded gun in any building in Boston.
But many people who defend gun rights today are more than happy to skim over the first part of the amendment in their zeal to embrace the second. (The NRA itself literally chopped off that pesky first half when it chiseled the words on the face of its old headquarters.) As a result, our modern gun-rights ideology is often unmoored from any sense of corresponding civic obligation.
This ideology claims to rely heavily on the Second Amendment, and yet it is rooted not in the Founders’ vision, but in the insurrectionary ideas of Daniel Shays and those who rose up against the government of Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787. Indeed, there are gun-rights advocates today who think the Second Amendment actually gives them the right to take up arms against the government—but if that were true the Second Amendment would have repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines treason as taking up arms against the government!
This is all so deeply twisted: after all, the Founders framed the Constitution in part as a response to the danger posed by Shays’ Rebellion.
As a result, our modern debate over gun rights has virtually nothing to with the Founders’ Second Amendment; that debate actually started about 30 years after the Amendment was adopted. What emerged was the notion that reasonable regulation was not inconsistent with the right to bear arms. In fact it was the only option in a heavily armed society.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-advocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/15/a-history-of-the-second-amendment-in-two-paintings/
“That’s the initial vision of the Second Amendment,” Amar continued. “The good guys are on the left. They’re the local militia. The bad guys are on the right in the red coats. They’re the Union Jack. That’s arms-bearing, Founders-style. Originally, the Second Amendment is very much about local militias keeping check on a federal military establishment. It’s about Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill. It’s a product of the American Revolution. The motto at the founding is when guns are outlawed only the king’s men will have guns.”
Originally, the Second Amendment is very much about local militias keeping check on a federal military establishment.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 29, 2013 @ 11:35 am
Substitute people for militias and you have it correct Bandi. The second amendment is, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in contemporary times, an
individual right.
I love the way Leon keeps harping on the Heller decision. Not only did it overturn more than 100 years of jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment, with respect to individual rights to own firearms, but the majority opinion explicitly endorsed gun control measures.
I accept the majority’s decision with regard to individual rights — you’ve got to, really, it’s the law of the land. But Leon can’t accept their decision on the constitutionality of gun control. It’s his way or the highway on everything.
McDonald is an interesting case, too.
But Leon can’t accept their decision on the constitutionality of gun control. It’s his way or the highway on everything.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 29, 2013 @ 12:19 pm
Classic Dan; can’t argue the point so. . .change direction; run away, run away. LOL. At least one point is settled which is the reason the second amendment was added to the constitution. This you cannot accept;
therefore, you evade, call names and ridicule (as best you can).
As to gun control; your new topic; IMO we have too much already that skirts being unconstitutional. It surely is costing lives in places like
Newtown, CT. The present push is not about gun control; it’s about ultimate confiscation of all guns starting with registration and a ban on
certain types (very loosely defined). This is all clearly unconstitutional and. . .unenforceable. The things liberal progressives will push from the backs of dead children are quite appaling.
Kristen:
“Waiting for one of these ass clowns “exercising their 2nd amendment rights” in a grocery store to get dropped by a cop.”
Wow. Here Kristen is looking forward to Jack, I, or some other lawful carrier getting killed by a cop while shopping. And WE are the ones who were just told to keep it classy? I bet Kristen would sincerely enjoy being able to talk about such a thing happening to one of us.
You should try one of the legitimate reasons the Constitution allows gun ownership in your 2nd Amendment arguments.
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 29, 2013 @ 11:30 am
Beason; the constitution does not allow gun ownership, it declares it to be a right. The right is protected by the Constitution to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government.
Discussing the matter and/or enlightning liberal progressives on such matters does not constitute insurrection. The Government does not have the right to ban, register or confiscate weapons. I am a law abiding citizen. I have not stated that I need weapons to fight anyone over anything. I am also well aware of actions our government has taken; like the tragedy of the Waco crime. Things like Obama’s eligibility question, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Delphi, Affordable Care Act, the DHS sex scandal, DHS armament program and DOE e-mail alias scandal all suggest tyranny is on the agenda with this administration.
Why do you accept such activity from your elected representatives? Perhaps you are one committing treason against your country.
“Beason; the constitution does not allow gun ownership, it declares it to be a right. The right is protected by the Constitution to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government.”
–Comment by Leon
Leon, you are horribly shortchanging the Constitution (and the 2nd Amendment, and the forefathers who wrote it) with that statement.
Because you cannot find the term “gun ownership” in the 2nd Amendment. You can’t even find the word “gun” in it.
It’s all about “arms,” Leon. Which btw is way way way broader than guns. I’m shocked and surprised that your understand is so narrow!
(Not really)
Leon, it is funny to think you are so closed minded and still have the nerve to accuse others of it. You are just flat wrong about the “basis” of the 2nd Amendment being “to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government”. You can think it, you can even prove it was political theater of the time given the shenanigans with the Federalist Papers but it was NOT about fighting the government we just formed, or keeping it “in line”, any doubts were settled at Appomattox.
Leon,
Dan is correct, the second amendment does not include the word “gun” it says “arms”… Dan believes you have every right to pull up your sleeve and show your “arm” muscle.
Just as I am sure he believes his right to “free speech” is limited to standing on a corner in his town and espousing his views… (all supreme court opinions to the contrary be damned).
Surely that is what the founders considered when they drafted these rights (for the people) after fighting a tyrannical government that they did not wish to ever experience again.
Leon, your cite about protecting us from a tyranical government is simply hogwash. Historically, factually, even subjectively, such right to use weapons against our government does not exist. We have the right to vote for a representative government and if they don’t suit you, you get to vote again when their term is up. You have no right to use weapons for such and to claim such right for all individuals is indeed suggestive of insurrection.
You are trying to make the law say what you want rather than looking at the history and the rulings on such law and you most certainly ignore the Civil War as if it never happened.
As for gun ownership being a right vs an allowance; actually, the 2nd Amendment comes closer to making it a requirement as well as requiring you to be available for the militia should the fedreal government need you. It is your right to be a citizen of the Country and to serve it as a citizen and as the federal government requests. You seem to be more worried about your rights and less worried about serving,as a citizen you have duties to your Nation.
You should be more concerned about serving and less about rebelling against your Nation.
Sandi,
Fortunately our founders were more concerned with “posterity”.
I hate to be the first to tell you but our founders knew nothing about Appomatox.
Richard,
Did you read the Heller case???
“Leon,
Dan is correct, the second amendment does not include the word “gun” it says “arms”… Dan believes you have every right to pull up your sleeve and show your “arm” muscle.”
Nah, mikeO, that’s not what I know or believe. I know that the definition of “arms” is far broader than guns. By implication, Leon was limiting it — and that’s a stain on his limited understanding of both the constitution and the amendment.
“Richard,
Did you read the Heller case???”
–Coment by mikeO
Oh for Pete’s sake, this entire debate has little to do with Heller and a lot to do with some blinders-wearing ignoramuses who refuse to acknowledge that gun control measures, within certain limits, have ALWAYS been constitutional and STILL are.
Below is a little history on the evolution of the 2nd Amendment. It is noteworthy that the final version that was sent to the states for ratification was approved by the House of Representatives but not the U.S. Senate. Wonder if a challenge to it could be mounted on that?
On June 8, 1789 James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. Within was contained what was to become the 2nd Amendment. His original text follows:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
– Annals of Congress,
House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: pp. 451
On August 17, 1789 The House entered the following reworded 2nd Amendment into the House Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
– Annals of Congress,
House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: pp. 771
The House of Representatives debated the revised Amendment until August 24. This debate primarily centered on the possibility that the future US government could use the “but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms” clause to disband the militia. This was resolved on August24, 1789 and a reworded the 2nd Amendment was sent to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
– Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
Volume 1: pp. 63
Sadly, between September 4 and September 9, 1789 the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause. The final version to leave the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
– Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
Volume 1: pp. 71
This abbreviated version of 2nd Amendment was sent to the House of Representatives on September 9, 1789 and was voted on and accepted on September 21, 1789. Strangely the Amendment was modified somewhat during the course of this – without further ratification by the Senate. The final version that the House sent to the States for ratification was:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
– Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States,
Volume 1: pp. 305
Kristen @ 26 – “So…what’s the problem with any of this? I’m sure you’d pass with flying colors as a law abiding citizen”
If you want to understand what’s wrong with this, answer the question of what’s wrong with requiring voter ID. The same logic you use in arguing against voter ID applies here. You’re arguing to require people to pay and jump through even more stringent hoops in order to exercise a Constitutional right. How does the proposal not unfairly target the poor and minorities?
As to your assertion that “Absolutely. And, absent membership in a “militia”, there’s no protected purpose for gun ownership.”, well, the Supreme Court has already ruled otherwise, and as many of you are so fond of pointing out when the topic turns to abortion, the fact that the Supremes have so opined does indeed make it the law of the land. Therefore, your assertion is wrong.
Dan, you are so fond of arguing the semantics rather than the principle of the 2nd Amendment. “The founders couldn’t possibly have intended this freedom to include modern assault weapons because they didn’t exist then” is a very simple and purposeful flaw of logic. Do you feel the same way about the 1st amendment? Or the 4th? Clearly the 1st couldn’t have been intended to protect on-line or electronic media and press. Those things didn’t exist then. Similarly, the 4th couldn’t possibly have been intended to protect cell phones. I mean they were just invented 25 years ago.
Of course those things are protected because the US Constitution is a living document and it means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Supreme Court has already ruled that there IS an individual right to won firearms and to self-defense. Until they reverse their position or the anti-gun lobby succeeds in amending the Constitution, can we please put the phony “militia” argument to rest?
“Be it said in passing, that success is a very hideous thing. Its false resemblance to merit deceives men. For the masses, success has almost the same profile as supremacy. Success, that Menaechmus of talent, has one dupe,–history. Juvenal and Tacitus alone grumble at it. In our day, a philosophy which is almost official has entered into its service, wears the livery of success, and performs the service of its antechamber. Succeed: theory. Prosperity argues capacity. Win in the lottery, and behold! you are a clever man. He who triumphs is venerated. Be born with a silver spoon in your mouth! everything lies in that. Be lucky, and you will have all the rest; be happy, and people will think you great.”
~Victor Hugo in “Les Miserables”
We are far too gullible and easily led to believe that “Gilding is gold”. Religion, business, even stardom, is much the same.
“Dan, you are so fond of arguing the semantics rather than the principle of the 2nd Amendment.”
–Comment by Chuck
Typical comment by a gunner: “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”
No semantics there! LOL
Chuck, my response about the militia was partially tongue in cheek, in response to some piece of idiocy from Leon, who subsequently assured me that the “militia” was the Feds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html
“Legal experts say the decision in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and vanishingly few of them have succeeded.”
As to Heller, as I’ve said before, it is not a blanket outlaw of any present or future measures of gun control. It’s also not a roadblock to the measures the president wants to try.
THE GREAT DEBATE BETWEEN ‘CHUCK’ AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA!
CHUCK: “Of course those things are protected because the US Constitution is a living document and it means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Supreme Court has already ruled that there IS an individual right to won firearms and to self-defense. Until they reverse their position or the anti-gun lobby succeeds in amending the Constitution, can we please put the phony “militia” argument to rest?”
SCALIA:“It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.”
Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center in 2005, Scalia had rejected the idea of a “living Constitution” and criticized a ruling that banned the juvenile death penalty based on “evolving notions of decency.”
“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,” he warned. “You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”
Ron Mays – thank you for your research/ It appears my off the cuff history was not too far off. Even with the changes in the wording, no where does it indicate Leon’s assertion that the militia is needed to protect from the federal government. Indeed, money and the duty to service are the true reasons for the amendment.
mike 0 – Heller said you have the rights to arms, it does not say you can use them against the US Government.
211.Leon, it is funny to think you are so closed minded and still have the nerve to accuse others of it. You are just flat wrong about the “basis” of the 2nd Amendment being “to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government”. You can think it, you can even prove it was political theater of the time given the shenanigans with the Federalist Papers but it was NOT about fighting the government we just formed, or keeping it “in line”, any doubts were settled at Appomattox.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 29, 2013 @ 4:56 pm
Bandi, you really show your ignorance of the history concerning the American revolution with the above post. Appomattox was a Civil War event approximatley 100 years later BTW. An event which solved nothing.
The Civil War did fundamently change, in the long term, the economic base of the Southern states.
The basis of the 2nd amendment is as I have stated and linked. The drafting of the Constitution and the forming of the United States Government took many years after the revolution and was wrought with a great deal of controversy and strife. There were those who favored as a strong central government and those who desired that state’s rights be the dominant feature of the new government. There were also those who favored a monarchial form of government.
The framer’s of the constitution most certainly feared a tyrannical government could arise in their new country and therefore, took the steps of providing checks and balances to prevent such or from one branch of government dominating the others.
Presently, the same concerns do exist whether you have the intelligence or openmindedness to acknowledge them. The present administration is grossly corrupt and attacks the constitution on many fronts. Invalid recess appointments, spending and borrowing with no budget in place against the wishes of Congress, waging war without Congressional approval, states rights, suppression of voting rights of the U.S. servicemen serving overseas, suppression of the first amendment, undermining of the second amendment, and eligibility to serve in office are all examples.
I know that you, Beason and Dan like to whitewash these issues and pretend they do not exist. They do exist however and some have already died as a result of them. There are others who have a legitimate concern about these issues and no amount of ridicule by the likes of you will alleviate that concern. You may choose to stay ignorant; it is a free
country;
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” ― Benjamin Franklin
“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
― Benjamin Franklin
“Wow. Here Kristen is looking forward to Jack, I, or some other lawful carrier getting killed by a cop while shopping. And WE are the ones who were just told to keep it classy? I bet Kristen would sincerely enjoy being able to talk about such a thing happening to one of us.”
Bitterly cynical comment by John Wilburn
John dishonestly misquotes Kristen. “Waiting for” only conveys anticipation, not the happy expectation that John’s substitute phrase “looking forward to” does. So that’s a liar’s shot by John, effective only for those who also can’t tell the diffference betwen “more important” and “more threatened” in NRA ads. Such semantic lies are never classy.
Also, it’s a matter of recently confirmed record that if such a thing were to happen to John Wilburn, they’d be following the precedent explicitly endorsed by him if they reacted to such tragic gun violence by callously saying “yawn” and then ignoring it.
“Did ya hear about poor ol’ John Wilburn? What would he have wanted anyone to think? Oh, wait, he’s already said on Dan Casey’s blog: “Yawn”.
“Things like…the DHS sex scandal…all suggest tyranny is on the agenda with this administration.”
Unexpected conjecture by Leon
So Leon, fill us in on how the DHS sex scandal indicates an agenda of tyranny, please.
Wow Chuck, are you getting desperate or being misled? What’s wrong with requiring voter ID, is not “requiring voter ID”. It is requiring a very specific DMV issued photo ID contingent upon producing documents the poor, young, transient and elderly may not have in the face of no real voter fraud to even mimic need for such ID requirements.
It is ludicrous to say that we are “arguing to require people to pay and jump through even more stringent hoops in order to exercise a Constitutional right”. Nothing in the Second Amendment says you have a right to any particular gun or ammo clip. And the price of these guns already does “unfairly target the poor”. These are not a poor man’s gun.
The “militia argument” is not “phony”. It was the law of the land at the time. Rebellions were quashed, up to and including the Civil War.
Re Heller and McDonald: “McDonald clarified some of the justifications for limiting that right through appropriate government regulation.
…the Court conspicuously left many questions unanswered. Included amongst those questions is: What is the exact breadth and depth of the right to bear arms?; To what extent may the government permissibly restrict the right to bear arms?; and, What is the level of scrutiny that ought to apply when courts consider the constitutionality of restrictive regulatory schemes that seek to abridge the right to bear arms?
…the right to bear arms is a pre-existing right held by all Americans,
predating the Second Amendment, and is a broad right to possess any
firearm not specifically designed for military use, at most times and places except those proscribed for a compelling governmental purpose, and for any lawful purpose, as defined by permissible government regulation.
…like every other fundamental constitutional right, it is not
unlimited and unqualified. The Heller and McDonald Courts were clear
that some government regulation of, and restriction on, the right to bear
arms is appropriate and necessary. The government has a compelling interest in protecting the safety and security of the free state, and in
exercising that interest, may restrict the sale of certain firearms to minors, convicted felons, and the mentally ill. Additionally, the government may entirely prohibit the sale, possession, and use of certain arms used specifically for military purposes. The government may also establish criteria for citizens wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right, including licensing schemes that require training, safety examinations, and licensing by state officials.”
http://connecticutlawreview.org/files/2012/06/10.Habib-FINAL.pdf
hay Chuck,
The libs have nothing for ya.
Your point to Kristen about “what’s the difference” between the fundamental rights to vote, and to have a gun is perfect…why do you need to pass a test to do one, and not the other?
Is one more important than the other, legally?
The answer is a resounding, “no”.
Well done, sir.
…these libs will, in the instance of a forced break-in at their homes, instantly wish they had a firearm, and when their pea-brains realize that they abhor firarms, …will then leap to saying a prayer…and they won’t remember how.
…and, even J.M. White won’t be able to get there fast enough to intervene.
One thing is for sure: slanderous, vindictive, malicious Warren would love for me to be shot dead.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 29, 2013 @ 9:15 pm
Wow, apply John Wilburn’s own brutally callous attitude towards about others to him and what does he do? He accuses you of wanting him dead! Melodramatic much, sir? And selfish much, sir?
One can’t be shot dead carrying an AR-15 into Kroger, John, because guns don’t kill people. One can only have one’s life saved by guns, remember?
Besides, who do you think I am, the BATF of what you insist is the “tyrannical” U.S. government coming to steal your gunfriend?
Skittles?
LIBERTY!!!
Man, John W is really making up the paranoid crapola now.
Leon – you can question authority allyou want, but you cannot pickup a weapon and attak the USA without being guilty of treason. Your right is to vote not fight.
The 2nd Amendment clearly did not give you that right. The Civil War clearly proved that the states do not have that right as well.
Warren, I think we would be equally concerned over the other’s death. How’s that?
235.Warren, I think we would be equally concerned over the other’s death. How’s that?
comment by John Wilburn
Given your vehement insistence that guns will save your life, I would be surprised, John, but why would you have a different reaction to my death by gun violence than you, like Dave Hicks, feel about all the other ones that actually occur? You’ve explicitly said all you feel for them is a yawn. You adamantly declare they’re to blame for their own slaughter by staying in a “victim pool”. Even Maryland sniper victims pumping gas and loading groceries were to John Wilburn a “victim pool”, because he won’t share the secret VCDL technique for using a concealed handgun to protect one’s self from a hidden sniper, much less ever admit that they can’t.
So we’ll leave it as crystal clear as you’ve made it through many posts that explicitly say you don’t care at all about gun murder victims, that to you they’re only an abstraction except when they inconvenience your gun obsession. You’ve made that clear, and then yawned.
And if your cold public indifference to, and blaming of, gun violence victims ever seems a less than wise move for a businessman who depends on public goodwill in the town that saw the worst school massacre in U.S. history, well, too late, John Wilburn of Hokie Real Estate. You’ve insisted you’re certain of your choices, and shown you’re dismissive of other’s choices, so we’ll let you own those choices, whatever the long term effect on your ability to afford more bullets. After all, it’s “Guns Save Lives”, not “Bullets Save Lives”, right?
This post was made under my real name, same as Jack does.
#236 – Bait taken.
.
Bonus points for the uncalled for defamation.
234.
Leon – you can question authority allyou want, but you cannot pickup a weapon and attak the USA without being guilty of treason. Your right is to vote not fight.
The 2nd Amendment clearly did not give you that right. The Civil War clearly proved that the states do not have that right as well.
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 29, 2013 @ 11:10 pm
Beason; you do know that a number of states are, at present, contemplating seccession. This is allowed under the constitution. The
Civil War proved the states did have the right to seccede as they did so.
Further, it is more likely than not that should I ever be of need to fight that I will be fighting for the USA as did my father and grandfather and great grandfather before me. IMO, people with your attitudes and perspective are not representative of the USA and you certainly do not have, nor are granted by me, any authority to dictate to me what my rights and/or responsibilities are.
#230 Look John W and Jack, Frank is wishing that us folks without guns have their homes broken into.
“This post was made under my real name, same as Jack does.”
Wow, Warren, now I know exactly who you are!!!
Leon, should I call you Peon? Please, don’t stop digging. I love to see a conservative self-destruct. If you don’t mind being wrong, we don’t mind pointing it out.
Check out the Shays Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion and yes sir, the Civil War answered, finally, conclusively and absolutely the lie that you are ever going to be allowed to take up arms against this nation. You can believe the moon is cheese, it does not make that true.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/15a.asp
http://archive.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp
Jack and JohnW, I’m not “looking forward” to either of you being shot. I happen to think that people who go looking for trouble will eventually find it. This applies to a lot of people other than you two. If you’ve never considered the possiblity that ostentatiously carrying your weapons everywhere while ignoring the discomfort of others MIGHT JUST NOT one day bring you some backlash you weren’t expecting…start considering it.
John Wilburn, is it your contention that if a gun control activist happens to be “shot down”, you will not even remark on the irony of how they could have been saved by a gun? Do you think we believe that?
There is an irony in a gun advocate being not as safe as they claim the gun makes them. Nothing more. We would all feel awful if any one of us was to be harmed or killed by a gun, a knife or a hammer. I am sure of it.
You take this stuff very personally (as do I) but the truth is that you are also “slanderous, vindictive, malicious” and idiotic too on occasion. Passion is also ironic, and it makes us all a hypocrite sooner or later.
Well, Well…a little new info that has been unearthed. It involves reality, so turn your head if you can`t take it. -1) Ft. Hood shooter, registered Democrat 2)Columbine..both families were progressive liberal Democrats 3)Va. Tech shooter-reg. Democrat and wrote hate mail to Bush 4)Connecticut school shooter-reg Democrat, hated Christians 5)Colorado theatre shooter-Progressive liberal Democrat, Obama campaign worker, occupy Wall street moron….Appears the Liberals are the ones with the guns…at least the extremely unstable ones.
“Beason; you do know that a number of states are, at present, contemplating seccession. This is allowed under the constitution. The Civil War proved the states did have the right to seccede as they did so.”
–Leon
Lordy, what is that number, Leon? What are those states? I had heard that a bunch of silly asses in Texas have brayed about this, but that their numbers were quite small relative to the state’s population. I didn’t realize the entire state was contemplating it, or that others were, too.
(You go, Texas! Anything I can do to help you become the independent Republic of Northern Mexico, I am at your service).
There are zero “states” contemplating secession. There are a few nutballs in a few states who want to “secede” and we’ll just have to pray they enact their Romneyesque right to self-secession and get the heck out of the country.
Maybe they can all move to Texas or Arizona, and we can put a bow on it and hand it over to Mexico. We can always hope.
#241..Well Sandi, its happening right before your eyes, but of course, can`t penetrate that non-reality bubble you live in. The amount of e-mails I get from individuals around this Country are astronomical..and they all concern `armed militias` forming everywhere…Police forces/sheriffs around the land are stating that they will NOT abide by ANY `gun-grab` that is unconstitutional. You won`t have to look far in any direction to find these militias in a very short time. We won`t be `allowed` to take up arms ? Who is gonna stop us ? Time to do a reality check, because we are armed…we`ll stay armed. Want to take them ? Come ansd try.
“The amount of e-mails I get from individuals around this Country are astronomical..and they all concern `armed militias` forming everywhere…Police forces/sheriffs around the land are stating that they will NOT abide by ANY `gun-grab` that is unconstitutional. You won`t have to look far in any direction to find these militias in a very short time. We won`t be `allowed` to take up arms ? Who is gonna stop us ? Time to do a reality check, because we are armed…we`ll stay armed. Want to take them ? Come ansd try.”
–applewood
applewood, are you getting emails from Randy? Thanks goodness he dropped me from his list of pea-brainers.
“I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind EVERY blade of grass“. Isoroku Yamamoto Keep trying, Sandi…maybe you`ll convince yourself.
Uh, applewood, Isoroku Yamamoto was the Japanese general who planned the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
LOL
No, Dan…just random e-mails from people I know…that O.K. with you ? Oh, and so glad to to hear from you. Now, would you like to answer the questions raised in post #247 ? Maybe you and Sandi can convince each other… A sort of KUMBAYA-convincing…Now, wouldn`t that be special.
No crap, Dan…they had entertained the idea of attacking the US by land, as well, and then thought better of it…hence , the saying by the General. You not feeling well ? Liberal History teaching at its best.
April 19, 1775….An English attempt to confiscate guns from Americans triggered a sucessful REVOLUTION. Take that as a hint, Congress.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was hardly an invasion.
Kristen, if that is how you feel then you should fight to have those dangerous guns removed from the hands of police officers who cannot tell the difference between someone doing absolutely nothing wrong and someone who is committing a crime. If even one innocent life could be saved by disarming the cops, we should do it.
Yep, it appears that addledwood spent last night collecting urban legend emails from all over the country and then choosing one of the stupidest ones to post as his own observation, making up inane and idiotic lies, and finding a quote circulating among the gun nuts and spewing it here without checking the background. This is the “fresh” perspective that addledwood brings.
Wow, applewood is off the rails. If he/she wants to get on the governments radar applewood is doing a good job of it. Take a deep breath dude. Nobody is coming for your guns. Me, I’m satisfied with Background checks on every gun sale, Clip limits and an increase in mental health awareness and getting troubled people the help they need. That’s all.
249.“I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind EVERY blade of grass“. Saul Alinsky, (dead)
Further, that quote attributed to Yamamoto has never actually been substantiated by historians. The closest they have gotten is an aide to General MacArthur uttered it, but no proof can be found as to its validity.
Someone’s about to commit a ‘Nugent’, I think….
Waco. Ruby Ridge. You will be done before you start, and apparently to damn dumb to know it.
10:40
My police officer son says he wishes all these “cowboys” (as he puts it) would settle down. He is not coming to confiscate your weapons but WILL obey the law of the land.
On a related note – do your gun-lovers support the abolition of armour piercing ammunition (supported by all major police organizations) or do they feel they have the right to any ammunition they choose?
Geez applewood, are you capable of honesty and credible sources?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
Comment by applewood — January 30, 2013 @ 10:40 am
“Who is gonna stop us ? Time to do a reality check, because we are armed…we`ll stay armed. Want to take them ? Come ansd try.”
Hahahahahahahaha….ummm, applewood here’s a reality check for you -
When the government, using drones, can kill you from space I hate to disillusion you, but you’ve already lost that arms race. And
if you think you and your two militia buddies can go toe-to-toe with a highly trained USMC fire team, you are clearly delusional.
Did your local kroger run out of tin foil in aisle 4?
Did your local Kroger run out of tin foil in aisle 5?
Sandi Saunders:
““slanderous, vindictive, malicious””
Source?
Kristen:
“Jack and JohnW, I’m not “looking forward” to either of you being shot. I happen to think that people who go looking for trouble will eventually find it. This applies to a lot of people other than you two.”
So you think we’re “looking for trouble”?
“If you’ve never considered the possiblity that ostentatiously carrying your weapons everywhere while ignoring the discomfort of others MIGHT JUST NOT one day bring you some backlash you weren’t expecting…start considering it.”
Ostentatatious? Really? People seldom notice or, if they do, give a second look. So, likewise, a gay couple needs to consider a backlash from the discomfort of others and a pretty girl needs to consider her role in encouraging a sexual assault? Thanks for the advice, but if we are discouraged from exercising our rights, we’ve already lost them. You are in a VERY small minority of people who are genuinely uncomfortable with my carrying.
Sandi Saunders:
“Waco. Ruby Ridge. You will be done before you start, and apparently to damn dumb to know it.”
Were the feds’ actions appropriate in either of these cases, Sandi?
applewood, spreading lies across the Interwebs every day.
#254…Do you actually think that an uprising of the `people` would be a one-venue concerted effort ? Have you not been on this planet long and not heard the shouts from the corners of this Country ? I guess in your pyschotic state, you believe that myself and a few `good `ol boys are going to march out of our neighborhood with guns? Good, you just keep that thought. You`re just plain stupid, I guess. Oh, and it is spelled `damned`…not `damn`….Look everyone, Sandi sticks her foot in her mouth again..as usual.
Hey, I just realized that I can jump out of dark alleys at night and yell “Boo” at people and it’s not my problem if that scares them. I’m pretty sure it’s legal. What fun.
#255..The good(armed) people of this Nation will rise like a Phoenix from the fire in every spot that you can imagine…Every City, Town, Hamlet, from the Countrysides…to protect their localities from the feds coming in to take guns, etc. Montana is already in the process of this….Passing a law to Procecute and Jail Federal Agents for attempts at unconstitutional gun-grabs and, if they decide to come here and take ours, we`ll be there, locked and loaded to make sure they are `neutralized`…… Think it can`t happen ? Hang around. Really…what meds are you on ?
““Who is gonna stop us ? Time to do a reality check, because we are armed…we`ll stay armed. Want to take them ? Come ansd try.”
– applewood
That’s PAINTBALL language!
238 Leon – Lincoln fought thte Civiil War to hold the Union together, i.e. States cannot leave the Union (South lost that war, check your history). As for the current TP petitions, LMAO.
Your father and grandfather would be proud of your claiming the right to rebel against the government they fought for. You should be humble in your service to this great Nation instead of talk of rebellion and secession.
applewood,
I hope you will stick up for the right to dissect fetal pigs in science classrooms.
248. applewood – I cannot seem to find where anyone has contemplated taking your weapons. The proposals before Congress does not discuss such except in the event of the gunowner having a mental illness. However, keep up the crazy talk about the government and your fighting and the FBI just might show up to do a sanity check for you and find you a nice cushioned room for a long while.
We won`t be `allowed` to take up arms ? Who is gonna stop us ? Time to do a reality check, because we are armed…we`ll stay armed. Want to take them ? Come ansd try.
Comment by applewood — January 30, 2013 @ 10:40 am
Just once I’d like you to say something that wasn’t so incredibly stupid that I weep for the future of your genetic lineage. If it comes to taking your guns and you staging a standoff or insurrection, applewood, the U.S. Government will shove a missile fired from a drone so far up your butt that it’ll chip a tooth. You’ll never get a chance to fire a shot in defense of your rights. In fact, the only thing you’ll likely even hear or see before everything goes black will be the high-pitched hiss of the nosecone cutting through the air right before impact.
It’s a brave new world of warfare technology out there, applewood, and there will never be another Ruby Ridge or Waco. I can sit at a console at Wright-Patterson AFB and literally rain hell upon you anywhere in the U.S. you decide to set up your compound. There will be a nice coverup, we’ll say that you were a terrorist cell and had an accident while trying to manufacture explosives or the old favorite standby, “meth-lab explosion”. I’ll get a medal, a commendation and a fat raise and your funeral casket will be a mop bucket and some crimson-tinged sponges.
Before, we had to put a person behind the rifle faced with the hard decision of pulling the trigger on American citizens. Now, we can put cross-hairs on you on a monitor from 1000 miles away and with the push of button, you become a smoking crater. No longer do we have to witness the projectile rending flesh. And since we’ve now raised two generations with the Video Game Disconnect mentality, pushing the button to end your life via camera has become all too easy. Welcome to the reality of the 21st century.
So, yeah, good luck with that. To survive in your unlikely dystopian future, you’ll live the life of a cockroach.
John Wilburn, I am not going archive searching for your many insulting and vicious ripostes. You know you give as good as you get, so do I. Whining is unbecoming.
As far as “appropriate” in Waco or Ruby Ridge? I am not qualified to say, but I am more than happy to speculate that when you ask for it, sometimes you get more than you bargained for. I am past sick and tired of people like the Sovereign Citizens, Oath Keepers and militia fanatics claiming some power they do not have and expecting sane people to join or support them.
Blacksburg Suz that was something I was reading about just last night in reference to a “shoot out” in California (1997) when the cops were so badly outgunned by armor wearing bank robbers. They stood their ground and fought back with what they had until SWAT arrived (even going to a gun store for some AR-15′s) but it was not a good day. Armor piercing or those awful tearing bullets should NEVER be available to the general public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
“So you think we’re “looking for trouble”?’
This was more specifically aimed at the guy who felt the need to wander around Kroger with his AR-15, smirking and enjoying the discomfort of the people actually shopping there. And in no uncertain terms, yes, I think he was looking for trouble and will find it for sure.
applehead, you be crazy.
Sadly right on J.M. White — January 30, 2013 @ 12:35 pm #273 and you know WHY that story will be believed and that commendation will be real? People like applewood posting such garbage and the hostage taker in Alabama in a bunker. They make this too easy?
Literally every single thing Applewood posts is wrong or a lie.
Just for fun, applewood, provide us with a link showing how we started the revolution over the British trying to “take our guns”. A real link, even Wikipedia would suffice. No “GunNut Daily”, no “WeRMmilitia.com”. Something that looks like history. Because I’m calling BS on this, like every single other thing you post. There was no aspect, zero, none, of the American revolution that hinged on gun control.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-235Ng9RyjGQ/UQX7fX_RNOI/AAAAAAAAs-k/JyA9ETnX6hM/s400/anderson+cartoon.jpg
Comment by applewood — January 30, 2013 @ 12:13 pm
“Passing a law to Procecute and Jail Federal Agents for attempts at unconstitutional gun-grabs and, if they decide to come here and take ours, we`ll be there, locked and loaded to make sure they are `neutralized`…… Think it can`t happen ? Hang around. Really…what meds are you on ?”
Reality check: please reread comment @ 11:40 am…
Name one of the President’s proposals that suggest confiscation of legally attained guns.
Name one gun-control advocacy group that rates President Obama highly.
Now go back to your bunker and read some history, look up the definition of sedition, and read up on the First Amendment. Come back when you know something.
West Va. joins anti-obama, anti-gun wave.
You fools can believe what you want…How many gun owners are you around on a daily basis ? How many gun owners from across the nation do you talk with on a day-to-day basis ? Thats what I thought. Stay in the dark..I`m sure thats where you`ll be when the battle starts anyway.
Gdad/Kristen/Psychotic Sandi and the rest…There is a saying that goes “I can`t believe my eyes“….ring a bell ? That saying is representative of a liberals life. Anything that disrupts their little bubble couldn`t possibly be true. I can only hope I`m there to see your faces when you have to one day face reality. I will howl with laughter. Now, go back to your hiding places.
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley,raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. Lock and Load, Ladies…protect yourselves.
Jack’s got your back on those fake quotes, addledwood.
Kristen:
“Just for fun, applewood, provide us with a link showing how we started the revolution over the British trying to “take our guns”. A real link, even Wikipedia would suffice….Because I’m calling BS on this, like every single other thing you post. There was no aspect, zero, none, of the American revolution that hinged on gun control.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
I already posted this for her once. She’s pulling your chain applewood.
“slanderous, vindictive, malicious…Bonus points for the uncalled for defamation”.
Comments by John Wilburn
Specifically where’s the defamation, John Wilburn? Source, please.
And having never spoken about you either publicly nor to anyone privately, how could you have been slandered by ME?
The first amendment protection allows me to recapitulate John Wilburn of Blacksburg’s publicly expressed attitude towards gun violence victims, including those slaughtered at Va. Tech: “yawn, and it’s their fault”.
This post is made under my real name, same as Jack.
OJ nails it again.
“Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley,raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. Lock and Load, Ladies…protect yourselves.”
Whoa Nellie! Rape reference alert!
Cue a response from mikeO (if his wife lets him play tonight).
“…There is a saying that goes “I can`t believe my eyes“….ring a bell ”
Let me guess, applewood. Thomas Jefferson. Or Saul Alinsky (dead).
” Really…what meds are you on ?”
We might ask you the same cliched, boring question, applewood. Although I suspect the answer it…none. Unfortunately.
JohnW, nice attempt at an applewood save. Sadly, your and Jack’s efforts combined won’t be enough.
Warren:
“The first amendment protection allows me to recapitulate John Wilburn of Blacksburg’s publicly expressed attitude towards gun violence victims, including those slaughtered at Va. Tech: “yawn, and it’s their fault”.”
No, the First Amendment doesn’t allow it. Dan does. He likes and condones your style and I think less of him for it.
I find these people just itching for the government to show up on their doorstep and demand their guns, funny and sad at the same time. Their hoping to become heroes in the history books.
Make that, they’re hoping.
If the government ever does ban firearms (highly unlikely), I believe the effort will gain its momentum as a result of backlash to the zealous pro-gun extremists who turn people away from supporting the Second Amendment because they’re beligerent buffoons. There are intelligent arguments to be made on both sides of the debate, but too often they get completely overwhelmed by the really idiotic stuff being shouted louder.
Seriously John Wilburn? Even applewood?
You two brainiacs may consider the first battles to be the cause of the Revolutionary War but you would be as wrong as you usually are.
You boys ever heard of the Boston Tea Party or the First Continental Congress?
Have some self respect man!
John Wilburn @285
Clarify a point for you. The English NEVER ordered the confiscation of the colonists’ guns. The person who ordered it was General Gates on his own volition – it was not ordered by the British Parliament. A colonist informant told the general that the colonists were stockpiling guns to attack or defend against the British troops.
So, no government conspiracy or justification for using this as an example of our government looking to take away your guns.
JohnW, your link does not support your position at all. The Revolution was not caused but gun control. I think most of us who took some American History know that.
http://www.historycentral.com/Revolt/causes.html
This lists the causes of the American Revolution. It wasn’t gun control but we knew that.
Debbie: These armchair warriors will crap themselves and go running for cover after the first bullet whizzes by their head. They may very well wish that they’ll go down in history well-remembered, but heroes and cowards are easily separated once the projectiles start flying. They pound their chests with pseudo-machismo and misguided patriotism, only to run like hell when the action starts. I’ve witnessed it personally.
applewood is an especially grievous coward. He hides behind a pseudonym and launches openly seditious and universally false tirades. I’ve found that 99% of those types have never been fired upon by someone with the intent to kill them. The 1% who were fired upon ran to the first hole in which they could barricade themselves and hid until someone came to save them.
If the day comes that they knock on applewood’s door to take his guns, he’ll hand them right over, bitch and moan about it incessantly and maybe try to keep an easily concealable pistol from the authorities. He’ll then run to the Internet, spill some righteously indignant B.S. story about how he was overwhelmed by sheer force and surprise but managed to keep one of his guns. He’ll then go back to blah blah blah-ing about the resistance movement and how the day of reckoning is nigh. Rest assured, though, when it comes time to fight or hit the fence, he’s hitting the fence. Punks are easy to spot.
By the way, applewood, in re: your comment at 2:17 pm: I have nearly two dozen guns (including military-born armaments), I live with another gun owner and I talk to no less than half a dozen gun owners daily. If it ever does hit the fan, guess what? You’re no hero; you’re just the fan.
JMWhite….applewood gets an ASTRONOMICAL number of emails. I’d say that speaks for itself.
Re: #291:
John Wilburn might really believe the Revolutionary War was mostly about gun control, because he also recently posted a link that indicated he thinks General Washington was behind some tree shooting a musket at the British, instead of making strategic decisions and being the American forces leader from HQ and near the front lines when necessary.
Did JW have a creditable source for his claim of Washington shooting any British? He gave none, just a stupid cartoon about GW supposedly shooting them. But if so, he’s found an important revelation about GW that every single source from then till now has missed; John Wilburn, unparalleled student of history!!!
Of course, John Wilburn and his ilk also try to ignore the much more recent example of Gandhi, who overturned colonial rule through steadfast non-violence. And while floating around on the internet are Gandhi “quotes” about needing guns that militia fantasizers and gun nuts try to cite as meaningful, the historical fact is they weren’t used in the actual results that Gandhi achieved. Revolution without guns did happen.
That’s history as it really occured, much more recently than 1781. But NRA spokesman Chuck Norris couldn’t sell those non-violent images as well as the violent ones he does sell, because NRA spokesman Chuck Norris is a terrible actor, but an aficionado of violence. Yep, militia fantasies, revisionist history and violent imagery will sell for as long as there are John Wilburns to buy.
OJ, +1
OJ, +2
Dan, re: 3:46
Yes out for a bit “to play”…
Don’t you think it a bit absorbed that you consistently post about rape? I suggest you seek therapy.
I am not a military strategist, but it seems that attacking/destroying/capturing the “military supplies” of your enemy is War Strategy 101. John Wilburn, that you believe the Revolutionary War was about gun confiscation is surprising and your support of applewood perplexing.
Right On Other John and JM White. It is just a darned shame that we can never have a serious discussion on this blog without the irrational peanut gallery braying.
This is an important discussion for many of us who do revere the Constitution and the tradition/heritage of the Second Amendment and the right to self defense that IMO is above the scope of law at the most basic level, in your home. The trouble with that ideal is when some angry, evil or mentally ill person decides to make others pay for their anger, pain or problems.
We have some really intelligent, thoughtful and passionate people who could certainly move this issue forward to a good consensus but for those determined to bully and malign instead of solve a damn thing. Day in and day out, it is the same.
It gets old.
I’m sure you’re right, J.M. Internet blowhards are a dime a dozen.
Kristen asked: “There was no aspect, zero, none, of the American revolution that hinged on gun control.” Clearly there was a very important component of gun control. It may not support your viewpoint, but it is a fact.
Jason Perdue:
“…and your support of applewood perplexing.”
I’m not into grade school cliques. If applewood makes a good point, I acknowledge it. Before you condemn my +1 for the occasional good point made by a right-wing troll, clean out your own closets with your support of left-wing trolls. Get over it.
Sandi: the only winning move is not to play.
…on blogs, anyway. I’d love to have a rational discussion about gun control, but there are too many people on both sides who debate using fear-mongering, hyperbole, rhetorical flourish, supposition and/or blatant dishonesty to forward the issue. Therefore, I’ve mostly withdrawn from gun debates.
However, I occasionally find someone who is so disingenuous and so fake that I just can’t resist, regardless of subject. applewood is a blustering, bloviating poltroon who deserves to have his punk card pulled as often as possible. I truly pray that no one ever need his protection, for they will be shielding themselves with an apparition.
I hope he is part of a giant email network. I hope they do get together to
huddlefight en masse. I hope that a fraction of a second before the GBU that just dropped through the roof of their poorly-constructed bunker detonates, they realize that they f’d up, big time. Outgunned, out-trained and outclassed, history will remember them as some crazy dudes that blew themselves up in a compound in the long-neglected butt-crack of Wyoming. People like him are doomsday fetishists; all they need is a cause, real or imagined. It’s about creating the illusion of preparation, not actually taking action. That would require a spine.Hey John Wilburn, applewood, and Leon,
I’ve been enjoying your posts. I’ve also been enjoying watching the libs twist themselves into pretzels as they futilly try to make rational sense.
Well done, folks.
JohnW, you posted some link and called it support for your opinion. It wasn’t. There is no support for your wish that gun control was ever an issue in Colonial America. I cited a link that clearly lists the roots of the revolution. Gun control isn’t on it. This is not opinion, it’s my facts versus your wishful thinking.
All applehead would have so say is “guns r gud. I has lots and kan kill a lotsof peoples”, and you’d be all over him patting him on the back for making a “good point”. He is consistently wrong on everything he posts.
J.M. White:
“I’d love to have a rational discussion about gun control, but there are too many people on both sides who debate using fear-mongering, hyperbole, rhetorical flourish, supposition and/or blatant dishonesty to forward the issue.”
In a formal, civilized debate setting, I would really enjoy that. The way this place is conducted, it won’t happen here.
After seeing the praise Joe Biden was heaped with from many of these bloggers after his classless, disrespectful, rude, performance vs. Paul Ryan, I gave up hope of anything more meaningful than trading shots across the bow with these folks. Compound that with a certain jerk who must personally attack every GD thing I ever post because of his inexplicable personal vendetta against me, and I don’t feel like doing anything truly constructive here anymore. At one time, I used to be the one who would call for civility and, believe it or not, Warren appreciated how my civility stood out. That is how I am in real life. He sure devolved quickly, too. This crass blog can be fun, but it isn’t my natural style and I think it is harmful to those who spend significant amounts of time here. That, I can do something about….
“After seeing the praise Joe Biden was heaped with from many of these bloggers after his classless, disrespectful, rude, performance vs. Paul Ryan, I gave up hope of anything more meaningful than trading shots across the bow with these folks.”
–Comment by John Wilburn
Obviously, the shellacking that experienced old hand Joe Biden gave the newbie-on-the-national-stage Payl Ryan still stings greatly. For the record, I thought Biden gave Ryan every bit of the respect he deserved.
It’s not Biden’s problem that Paul Ryan lives in Ayn Rand fairy-tale land, where he invents problems that don’t exist and, with a straight face and in utter seriousness, prescribes cockamamie solutions that would be harmful to the country. That is all on Ryan.
Not everyone DESERVES to be taken seriously, John. There are a few who don’t, and Paul Ryan is one of them.
I need to visit the archives, I do not remember Joe Biden being “heaped” with “praise” here and since the despicable treatment of someone is on the table, the crap flung at President Obama has been beyond any pale! How about YOU get over it?
Again, the only “component of gun control” involved in the American Revolution was the kernel for militia service being codified, and the attempts to disarm the insurgents. Gun control, gun confiscation and gun ownership was no aspect of the American Revolution cause.
And while I am lecturing on the damned obvious, there was no aspect of future rebellion against the government being created when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution. None. I find it offensive when fools take it that way too. We did not create a nation just to satisfy some whim of eloquent rich dudes. And we did not create nor seek to create the United States of Libertaria! You do not get to ignore the “United” when it suits.
In a formal, civilized debate setting, I would really enjoy that. The way this place is conducted, it won’t happen here.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 30, 2013 @ 9:31 pm
That sounds good, Mr. Wilburn. Perhaps we can meet up here in the ‘burg one evening and do precisely that. We’re overdue for a face-to-face meeting anyway.
As far as Warren is concerned, he’s kind of become a straight-up bully to you. Everyone gets heated here, but he seems to have put you in his personal crosshairs (pun intended) and seems to be relentlessly trying to tear down and belittle you. I do admire your perseverance through it all. On your end, though, any response to him at this point is feeding the troll, so to speak.
When I find myself taking this place too seriously, I just ramble off into the absurd. Witness my recent behavior modification experiment with Frank. It worked like a charm (he went over 30 hours without prefacing any of his comments with “hey”), and he ended up nominating me for shunner-in-chief, an office to which I have always aspired. Speaking of which, we’ll need a shunning security advisor and I think you’d fit the bill nicely. It’s a cushy, do-little job, but the pay is lousy. Have your people call my people if you’re interested.
White/Goodman ’13
J.M., is publicly yawning at gun murders okay with you, then? And contemptuously blaming those victims, whether first graders, sniping victims, police officers, or innocent family members, for staying in a “victim pool” is not offputting in the least to you? Wow. I wouldn’t previously have taken you for someone who relies on apathy to cope with America’s ongoing gun slaughter.
While there are other people than John hoping to give violence an easier path in our state, on this blog only he and Dave Hicks combine that with such explicit contempt for the victims of gun violence. Their contempt for victims is contemptible, I believe. Factor in John’s silly anti-government paranoia and his willingness to post false historical claptrap and it becomes much harder for me to allow his gun worship to pass unremarked. So I don’t. If JW hates the fact that the 1A is a more powerful weapon than the 2A, tough titties, or I guess I should say, tough moobs.
I’d much rather play music with you J.M., or discuss your other creative endeavors, or compare our caregiving experiences, if you care to share a little about your experiences in those realms. As a gun owner myself, I’ve found that I have a whole ‘nuther side of my brain that an identity built around guns could never satisfy.
I’m not into grade school cliques. If applewood makes a good point, I acknowledge it. Before you condemn my +1 for the occasional good point made by a right-wing troll, clean out your own closets with your support of left-wing trolls. Get over it.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 30, 2013 @ 6:53 pm
JW, do you really believe that the Revolutionary War had anything to do with gun confiscation, apart from good military strategy?
You pine for a good, civilized debate, yet you support applewood’, the very antithesis of civilized debate. As for my closets, they surely contain the skeletons of progressive thinkers from the present and the past. My closet, my choice. I respect your right to fill your closet with the fashions of your choice. I truly don’t think applewood fits you. I think you are more thoughtful than that.
I’ve thought a fair bit about the premise of the Second Amendment as a means to fight a tyranical government…and the more that I do, the more absurd it seems. For that to be a possibility, it supposes two things: one, that personal firepower and arsenals could be used to overwhelm far superior weaponry (yes, we did manage that against the British, 230 years ago…though we did have our own military weaponry as well), and two, that our own military, police, and nationa guard forces would actually willingly take up arms against their fellow citizens.
Anything of that sort I just do not see happening with our country the way it is. But, if our country ever devolved to where that was possible, the Second Amendment would be the least of our concerns as we would have probably suffered a near complete and total civil and economic collapse by that point anyway.