Put your reaction to Obama’s pending gun plan here
AP Photo | Text by Dan
President Barack Obama is expected to announce his gun-control proposals around midday today. But details of his gun plan, above, were leaked to the Washington Post yesterday.
Here’s that story. Read it (or not) and tell us what you think in the comments below.
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has taken the low road, dragging the president’s daughters into the debate with a new ad, below. We want to hear what you think about this NRA tactic as well.
January 16, 2013 - 8:00 AM
If we don’t need high capacity magazines to protect us, neither does he, his family, or the other politicians. What’s good for the goose…
Its all political blather from the least competent president in our history, at least since 1900. Not a shred of evidence that any of the proposals would have saved a single life. Just a wish by those who cannot tolerate people being allowed to make their own decisions. This theater takes people’s minds off the complete incompetence of the Administration and unfettered growth of government spending, except for unilateral disarmament of the US military.
I’m surprised that they didn’t trot out the standard “would you just stand there and watch your daughters get raped, President Obama?”
This isn’t much but better than nothing I guess. Ill go out on a limb and predict the usual howling and outrage from the gunners.
My prediction is that there will be a lot of knee-jerk reactions to whatever is said, because I’m sure the “response” was written well before these proposals were.
I’m about ready to hear weeks upon weeks of idiots coming out to complain. (As In, my headphones are ready and I have a whole ton of new music to listen to.)
Why doesn’t he just make it illegal to murder? Then no one can do it and we’ll all be safe!
Epic FAIL! Driving an anti-gun agenda on the backs of slain innocent children. Shame on Obama who is lower than a snake’s belly.
All that was needed was to eliminate “gun-free” zones; allow teachers, parents, administrators, janitors, etc. to carry if they have a CCP. Only takes one to stop a nutcase. The school which Obama’s daughters
attend has 11 guards(armed) on the payroll and these are not SS agents.
Yet Obama had the voucher program eliminated so that many DC residents,
who cannot otherwise afford private school, were forced out of the school. Their kids now get to attend the gun-free (target rich) public schools in DC which, BTW, provide horrendous educational results.
Liberals, this is the hypocrit you unelected; the uneligible Messiah of
Hypocrisy.
Seems as though the Sumpreme Court, in an opinion written by that flaming liberal Justice Scalia, has already paved the way for most of these ideas.
The main obstacle to the passage of such measures is likely to be politics, not constitutional law, scholars say.
“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the Heller decision. “But,” he added, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
Still, the decision also contained a long list of laws and regulations that would, the court said, be unaffected. Among them were “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” Justice Scalia wrote. Government buildings in general could still ban guns. And the court said it had no quarrel with “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.” He gave an example: “M-16 rifles and the like.”
When the case was argued in 2008, Justice Scalia suggested that other kinds of weapons and ammunition could be regulated. “I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor-piercing bullets,” he said. “I think that’s quite unusual.”
The NRA Commercial is disgusting. Just like the new app for children the NRA put out.
it doesnt go far enough
The NRA has never been shy about using tragedy to rake in cash. Gotta pay Wayne’s salary, doncha’ know?
Seems ok to me.
People need to understand the executive orders will not create new laws. The legislative branch of our government proposes and passes laws for the executive branch to sign into law. The assault weapon ban won’t pass but the president can say he gave it a try. 30 or 10 round magazines don’t matter. Universal background checks are fine.
I am a gun owner. Rifles both traditional and assault style. High capacity double action pistols, shotguns and revolvers. I would never join the NRA due to their extreme positions. The NRA misses out on a lot of gun owners with their nut job stances and rants.
I find it amazing and really neat to see our 3 branches of government in action just as the founding fathers designed. We saw it with the affordable health care act. We will see it with gun control. Sit back, pay attention to the process, and enjoy what a wonderful system we have in place.
This article from the Cumberland Times I believe addresses the gun issue better than any ideas, laws or restrictions put forward to date. A fairly long read but very thought provoking.
http://times-news.com/outdoors/x1303516804/Let-s-try
Barry has given himself security protection for life and for his family but doesn’t want law abiding citizens to be armed. How is that not hypocrisy?
I like #1, only. The lady in the video below, testifying before Congress does a fantastic job of describing the perils of gun control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Why doesn’t he just make it illegal to murder? Then no one can do it and we’ll all be safe!
Comment by Paddy O’ Ryan — January 16, 2013 @ 8:56 am
Because even if that was successful, and our murder rate were zero, it still wouldn’t take away guns.
Awww, look, Leon must be a paid NRA shill.
Ron,
I’d like to think you’re right, and that the Heller decision leaves the door open to further regulation. But recall, this is the same court that wrote that opinion, which overturned more than 100 years of precedent with respect to its interpretation of the Second Amendment. Given that the Heller justices could find an individual right that no other SCOTUS in a century could divine, I don’t think they’ll be too hard pressed to suddenly channel a whole bunch more gun rights.
The NRA is not “dragging” poor Obama’s daughters into the debate. The fact of the matter is, his daughters are protected 24/7 by a large detail of the Secret Service. The schools they attend are guarded by more than a handful of fully armed guards. (Yes, THEY have “assault” rifles.) Why is it OK for them to be protected by such means and not OK for our children to have the protection of one or two school staff that are allowed to carry a firearm?
And as for dragging children into the debate, Our Dear Leader will be surrounded by a gaggle of young props during his press conference today. Supposedly, they each wrote him a letter expressing their concern about those evil guns. Oh, the joys of being raised by liberal parents. The nation can hardly wait until these enlightened children reach voting age!
Why doesn’t he just make it illegal to murder? Then no one can do it and we’ll all be safe!
Comment by Paddy O’ Ryan — January 16, 2013 @ 8:56 am
He doesn’t have to Paddy. That’s already the law. But then I’m sure you knew that. Geesh!!!
Fully support this plan. I would strongly urge increased measures to address the critical need for mental health care.
“The NRA is not “dragging” poor Obama’s daughters into the debate. The fact of the matter is, his daughters are protected 24/7 by a large detail of the Secret Service. The schools they attend are guarded by more than a handful of fully armed guards. (Yes, THEY have “assault” rifles.) Why is it OK for them to be protected by such means and not OK for our children to have the protection of one or two school staff that are allowed to carry a firearm?”
–Comment by Paddy O’Ryan
I wonder if the NRA, and folks like Paddy O’Ryan, just this week realized that presidential security details include protection not just for the president, but for the president’s family. It sounds like that. Next they will get all up in arms over the fact that taxpayers are underwriting protection for Michelle Obama. Here’s the script for that ad:
“Is the president’s wife more important than yours? Then why is he so skeptical about putting armed guards in hair salons — when his wife’s hair salon is protected by armed guards every time she gets a haircut or manicure . . .”
I was going to post a prediction that most of the unfavorable responses would reflect an existing antipathy to this president, but I was too late, numerous posters have already proven the point.
The suicide pact between the GOTP and the gun profit lobby is so far along now that neither can put down the gun.
The Falwellian subset of “conservatives” must be so jealous to be finding out that their audience loves their massacre weapons even more than Jesus.
Great point at 8:56 a.m., Paddy!
Ol’ dano and ron sure don’t know what to make of your “just make murder illegal” suggestion. They can’t wrap what’s left of their thinking ability around the concept that guns are a deterrent to crime, and are a personal protection device when in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Hey, I know! As you suggest, let’s make “murder” illegal, AND if a gun is used to commit the murder, we’ll make it “double-illegal”. That way, people who have guns surely wouldn’t risk committing a murder with, like, a gun, ya know!
“The fact of the matter is, his daughters are protected 24/7 by a large detail of the Secret Service.”
The fact of the matter is that ALL first families get SS protection, and always have. The fact is that they’re targets and the rest of us are not. Those are the facts. Normal people don’t need armed guards 24/7.
Frank,
If guns were a deterrent to crime, we’d have much less of it. I mean we only have 300 million plus firearms that we know about in the U.S.
Kristen,
The school that PBO’s children attend has heavily armed guards in ADDITION to Secret Service. The school itself has them.
Also, who are you to say that nobody else is a target and nobody else (“normal people”) don’t need to be armed?
What about the lady in Georgia the other day who, while protecting her children, emptied an entire revolver into the face and neck of the assailant (yes, she shot him in the face and neck FIVE times) only to have him walk outside, get in his truck, and drive away? Ask her if she needs to be armed.
Ron May,
We do have less of it. Where have you been?
Kristen:
“Normal people don’t need armed guards 24/7.”
Until they are murder victims, of course.
“Put your reaction to Obama’s pending gun plan here”
I cannot go through thousands of e-mails to find it, but someone (student, friend, colleague?) once asked me what I thought Obama would do about gun control (this was a couple of years ago). I replied that he has nothing to gain and everything to lose politically by going after gun rights in this term, but if reelected, there will be some convenient, perfectly timed, seemingly scripted tragedy that uses “assault weapons” and children to springboard off of and he will sign whatever awful bill(s) that McCarthy, Feinstein, et al come up with. I also said he could reclassify lots of guns with an executive order, but figured that would be something done on the way out the door.
I’m not shocked at all by his proposals. I’m shocked by the gun owners who were too naive to see this coming…. and let his reelection happen.
Ron,
The lady in Georgia sure prevented some crimes from taking place in her own home, didn’t she? Ya see, Ron, those kind of stats aren’t tracked, unfortuantely, but they are meaningful.
oh, and Ron,
The attacker pursuing the lady and her kids in her own house was using a crow-bar. I bet if it were up to you and ol’dano, the lady would be brought up on charges of “using excessive force”.
Sheesh.
Kristen @ 10:25, the families of those 27 “normal people” massacred in Newtown might disagree with you on the armed guard thing now, don’t you think? They certainly don’t need armed security 24/7, but maybe we need to rethink the time they spend as sitting ducks in supposedly gun free zones.
If this point were made by someone other than the NRA I know it wouldn’t leave such a bad taste in some of your mouths, but a good point it is IMO.
Jack:
“What about the lady in Georgia the other day who, while protecting her children, emptied an entire revolver into the face and neck of the assailant”
Jack, Kristen and I have had this conversation before. She, at that time at least, was willing to lay down and die for the disarmament she believed in and thinks everyone else should die for what she believes in too.
Where is the media talking about how glad they are that woman was armed and protected herself and her children from certain harm and using that opportunity to tell others about the value of being armed? I guess that doesn’t fit their “who needs a gun at home?” philosophy.
Frank, nobody’s talking about denying anyone their right to protection in their home. You’re pretending people are talking about that. You can’t make a case against reasonable and sensible restrictions, so you gin up a case against unreasonable stuff that hasn’t even been proposed.
Sheesh!
Ron @9:34 am: “Barry has given himself security protection for life and for his family but doesn’t want law abiding citizens to be armed. How is that not hypocrisy?”
It might be hypocrisy if it were true, but it is not. Obama isn’t proposing anything close to a blanket ban on guns. Assuming you know that, why are you lying?
all guns should be banned
Jack, if you want to walk around feeling like a target, be my guest. I guess that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean everyone isn’t out to get you. If you like to think you’re under the same level of threat as POTUS, have at it.
Good for the school. So what? There’s nothing in place that prevents schools from having whatever security they want.
If she shot him 5 times and he walked away, she needs to aim better. Although it took that drunk football player 9 shots to murder his girlfriend, it only took one for him to kill himself.
#24 Kristen, I’d ask those shot at VT, Sandy Hook, CO theater, etc if they thought they weren’t targets, as you say.
#26 I’d add to Jack’s post that I’m SURE that lady in GA stopped shooting at 5-6 times because we all KNOW that, especially now in NY, all you need is 7 rounds max to stop the threat. (BTW, that was sarcasm. I’m sure that GA lady would’ve emptied Bryansteens ammo counter if it would’ve stopped the threat to her family)
How about “Democrats and liberals don’t kill people, gun totin’ right wing kooks kill people”?
So looking back at the thread, I guess the lady in Georgia is the gunner talking point of the day.
Huntersdad, the fault of Newtown lies with the shooter, not the victims. Maybe we should just all walk around with body armor?
JohnW, without guns, there are a lot less murder victims. At least under slaughter by cereal box or crochet hook catches on.
I still don’t understand why the gun proponents are flipping out. An assault weapon ban won’t pass the house. The President cannot create new laws. He is playing to his base and knows nothing significant will come out of this. This is nothing but a dog and pony show. Let everyone put their proposals on the table. Let the system do it’s job.
“13.Barry has given himself security protection for life and for his family…”
Seriously, Ron? You think that every other First Family doesn’t get this? You appear to be one of those RWers who just woke up when Obama was elected and has only been recently acquainted with reality.
Comment by Ernie — January 16, 2013 @ 9:32 am
The fact that well-thought, reasoned comments like this get lost in the mire while others lob pro-gun/anti-gun bombs at one another is precisely why I’m withdrawing from any further debate about guns on the Internet.
Well said, Ernie. Thank you for giving me the thought that perhaps not all hope is lost.
@Dan @11:12am,
So are you proposing that the “assault weapon” ban and ban of magazines holding more than ten rounds should apply only outside the home? Are you suggesting that they still be available for use inside the home?
@Dan Radmacher,
Feinstein’s ban, if it passed as-is, would be a blanket ban on guns for poor people.
Just to be clear, the Ron who commented at 9:34 a.m. is not me.
If she shot him 5 times and he walked away, she needs to aim better.
Comment by Kristen — January 16, 2013 @ 11:18 am
She put EVERY round into either his face or neck. I think her aim is just fine.
#26 I’d add to Jack’s post that I’m SURE that lady in GA stopped shooting at 5-6 times because we all KNOW that, especially now in NY, all you need is 7 rounds max to stop the threat.
Comment by 1%r — January 16, 2013 @ 11:21 am
She was using a revolver and it only held five rounds. She was empty. If he’d decided to go ahead and kill her instead of get in his truck and drive away, she’d be dead. She was done at that point.
Scott: My prediction is that there will be a lot of knee-jerk reactions to whatever is said, because I’m sure the “response” was written well before these proposals were.
Take out the “I’m sure.” From TV personalities losing their self-control on news programs to all the groundlings yammering on this page alone, everyone knows that the Sandy Hook shooting would generate some sort of official response from the Obama administration coupled with laws aimed at preventing such a thing from happening in the future and prepared for such a response by stockpiling their verbal ammo, as it were. (Because heaven forbid our elected and appointed officials recognize problems and fix them, and shame on any resident of this blog trying to spin assault weaponry used to murder children as anything other than a serious issue that needs timely solutions.)
Speaking of verbal ammo, I can’t seem to find a metaphor or analogy for this situation that doesn’t involve weaponry or warfare or violence in general. Our rhetoric has been sculpted over the decades to treat any problem as a battle that must be fought with potent weaponry until “our side” (whichever side that is) wins. Even if some people don’t how to use a firearm and never intend learn how, we’re exposed to these metaphors through education and entertainment and they shape how we think. No wonder we’re all gun nuts.
Ernie:
“I still don’t understand why the gun proponents are flipping out. An assault weapon ban won’t pass the house.”
Ernie, the full bill will not pass the house, but I can see it being watered down to a magazine ban and that passing.
“The President cannot create new laws. He is playing to his base and knows nothing significant will come out of this.”
He will not let this go away. He will at least thumb us in the eye with an executive order if nothing sifts though the house.
Also, I disagree with the idea that universal background checks are fine. I have two reasons: One, once it is established that EVERYONE but felons must go through the background check, watch the check get tighter and tighter and tighter until no one passes it. Two, the whole point of a universal check system is a registry of every gun owner as it would certainly become. I vehemently oppose a national gun registry for the lawful. That is the beginning step of confiscation.
Jack,
I’m undecided on those issues. But look at it this way: parts of the gun crowd are inventing garbage about what the president’s trying to do, for the purpose of scaring gunners and beating back ANY less onerous thing the White House might propose. There’s no White House proposal to seize home-protection handguns from law-abiding citizens.
And anyway, don’t you favor some forms of gun control?
Paddy: Why is it OK for them to be protected by such means and not OK for our children to have the protection of one or two school staff that are allowed to carry a firearm?
…because the average citizen doesn’t have to worry about someone kidnapping his or her spouse or children to hold them for ransom for global political concerns? (There’s an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher where Grover Norquist squawks about how Sasha and Malia attend a private school and have Secret Service protection because he is also ignorant of the fact that the Leader of the Free World has far more security concerns than Joe Average.)
And putting all the financial considerations aside (funding these school safety programs or the licensure for volunteers or whatever), think about the recent screw jobs and added stress put on VA teachers by the VA General Assembly, do you really want to give a bunch of already stressed-out people firearms?
Dan,
I would support the background checks if the information was not stored. For example, if I wanted to sell a gun to you, I could either run the check myself, or have the FFL do it, and the response would be “yay” or “nay” on whether or not you could have the gun.
I would only support this, however, if the information WAS NOT STORED. For example, they could keep statistical information if they’d like (percentage of males to females, age ranges, ethnicity, etc) that would be fine. But they should not be able to look back and see exactly who the checks were for. They gave the answer, and that should be the end of it.
Anything else, and you have effectively created registration. I wouldn’t even mind private sales requiring checks if we knew that it was conducted in this way and we knew that for a fact.
I, personally, have only made one person to person transaction before and we did do a background check… even when it was sold to me by my best friend. All of my other purchases have been through dealers and have had background checks conducted.
Again, as long as they are quick, do not cost me anything, and are NOT STORED… I’d be fine with them on every sale.
However, I can’t help but feel sort of like John Wilburn does about once they are required for every sale the requirements for passing the check could just be tightened and tightened and tightened… that scares me, honestly.
I think magazine size restrictions are just to make stupid people feel better, because smart people know it makes no difference except to inconvenience those who have done nothing wrong. Same thing with semi-automatic bans.
I do not like the idea of felons and mentally ill people having guns, and if someone proposed a sensible way to curb that without affecting my Constitutional Rights, I’d support it. It must, however, come with a method for those people to apply to have their rights restored at some point, though, if they deserve it.
Dan
I agree with all of Obama’s proposals. But can you explain to me how he can make them law with “executive order”? We have a legislative branch of government and they make the laws. Do you really want to live in a country where the king makes the laws?
“Feinstein’s ban, if it passed as-is, would be a blanket ban on guns for poor people.”
How so, Jack?
John Wilburn:
I don’t know man.
Us gun owners know we can pretty much do as much damage with a couple of 10 rounders “John Wayne’d” together as we can with a 30. So the magazine ban accomplishes nothing. Nothing for us, nothing against us. I can agree on the principal with you but not on the outcome.
A legal executive order to do what? If it ain’t legal it won’t stand. I think the President will move on to the economy, immigration, etc. He made a “good faith” effort and it didn’t pass so he moves on.
There will be no confiscation as long as the 2nd amendment exists. The 2nd amendment will not go away.
You probably know this answer. I never thought about it and don’t know. Does the state keep a record of our purchases today via the background check process or is the background check a one and done kind of thing? Thanks.
Does anyone have a link to this Georgia story?
It’s always incremental. First its just 30 round magazines, then its semi-autos, and before you know it we’ve lost everything. We don’t lose everything overnight but how much is too much. If citizens don’t have these weapons then they will only be in the hands of criminals and government.
The NRA Ad is trash as usual. The “protection” issue is a joke. More people die from their own guns than have ever been protected. BS by the gun lovers. We left the wild west a century ago and hired policemen. A civilized society relies on such and anyone using their gun for protection invites arrest and so many lawsuits they will never dig their way out. The issue is simply hogwash by the NRA.
Jack,
I’m undecided on those issues. But look at it this way: parts of the gun crowd are inventing garbage about what the president’s trying to do, for the purpose of scaring gunners and beating back ANY less onerous thing the White House might propose. There’s no White House proposal to seize home-protection handguns from law-abiding citizens.
And anyway, don’t you favor some forms of gun control?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 16, 2013 @ 11:52 am
Dan,
Some of us choose not to be naive’. Obama; in prior speeches, writings and his direct involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal has made it quite clear he is anti-gun ownership and against the second amendment. There is a liberal agenda in play. The elites fear guns in the hands of private citizens and would disarm the citizens of the U.S. Hence the UN
Arms treaty, the Fast and Furious scandal of arming the Mexican drug cartels to undermine the second amendment, and now, gun control to protect the children which does absolutely nothing to protect the children but does impair the ownership of guns by private citizens and will ultimately spin off gun registration which is a necessary step to disarm the citizens. Unlike your fellow liberal sheeple. . .conservatives do not want to even start down the slippery slope Obama is trying to grease for the citizens of the U.S.
Personally, I would be in favor of politician control. Eligibility to hold office would be verified; zero violations of the oath of office would be tolerated; all vacations would be taken 100% at the expense of the individual and not the country; voting for bills without reading them would be grounds for immediate expulsion from office; heavy monetary fines would be levied for any falsehoods or lies communicated to the public or for any misuse of executive power or privilege; and, treason in office would be subject to capital punishment.
You would be in favor of politician control wouldn’t you?
“Dan
I agree with all of Obama’s proposals. But can you explain to me how he can make them law with “executive order”? We have a legislative branch of government and they make the laws. Do you really want to live in a country where the king makes the laws?”
Terps, Obama is proposing laws for the meat of his plan, and they may or may not pass Congress. It doesn’t sound like the assault weapons ban will make it through the House, so Reid won’t even take it up in the Senate, because he doesn’t want his majority to have to have to stake a hard position, by voting, on legislation that is pointless. All that will do is cause incumbent Senate Democrats a lot of political heartburn.
The executive orders are stuff Obama already has the power to do (executive orders are not new, fyi).
I won’t speak to the various details, but one thing that crossed my mind is that these changes could still be a major boon to gun and accessory/ammunition makers and dealers (probably more than the rest since they may get the business push of having to run background checks for practically any transaction).
Gun makers would get to significantly re-design several popular weapons to make them compliant with new laws. Folks such as myself who didn’t grab a couple soon to be non-compliant firearms will be in the market for something in the future…
The accesory makers would get to come up with new stuff to work with the newly re-designed weapons as well…and ammo makers get the surge of sales as people stockpile…and will still be selling ammo for everyone who didn’t.
But like I said, the dealers will probably profit as well, getting to charge a fee for background checks on private sales that are presently exempt. The NRA and other groups will also profit from a boost in membership and contributions as people seek to fight the changes.
How so, Jack?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — January 16, 2013 @ 12:07 pm
Each “grandfathered” gun would require $200 additional dollars to be kept…. and registration, background check, photo, fingerprints.
I believe Jack’s theory was that Feinstein’s law would only hurt poor people because the rich can afford to buy guns around(ie, by breaking) the law. I know that staying sufficiently armed is a major priority for people who can barely keep food on the table, so his concerns should be addressed.
Kristen,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html
I believe it has been since determined that her revolver held five rounds, rather than the reported six.
Rush Limbaugh is in fine fettle on his radio show this afternoon. He’s attempting to proactively blame Obama for the NEXT gun massacre by some nut in this country. He’s calling the administration “the regime,” is comparing Obama to Hugo Chavez and Yuri Andropov (there are so few commies left he’s gotta haul out the dead ones) and is adding:
“Why is the president trying to upset everyone?” and “Someone’s going to snap!”
That is rich stuff, and it’s emblematic of a radio blowhard in decline.
Leon, as you can read for yourself, Jack is in favor of gun control. You are too. The only argument here is the definition of “reasonable.”
Thanks Jack. Weird it would be in a British publication…I tried googling the event and only could get something from last May.
And I have no problem with what she did, btw.
Clip change out…..takes as long as it took you to read “clip change out.” Anyone who believe limiting clip size will make a difference is fooling themselves. I think I understand the scheme now. By limiting certain types of weapons a black market will be created. Holder will be out of a job in a few years and he already learned to run guns in Mexico. New career opportunity for the Constitution hating Holder!
Ernie:
“I think the President will move on to the economy, immigration, etc. He made a “good faith” effort and it didn’t pass so he moves on.”
Possibly, but I don’t think the others will let this tragedy go to waste. I think they will fight for something just to take it from us, if nothing else.
“There will be no confiscation as long as the 2nd amendment exists. The 2nd amendment will not go away.”
I hope you’re right, but I think you’re wrong. Don’t forget our Fourth Amendment was gutted too.
“You probably know this answer. I never thought about it and don’t know. Does the state keep a record of our purchases today via the background check process or is the background check a one and done kind of thing? Thanks.”
The problem is that any record CAN be kept. The dealer records ARE kept and if there is a routine or specific audit, the ATF gets those records. They also must be turned in if the dealer goes out of business.
Essentially, the paper generation IS a registration scheme. It will become more and more centralized as people allow it to be. If you have ever bought a gun from a dealer, you are on the list.
Back to your inpenetrable Second Amendment… I was talking with an Australian last fall. He said those people also were convinced the government would never take their guns. He was in disbelief of how little the gun owners here are concerned.
If she shot him 5 times and he walked away, she needs to aim better.
Comment by Kristen — January 16, 2013 @ 11:18 am
She put EVERY round into either his face or neck. I think her aim is just fine.
Comment by Jack…..
It was a .38 caliber revolver. If 5 of the 6 rounds hit the perpetrator in the face and they were square hits, there would likely be no perpetrator left. (I have seen conflicting reports of whether or not she fired 5 or 6 times.)
But simple physics would explain if all her shots were in the face, the person would not have been able to walk out of there. If what you claim is correct (and I have my doubts), it’s just not possible.
Also, how in the hell did the guy end up with punctured lungs, punctured liver, and punctured stomach from getting shot in the face 5 times? Perhaps the JFK magic bullets?
Or perhaps you’re just making things up at this point to serve your myopic viewpoint on gun control. I’m betting on this explanation.
Thanks Jack, come again.
Leon, as you can read for yourself, Jack is in favor of gun control. You are too. The only argument here is the definition of “reasonable.”
Comment by Dan Casey — January 16, 2013 @ 1:14 pm
For once you’re right Dan. I’m in favor of gun control = “Hit what you aim at!” Now, how about you and. . .politician control?
Kristen,
Here’s a local story: http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/
Another Chuck:
“Clip change out…..takes as long as it took you to read “clip change out.””
Indeed. Every now and then, I have done a mag change in class and it always surprises many of them just how quickly and effortlessly that can be done.
It is literally:
1. push a button that your thumb is right next to already.
2. slam another magazine in (before the other even hits the ground).
3. keep shooting with barely a pause in the cadence of the shots.
So long as you drop the old mag and insert the new mag before firing the last shot, you do not need to manually release the slide. It is as fast and easy as above.
scott:
“It was a .38 caliber revolver. If 5 of the 6 rounds hit the perpetrator in the face and they were square hits, there would likely be no perpetrator left.”
This is why the FBI went from 9mm to 10mm (then to .40S&W). An FBI agent put 5 rounds into a drug dealer who survived and returned fire long enough to kill two FBI agants. If I remember correctly, a couple were in his neck.
I carry 16 rounds of 10mm. Problem solved. No one is going to continue their assault getting hit by five rounds of that.
For reference, here’s a 9mm – .40S&W – 10mm:
http://tinyurl.com/abymdxq
I wonder why the NRA and our resident gun folks aren’t linking to this story:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/richmond-man-shot-by–year-old-dies/article_f83ed5ed-1b79-5b73-9b12-e22e210c13c4.html
Dan Casey writes, “Frank, nobody’s talking about denying anyone their right to protection in their home. You’re pretending people are talking about that.” But before that he wrote, ” Given that the Heller justices could find an individual right that no other SCOTUS in a century could divine,…” Dan, the Heller case, and McDonald delt with having a right to a gun in your home!!!!! From the left side of your mouth comes “You should not have that right….the SCOTUS was wrong.” And from the other side of your mouth comes, disingenuously for sure, “Nobody says you can’t have a gun in your home.” Well, no one except for Dan. LOL
I drive by the gun store in Salem everyday to work, Trader Jerry’s. It has been packed everyday since the tragedy, and today I looked over and it was closed and no cars were in the parking lot.
Sold out of everything, I would suspect.
Leon,
You’re in favor of Second Amendment restrictions. The only argument here is the definition of “reasonable.”
It’s over…thank God!! We keep our ARs and we keep on being able to get them. Hi-cap mags….same as ARs….won’t be touched for the same reason…not enough votes. Universal background checks, even between private sellers…..totally unenforcable. Now, when will the prices fall back to normal so we can stock up??
gdad, not a surprising story. If you have a gun in your home, the only people on the planet with a reasonable chance of being shot by it are the people who live there.
“I wonder why the NRA and our resident gun folks aren’t linking to this story:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/richmond-man-shot-by–year-old-dies/article_f83ed5ed-1b79-5b73-9b12-e22e210c13c4.html
Uh….because accidents happen and it’s irrelavent.
You man Obama ISN’T coming to grab all your guns, Phil? Imagine that.
Good catch, Phil. Well said.
Be careful, however, or you might attract the attention of dan’s attack dog…who very well might be packing.
Leon,
You’re in favor of Second Amendment restrictions. The only argument here is the definition of “reasonable.”
Comment by Dan Casey — January 16, 2013 @ 2:06 pm
Speak for yourself Dan. As far as I am concerned the Second Amendment, and the rest of the constitution, is one fine piece of work. Wish we had
politicians who honored it and their oath(s) of office and wish we didn’t have liberals who obviously hate it. You do not have permission to speak for me…cease and desist.
Salemite,
I’m not sure if there is a gun show nearby, but they are usually closed when a gun show is running (or the day after) because they have gone there. Also, even though it’s not today, they are closed every Monday, I believe.
I have only been there once, and coincidentally, it was do to a background check for a private sale. Go figure.
A very good graphic chart illustrating which party gets money from the NRA and how much. What this tells me is that nothing is going to happen because in this country, money and not the citizens best interests, talk.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/how-the-nra-influences-congress-in-6-charts/
reelected, there will be some convenient, perfectly timed, seemingly scripted tragedy that uses “assault weapons” and children to springboard off of and he will sign whatever awful bill(s) that McCarthy, Feinstein, et al come up with. I also said he could reclassify lots of guns with an executive order, but figured that would be something done on the way out the door.
I’m not shocked at all by his proposals. I’m shocked by the gun owners who were too naive to see this coming…. and let his reelection happen.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 16, 2013 @ 11:03 am
JW that is one of the most disgusting comments you have made on this blog. You reduced the tragedy of Sandy Hook to a “convenient, perfectly timed, seemingly SCRIPTED tragedy that uses assault weapons and children to springboard…” yada,yada. This is a perfect example of the tone deafness of the reaction of the NRA, Wayne Lapierre, and the gun extremists that Americans by the millions are finding offensive. These
comments have flipped opinion polls on all of the areas of the President’s [proposals to sizable majorities in favor of those changes.
My gun owning friends (and there are many) almost unanimously believe these are reasonable and needed regulations and restrictions to help restore some sanity to the out of control proliferation of guns and gun violence in this country. This Republican House of Reps may kill these changes but they,the NRA, and the gun extremists will face a serious challenge to that position in 2014. The average citizen in this country is sick of the violence and offended by this kind oif reaction.
Perhaps JohnW is among the new breed of “Truthers” who claim Newtown was staged and the people all actors.
The more I read on this thread, the more the gunners’ position resembles mental illness. “Stock up”, really?
JohnW, I’m not sure what you think “gun owners” could have done to prevent Obama’s reelection other than vote for Romney. A gun owner’s vote is worth exactly the same as everyone else’s, and I have no doubt at all that the number of 1 issue voters in that group are as small as every other group of 1 issue voters.
Dan to Leon: “You’re in favor of Second Amendment restrictions. The only argument here is the definition of “reasonable.”
Leon: “Speak for yourself Dan. As far as I am concerned the Second Amendment, and the rest of the constitution, is one fine piece of work. Wish we had politicians who honored it and their oath(s) of office and wish we didn’t have liberals who obviously hate it. You do not have permission to speak for me…cease and desist.”
Leon, are you in favor of laws prohibiting violent convicted felons from possessing guns? (Hint: if the answer is ‘yes,’ then you support Second Amendment restrictions).
Comment by John Wilburn — January 16, 2013 @ 2:01 pm
I’ve never met John Wilburn that I know of. However, his comments reflect his bravado whilst carrying firearm. He sort of reminds of that old country song, I’m A Long Tall Texan.
For reference, here’s a 9mm – .40S&W – 10mm:
I carry a Sig P229 .40 S&W. When purchased, it was the same model air marshals were using.
I just question the blind belief in hearing about this woman who miraculously hit a guy 5 times and he wouldn’t stop coming. First it was that, now apparently he got shot in the face with all five bullets. I call Hogwash, especially with a .38. If it was a 22 or a 9mm, maybe some of the bullets were graze wounds.. but still would not explain all the puncture wounds in his lungs/stomach etc..
Not really taking a stance in any gun control topic, just taking a stance against people who are making stuff up for their own agenda.
“Uh….because accidents happen and it’s irrelavent.”
We dont have gun “accidents” in this house, nor will we. And incompetency and negligence doesn’t constitute an “accident”, as that gun owner found out. Guess his gun didn’t keep him terribly safe.
And JohnW, we never have to wait long for a “convenient” gun tragedy in this country. We’re never more than a few months away from one. They are conveniently predictable.
I do not want to live in a world where everyone needs guns and more guns, I refuse to live in such a fearful world. Call me whatever you want but something has gone haywire and is so way out of balance. I’ve had a gun pulled on me 3 different times but still I do not own one.
We need to create more of a safer world not more of a fearful world. Dr. King’s birthday is coming up and it is a reminder how powerful peace can be.
Just a little stat for you GUN NUTS, you say having firearms in your home is to protect yourselves from intruders. Well did you know that a gun kept in a home is 53 times more likely to kill someone that lives in that home than it is to kill an intruder 43 TIMES MORE LIKELY. Now I know that you right wingers don’t like stats and facts because they get in the way of your fantasy world, however I thought that folks that actually think sometimes would like to see that stat. So those guns you say are for protection are in reality more likely to kill you or you family than to protect you. And since that is the case I guess I’ll say happy shooting.
Leon, are you in favor of laws prohibiting violent convicted felons from possessing guns? (Hint: if the answer is ‘yes,’ then you support Second Amendment restrictions).
Comment by Dan Casey — January 16, 2013 @ 3:09 pm
Actually Dan, if a person has served his time for the crime committed including any probation period; I believe his rights should be restored such that he/she can make a living in this society. Such individuals would certainly have a right to self-defence. . .from other criminals or
tyrants. Your logic here is a stretch. You are apparently confusing the criminal justice system with the constitution.
“Uh….because accidents happen and it’s irrelavent.”
Well golly gee whiz ned, Phil, it’s a shame those accidents just keep mysteriously happening.
It may be irrelevant to you but I’ll bet it isn’t to that family and it sure isn’t to me. When my children were 4 they didn’t grab a gun and shoot me or their grandaddy for the simple reason that there wasn’t a gun around for them to grab. You see, I had the sense to realize a long time ago that the odds of somebody in my family getting hurt if I had a gun in the house were a lot higher than the odds I would ever use said gun to protect myself from a bad guy invading my house. Result? I made the perfectly reasonable decision to go with the odds and not keep a gun around.
Anyone remember obama’s comments to Barbara walters?
“…Malia’s getting to the age now, and boys start calling and, you know, sort of, I always talk about how one of the main incentives for running again was continuing Secret Service protection to have men with guns around at all times…”
“Actually Dan, if a person has served his time for the crime committed including any probation period; I believe his rights should be restored such that he/she can make a living in this society. Such individuals would certainly have a right to self-defence. . .from other criminals or
tyrants. Your logic here is a stretch. You are apparently confusing the criminal justice system with the constitution.”
Let’s get this nailed down, Leon. Federal law currently bars a murderer who has served his time including probation from possessing a firearm. As you know, that is a restriction on his Second Amendment rights. Do you believe that restriction is wrong, yes or no?
Re: Kristen @ 10:25 am
“The fact is that they’re targets and the rest of us are not. Those are the facts.”
—————–
So is the rest of us a never targets, you would support getting rid of restraining orders and the like because the victims are not targets?
Actually, I find the liberal attitude of wanting to decide what type, capacity, caliber, etc. firearm a law abiding citizen can own to be highly offensive. If you don’t like guns or don’t want to own them…..well, don’t buy them On the other hand, STOP preaching to those who want to own guns. And, keep in mind that an armed good man like John Wilburn might save your unarmed life one day.
Phil Chitwood:
“Now, when will the prices fall back to normal so we can stock up??”
If they do and we have dodged yet another bullet to our rights, it is definitely stock-up time!
wayne goodman:
“JW that is one of the most disgusting comments you have made on this blog. You reduced the tragedy of Sandy Hook to a “convenient, perfectly timed, seemingly SCRIPTED tragedy that uses assault weapons and children to springboard…” yada,yada.”
wayne goodman and Kristen, I wrote that BEFORE Sandy Hook ever happened. I didn’t reduce anything. Also, I AM NOT suggesting any conspiracy and have siad on this blog before that “I am so not into conspiracy theories”, but this was every single element that the gun haters could have asked for and THEY have exploited it shamelessly, dancing in the blood before the bodies were cold. Because you agree with them, you give them a pass. Go tell it to someone else.
Kristen:
“JohnW, I’m not sure what you think “gun owners” could have done to prevent Obama’s reelection other than vote for Romney.”
Every election is decided by those who DON’T vote. I meet lots of gun owners every day who are too lazy to vote and don’t appreciate their liberty. Now that the reality of gun control has hit the fan immediately after Obama’s reelection, they wish they had voted. Too late.
wayne goodman:
“My gun owning friends (and there are many) almost unanimously believe these are reasonable and needed regulations and restrictions to help restore some sanity to the out of control proliferation of guns and gun violence in this country.”
And my gun owning friends almost unanimously feel…. well Dave Hicks and Jack are among my gun owning friends and are a good sampling. They can speak for themselves.
Ron May:
“I’ve never met John Wilburn that I know of. However, his comments reflect his bravado whilst carrying firearm.”
I may speak boldly and stand by my posts, but I don’t display a lot of swagger or bravado. The bloggers who have met me should be able to vouch for that. What was the point of your remark?
billhudson:
“I do not want to live in a world where everyone needs guns and more guns”
Neither do I
“I refuse to live in such a fearful world.”
LOL. If not in this one, what world do you live in?
“Dr. King’s birthday is coming up and it is a reminder how powerful peace can be.”
I’ll be celebrating Dr. King’s birthday by peacefully lobbying my legislators to get rid of those violent gun free zones!
hokie hater:
“93.Just a little stat for you GUN NUTS, you say having firearms in your home is to protect yourselves from intruders. Well did you know that a gun kept in a home is 53 times more likely to kill someone that lives in that home than it is to kill an intruder 43 TIMES MORE LIKELY.”
53…43… keep going. By the time you post a link to support it, it’ll be 1:1
.
.
gdad:
“When my children were 4 they didn’t grab a gun and shoot me or their grandaddy for the simple reason that there wasn’t a gun around for them to grab.”
Wow, they would have shot you if there had been a gun around?! Sounds like there were problems far deeper than the availability of a gun.
“You see, I had the sense to realize a long time ago that the odds of somebody in my family getting hurt if I had a gun in the house were a lot higher than the odds I would ever use said gun to protect myself from a bad guy invading my house.”
Tell that to the woman in Georgia whose example has been worn out here all day.
“Result? I made the perfectly reasonable decision to go with the odds and not keep a gun around.”
Tell us the grave result she would have had if she had been unarmed? She safely maintained a firearm at home with young children. I’m sorry that you realize you are not responsible enough to secure your firearms against access by children, thus taking that measure of protection away.
ban the guns and ammo but not the murdering abortionists..typical liberal thinking
+1 Another Chuck. They’d be happier if they kept their noses on their side of the fence and out of my holster.
IMO, Obama has made it no more “clear” that he is against gun ownership than you gun advocates have made it clear you are against legally purchased guns being used in crime and mass shootings. That such is a price you are willing to pay as long as you can remain armed is patently clear. Care for your fellow man, not so much.
NOTHING in this recommendation harms your right to keep and bear arms. It is yet another restriction on guns and magazines that no one needs, and it may not all even come to be law, but it is not taking your damn treasured guns even if it does. Are some of you even capable of honesty? Armed people everywhere is not a solution, it is a surrender.
That really is a good NRA ad, BTW. Although, I’m not ready to put David “Special Treatment” Gregory in the same category as those shining examples of elitist hypocrites Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg. Those two are slime.
Sandi Saunders:
“Armed people everywhere is not a solution, it is a surrender.”
BRITISH SUBJECT
“And JohnW, we never have to wait long for a “convenient” gun tragedy in this country. We’re never more than a few months away from one. They are conveniently predictable.”
Comment by Kristen
True. In fact, a week after the VCDL picnic last summer covered by Dan, the Aurora gun massacre happened. Then later when I made a POTD explaining the VCDL’s unwillingness to limit even the guns least suitable for self-defense, a short time later Newtown happened.
From the evidence on this blog, VCDL gun fanatics like John Wilburn and Dave Hicks manifestly aren’t much bothered by gun violence, as JW’s flip attitude about massacres and Dave Hicks’ logical blind spots regarding guns repeatedly have shown. They display a selfish infatuation with guns and an exagerated need to imagine themselves great defenders of liberty of the future, even at the cost of thousands of American lives annually in the present. They refuse to admit that the blood on the hands of gun radicals like the NRA’s leadership is tangible, try as they might to keep it abstract.
I meet lots of gun owners every day who are too lazy to vote and don’t appreciate their liberty
comment by John Wilburn
Make a note: JW says that many gun owners are lazy and don’t bother to vote (i.e. stupid).
As long as we also pass a law that limits the amount of armed intruders who can break into a home at a given time then I think the 10 round limit makes sense. Really the President’s proposal is a waste of time because it’s unconstitutional. what we need to do is focus on limiting guns from getting in hands of mentally unstable people and then get back to the economy. Also parading the children out at the press conference was distasteful but pretty typical for BO.
As much as it pains me to dispel your myths that gun restrictions are because of any “liberal attitude of wanting to decide” jack for any of you, the truth remains that action is what happens in any situation where you do not like the outcome. It is how the nation rolls. Sometimes you are on board, sometimes you are drug under the progress but it is how we progress none the less. Whining does not become you. And the reality is that none of these restrictions will hurt any of you, or anyone else who can only defend themselves with guns.
Fact is, there will never be a way to legislate away the evil that exists in the world. If you think we can, then that’s another debate.
If you agree that we can’t, then you should agree that the Constitution protects the God-given right to bear arms.(2A doesn’t GIVE you the right, for all those who would believe the Constitution GIVES the People rights; it PROTECTS them.) I can’t understand why this is any more complicated than that.
Warren:
“Make a note: JW says that many gun owners are lazy and don’t bother to vote (i.e. stupid).”
Warren, if 1% of lawful gun owners don’t vote, it’s too few.
24.“The fact of the matter is, his daughters are protected 24/7 by a large detail of the Secret Service.”
The fact of the matter is that ALL first families get SS protection, and always have. The fact is that they’re targets and the rest of us are not. Those are the facts. Normal people don’t need armed guards 24/7.
Comment by Kristen — January 16, 2013 @ 10:25 am
—————-
WRONG. They did, until 1997 when Congress limited it to 10 years. 6 days ago Obama signed a bill (which passed the House and Senate in December) again granting it to former Presidents back to 1997 and future Presidents and spouses for life.
I don’t take issue with that given the occupational hazards of the job, and the last thing anyone wants is some extremist offing a former president. Part of me does think if he had to be concerned with personal safety like us ordinary folks (you know, of the people, by the people, for the people) perhaps he would think twice about limiting our magazine capacities or semi-auto weapons. Easy to say people don’t need stuff when YOU really don’t stuff.
I actually do agree with something he said today.
And I quote “This is our first task as a society. Keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged.”
At this point, surrounded by kids on state, is where “the most vulnerable” members of society should have been represented by him announcing that in 2012 the US gave $542 Million Dollars in TAX money to Planned Parenthood, who killed over 311,000 children last year? Where is his obligation to save just one life there?
To quote Oblamer himself, “Keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged.”
And it seems Maryland will again revisit the issue of pitbulls. Perhaps they will label them as “Assault Dogs.” I mean, the only purpose they were bread for is aggression. They mame and kill thousands of kids each year. Nobody really NEEDS a dog. Perhaps put an arbitrary limit of 7 pounds on ALL dogs. That’s reasonable, coming from a person that was personally attacked by 2 pitbulls simultaneously 24 years ago, that’s reasonable.
And for everyone who is praising New York for their swift action in sweeping gun control legislation, such as an arbitrary limit of 7 rounds (which hardly ANY semi-auto manufacturers make rendering them all illegal), I would be remiss if I did not bring to your attention that in their HASTE they forgot to exempt law enforcement. So, NY, congratulations, you have just made criminals out of all of your body guards and law enforcement officers. I guess they’re all going back to six shot revolvers and lever action rifles. WAY TO GO!!!
Boy, those New Yorkers, they’re so smart!!!
Ron May,
Here is a piece (the auther of which is the father of a slain Columbine student) I haven’t seen before, although it may have already shown up on one of the various gun control-related threads. This piece, from what I understand, has been edited to be less “politicized”, and therefore, perhaps easier for some to digest.
Anyhow, it reflects a voice we don’t hear much of, from the usual sources of news.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0053.html
97.
“Actually Dan, if a person has served his time for the crime committed including any probation period; I believe his rights should be restored such that he/she can make a living in this society. Such individuals would certainly have a right to self-defence. . .from other criminals or
tyrants. Your logic here is a stretch. You are apparently confusing the criminal justice system with the constitution.”
Let’s get this nailed down, Leon. Federal law currently bars a murderer who has served his time including probation from possessing a firearm. As you know, that is a restriction on his Second Amendment rights. Do you believe that restriction is wrong, yes or no?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 16, 2013 @ 4:32 pm
No. In this scenerio, by committing a violent crime, the perp gave up his
rights. . .to freedom (via incarceration). . .to being able to own or possess a firearm (public safety). . .and possibly. . .to life itself.
In summary, it’s not a restriction if the right is given up voluntarily which the perp did by committing the crime.
Generally, all convicted felons (and now all lawful gun owners in NY including police officers etc) are prohibited from possessing firearms.
Depending on the type of crime committed I do believe such individuals as
well as all the lawful gun owners in NY (all Class E Felons under the new law) should have their right to keep and bear arms uninfringed.
Hope this suits you Dan. I suggest you be less boisterous in attempting to goad someone into accepting a point of view which they do not necessarily hold or which is not logically sound. I have encountered liberal bullying tactics before.
Now. . .about politician control. . .what say you?
Warren@106: Lypocrisy. . .typical whinny liberal perspective to blame the gun; not the perp. . .or better; pass the blame to the NRA. . .VCDL. . .anyone else but the liberal governing bodies who established the gun free (target rich) environment the nut cases love.
Your narcissitic mentality managed to overlook the fact that POTDs are awarded by Dan who has every bit the distorted viewpoint you convey. POTD
are generally not.
Gdad:
Tell us the grave result she would have had if she had been unarmed? She safely maintained a firearm at home with young children. I’m sorry that you realize you are not responsible enough to secure your firearms against access by children, thus taking that measure of protection away.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 16, 2013 @ 5:21 pm
Dead center!
The president’s plan has no chance in the Congress. Reid won’t ask his caucus to make the tough vote only to see it fail in the House.
John Wilburn, Leon, …BINGO!
obama…
…supports 3rd trimester aborti…, oops, …he supports letting babies who manage to survive ATTEMPTED abortions …die without medical assistance.
…ostensibly …because he was concerned about roe vee wade… he wants aborted-born-alive children to DIE so that roe vee wade lives.
next, obama says, “restrict the gun clips, so our children may live”.
Hey you libs. THAT’S Hypocrisy of the highest order. And, of the saddest order.
“I’m sorry that you realize you are not responsible enough to secure your firearms against access by children,…”
Of course I realize nothing of the kind, John w, seeing as I never owned a handgun when I also had children. There was simply no need for one.
You can stop making up lies now.
“Lypocrisy…”
Leon, could you please use something other than stupid cliches?
gdad:
“Of course I realize nothing of the kind, John w, seeing as I never owned a handgun when I also had children. There was simply no need for one.”
I’m glad for your sake that you didn’t need one. the woman who had to shoot an invader did need one and had that randomly been you and your kids instead of her and her kids, unarmed gdad would not be posting here today. gdad, I’m glad you are alive today to acuse me of lying.
If you know that violent crimes are perpetrated against people and you can legally possess a firearm, then you are either A) concerned you cannot secure it or B) don’t want to inconvenience yourself with that degree of protection for you and your family. It is one of those two. The need is proven every day.
Who is making up what again?
there will never be a way to legislate away the evil that exists in the world.
declaring the obvious in a comment by 1%er
That’s understood by all, 1%er, and those who say anyone believes otherwise just demonstrates a need to mischaracterize those with different opinions on policy. But what we CAN do is create a harder path for evil to occur.
Repeat until understood:
THE GOAL OF REGULATION IS TO PUT THE WORST IN HUMAN NATURE AT A DISADVANTAGE.
“In this scenerio, by committing a violent crime, the perp gave up his rights. . .to freedom (via incarceration). . .to being able to own or possess a firearm (public safety). . .and possibly. . .to life itself. In summary, it’s not a restriction if the right is given up voluntarily which the perp did by committing the crime.”
–Comment by Leon
In other words, Leon is in favor of Second Amendment restrictions. I rest my case.
Which means the only argument is over what’s reasonable.
This “debate” is pointless as everyone on here has already made up their mind-but my 2 cents–
-The NRA ads are ridiculous. The president’s family deserves this protection and first families have had it for years. I can’t believe members of this organization don’t get upset at the poor job the PR department and ad firms are doing.
-Registering existing weapons is a bad idea for several reasons (costs, lack of compliance, etc) and would be largely ineffective.
-”They are going to take our guns away” statements are hyperbolic BS and are not supported by facts or reality.
-Statistics show that the “gun free schools” are far safer than other locations (homes especially) when it comes to firearms.
128.“In this scenerio, by committing a violent crime, the perp gave up his rights. . .to freedom (via incarceration). . .to being able to own or possess a firearm (public safety). . .and possibly. . .to life itself. In summary, it’s not a restriction if the right is given up voluntarily which the perp did by committing the crime.”
–Comment by Leon
In other words, Leon is in favor of Second Amendment restrictions. I rest my case.
Which means the only argument is over what’s reasonable.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 17, 2013 @ 3:15 am
Rest away. Choosing to give up a right is not the same as having a right restricted. Appreciate the attempted word play but I choose to speak for myself. Glad we got that straight.
I’m not clear on why being mentally I’ll means an infringement on “God given” constitutional rights either. Where on earth in the constitution does it say that??
And a 10 round clip restriction is not reasonable and will never happen. This proposal was just another driving blow to the wedge this president has placed inside our country.
You cannot say that taking the guns away is not the goal. It may not be the short-term goal today, this week or even this year, but it is the goal.
In Feinstein’s own words: http://youtu.be/blXkl9YVoHo?t=7s
“Lypocrisy…”
Leon, could you please use something other than stupid cliches?
Comment by gdad — January 16, 2013 @ 11:11 pm
No. . .read someone’s else’s posts if it suits you.
wilbert — January 17, 2013 @ 6:51 am, +1
@131. It all depends on who gets to define mentally I’ll and the process for objectively making that determination. It isn’t the drawing of the line in the sand, it is who gets to move it and where.
I am a gun owner and actually agree with some of the proposed executive actions by Obama (listed on page 20 of today’s paper). My question is why did we not take some of these steps (having accurate data in the NICS system) sooner? We all agree that the violent-prone mentally ill shouldn’t have access. But how do you actually put this into legislation? If you use the terms “mentally ill” or “mentally defective”, do all people who are diagnosed with mild depression after they lose a loved one give up their right to own a gun? The devil is in the details. Currently, most legislation seems to use inpatient treatment for mental illness as a disqualifying point. Certainly being involuntarily committed should disqualify a person from owning a firearm. But absent some obvious things such as a violence related conviction (not charge), or a judicial commitment for psychiatric illness, it gets to be a very slippery slope. And we all know how unintended consequences crop up after legislation is passed in the heat of the moment (New York just made their law enforcement officers criminals according to Cuomo’s just passed law).
MarkE, I also wonder about family members. If you have violent mentally ill person in your household, should you be allowed to have guns? I agree it’s very tricky.
To Hokie Hater (#93) and Richard (#57),
There are a number of “studies” that purportedly show firearms do not protect their owners. But when you delve deeper, they are often just pre-designed to give a desired result for political purposes. The study by Kellerman that you reference says that a gun is 43 more times likely to kill someone in the household than to kill a burglar. On the face, this is a true assertion. But the “study” compares apples and oranges. It was designed to give ammo against gun ownership. Sadly, a gun does make suicide attempts more successful (again better mental health care needed?). But the vast majority of defensive uses of weapons do not end up with the assailant being killed. In most successful defensive uses, the gunowner only has to show his or her weapon, demonstrating to the assailant they are willing to defend themselves with immediate force instead of waiting for police (who can’t be everywhere,thus the phrase “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”). In a smaller subset, the gunowner fires his weapon and does not hit the assailant, but scares him away. In an even smaller subset, the assailant is wounded, and the attack stopped. But < 1% of the time is the assailant actually killed. The other 99% of the time, the assault is stopped without death. The goal is to stop the assault, not kill the assailant. There are 2 other often quoted "studies" that I can tear apart: the recent one by Mother Jones that says that no multiple victim shootings in the last 30 years have been stopped by a civilian with a gun–easily refuted, see http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-coulter-we-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings/, and the Philadelphia study supposedly showing that a gun does not protect gun owners from being shot–also easily refuted, and a perfect example of how government funded "research" can be designed to give a desired result.
Warren:
“THE GOAL OF REGULATION IS TO PUT THE WORST IN HUMAN NATURE AT A DISADVANTAGE.”
So what? The goal of theives is to take someone else’s stuff and get away with it. Regulation may have a stated goal, but the unintended consequenses (to the well meaning public, anyway) are the elitists’ playground. It is well established how regulation has been historically abused. What do you think about all of the historically racist gun control?
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
Those regulations were supposedly for our own good too. Today the regular people are subject to increasing control while the elite, like Dianne Fienstein and Michael Bloomberg are a higher class of citizens and enjoy different rules.
I find it ironic that someone who gleefully points out everything a firearm could be misused for, has a blind spot in his own logic when it comes to learning from the overwhelmingly abusive history of many of our regulations.
(o\ ! /o):
“It all depends on who gets to define mentally I’ll and the process for objectively making that determination. It isn’t the drawing of the line in the sand, it is who gets to move it and where.”
Exactly. Herein lies the problem. The other component is the personal registration that it creates.
Kristen,
I would think that if you have someone in your household that has been violent, you could have a couple of options. Either have the weapons locked up and the person doesn’t know the combination, or you could have someone else you know and trust keep your weapons at a separate site. That is certainly a volatile situation. Who knows, if it were bad enough, you might have to defend yourself against the violent family member in an acute situation (it has happened before). But again, this comes back to personal responsibility, not necessarily the government saying “you do this”.
Mark E:
“And we all know how unintended consequences crop up after legislation is passed in the heat of the moment (New York just made their law enforcement officers criminals according to Cuomo’s just passed law).”
I agree, that hastily and illegally passed junk legislation is full of problems. A few practical thoughts on that:
There are very few handguns that accept a 7 round magazine. They aren’t made for modern handguns of any respectable defensive caliber. A Walther PPK, introduced in 1929, comes to mind. Some of the older 1911s. Maunfacturers will have to come up with a way to further reduce magazine capacities. Some people will whine when the capacity is defeated, but magazines are pretty simple to modify and the 7 round thing is just a political statement and way to handicap the lawful.
Also, the magazine restriction is intended, I’m sure, to force those fortunate few who can get a NY CHP to carry revolvers. This not only has a potential to handicap the lawful against the criminals who will certainly keep their semi-autos, but also places those who aren’t as strong and cannot handle the heavier trigger pull of a double-action revolver in a bad position.
Night sights, tactial lights, and other practical accessories aren’t as readily available for revolvers either. Oh well… not New York’s problem.
On a number of levels the law is trash. Inevitably, good people will inadvertently run afowl of it too. Hope the jails there have room for the whole new class of criminals they are legislating into being.
Mark E. – recent research shows that 2 out of 1000 incidents of violent crime have been stopped with a private weapon each year. That is .02%, hardly a statistical reason for gun ownership. But this is for all guns, the statistics for assault weapons, much less those with large clips is too small to calculate. You are much better off buying locks and securrity devices than buying a gun for protection.
As for stopping the assault but not killing the assailant, Court records indicate that if you are going to fire a weapon, then you had better eliminate the assailant as a witness.
Lastly, you indivate shooting rarely hits its target. That is my biggest concern. Gun owners, especially those with large clips tend to have poor aim, spray bullets everywhere, and have no control over theri weapon putting innocent bystanders in danger. Even well trained policemen have trouble hitting their targets. Hardly a good method for protection.
John Wilburn – you speak of using a gun to protect your property from crime. Shooting someone for stealing oor robbery is a crime unless it is for imminent protection from physical injury as I recall
Kristen @11:19
“MarkE, I also wonder about family members. If you have violent mentally ill person in your household, should you be allowed to have guns? I agree it’s very tricky.”
I wonder that as well. The President of the NRA – David Keene – may be wondering that himself. His son, David Keen, was convicted of firing a gun at another motorist in a road rage incident. According to his mother he was institutionalized with “severe emotional problems” seven times between the ages of 8 and 13. So should David Keene – president of the NRA – be allowed to have guns? Should his son have access to the guns in his home?
MarkE, “personal responsibility” ends where public safety begins. Nancy Lanza chose to opt out of her “personal responsibility” and 26 families suffered for it. It it were only the family of the gun owner at risk, it wouldn’t be an issue.
Re: Warren @ 12:56 am
THE GOAL OF REGULATION IS TO PUT THE WORST IN HUMAN NATURE AT A DISADVANTAGE.
—————-
Did Warren just switch sides? He now want regulate that all non-prohibited persons must carry a firearm, hence putting the criminals at a disadvantage in selecting easy targets?
Or could he be talking about the obesity death rate and wants to regulate fat, caloric intake via a rationing regulation?
Richard J Beason:
“Mark E. – recent research shows that 2 out of 1000 incidents of violent crime have been stopped with a private weapon each year. That is .02%, hardly a statistical reason for gun ownership.”
Unless you’re one of those 2!
“145.John Wilburn – you speak of using a gun to protect your property from crime. Shooting someone for stealing oor robbery is a crime unless it is for imminent protection from physical injury as I recall”
No, I did not. I mentioned the goal of robbers, but I did not endorse protecting one’s property with a gun.
“Lastly, you indivate shooting rarely hits its target. That is my biggest concern. Gun owners, especially those with large clips tend to have poor aim, spray bullets everywhere, and have no control over theri weapon putting innocent bystanders in danger.”
Please support all of these wild allegations…
he’s an idiot
Kristen:
“Nancy Lanza chose to opt out of her “personal responsibility””
I bet no one here will care about the gross insensitivity of this statement. Hypocrites abound!
Your sensitivity is selective, JohnW.
John Wilburn:
It was a typo but the 43 times more likely to kill someone that lives in the house is the correct number, and here is a link to the story.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/14/169164414/lack-of-up-to-date-research-complicates-gun-debate
@147. Same with alcohol and drunk driving. And abortion. And speeding. And most anything.
Chicago- obama’s hometown-among the toughest guns laws in the nation, among the highest # of gun deaths in the nation.
It’s repulsive watching Democrats turn another tragedy into a political battering ram.
The correct answer is to do NOTHING.
For those saying private citizens have poor aim, are irresponsible, spray bullets around etc when using a firearm, I’d share this:
If you’re carrying and involved in a shooting, you’re held to the same standards as anyone. If a jury determines that you used excessive force, brandished a firearm, had malicious intent, were drunk, yadda yadda, then you’ll be duly convicted of those crimes. It’s the shooters fault that they failed to get adequate training in the law, decision making, marksmanship etc. They’ll now be held to account for that failure. Why are so many intent on separating people based on their intentions? I guess this is where the farce of hate crime legislation comes from as well. We should all be held to the same standard.
If a convicted felon rightly shoots someone in self defense in the middle of a drug deal gone bad, their fate, with regards to the actual shooting, should be the same as a 7-11 customer who rightly shoots an assualt perp. The shooting incident is the same, relativly speaking. Then you can hash out whether the 7-11 customer was drunk and carrying, or the felon was barred from possessing a firearm or dealing drugs/commiting a felony.
Hate crimes are the same. It’s discriminatory to punish a person more or less based on the race/sexual oriantation etc of the victim. By that legislation, we’re saying that being a minority race or non-heterosexual means you’re worth more than those NOT additionally ‘protected’ under hate crimes laws.
I’d also share that with regards to ‘trained policemen’, I shoot competitively in all diciplines; rifle, pistol and shotgun. VERY few times do law enforcement officers win or even score in the highest quartile. With one exception, and that is a police officer I know who was involved in a fatal shooting on duty and was extremely lucky to survive it. Afterwards, he made up his mind to increase his training and has since, become very good. Most times, the accuracy and decision making of LEO’s in competition is abhorant. Not to be disrespecting LEO’s, but if you actually have experience watching their marksmanship, you’d be shocked.
The correct answer is to do NOTHING.
Comment by Suzie — January 17, 2013 @ 5:09 pm
Not true. The first answer is to remove gun-free zones. That includes schools, Chicago, shopping malls… all of them.
If a convicted felon rightly shoots someone in self defense in the middle of a drug deal gone bad, their fate, with regards to the actual shooting, should be the same as a 7-11 customer who rightly shoots an assualt perp.
I disagree. If the drug deal is a felony itself, and someone dies in the commission of that felony, than they are guilty of felony murder. It’s not the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
If a convicted felon rightly shoots someone in self defense in the middle of a drug deal gone bad, their fate, with regards to the actual shooting, should be the same as a 7-11 customer who rightly shoots an assualt perp.
I disagree. If the drug deal is a felony itself, and someone dies in the commission of that felony, than they are guilty of felony murder. It’s not the same.
Basically, if they had not been committing the felony in the first place, then nobody would have died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
If a convicted felon rightly shoots someone in self defense in the middle of a drug deal gone bad, their fate, with regards to the actual shooting, should be the same as a 7-11 customer who rightly shoots an assualt perp.
I disagree. If the drug deal is a felony itself, and someone dies in the commission of that felony, than they are guilty of felony murder. It’s not the same.
Basically, if they had not been committing the felony in the first place, then nobody would have died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
Comment by Jack — January 17, 2013 @ 6:30 pm
You are exactly right, Jack. That is why there are enhanced federal penalties for possession, brandishing, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. When a drug deal goes bad and someone has a gun, people often die.
Equally as perplexing is the next statement by 1%r:
“Hate crimes are the same. It’s discriminatory to punish a person more or less based on the race/sexual oriantation etc of the victim. By that legislation, we’re saying that being a minority race or non-heterosexual means you’re worth more than those NOT additionally ‘protected’ under hate crimes laws.”
1%r, are you also opposes to enhanced penalties for the sexual abuse of children or enhanced penalties for victimizing elderly or disabled citizens?
Y’all ought to read this letter, on Talking Points Memo. You might recognize some of the characters mentioned in it.
I’m thinking a good NRA rating is a key to a “no” vote.
Gun owners, especially those with large clips tend to have poor aim, spray bullets everywhere, and have no control over theri weapon putting innocent bystanders in danger. Even well trained policemen have trouble hitting their targets. Hardly a good method for protection.
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 17, 2013 @ 12:25 pm
What are you smoking Beason? How does the size of clips and marksmanship correlate? Police officers must qualify to a standard which is a high standard of marksmanship. The city sheriff felt comfortable enough with it to allow fellow officers to be downrange while others were qualifying. . .felt it also necessary to train them to have bullets whizzing by. . .until the County kicked them off the range. LOL.
How can you make such senseless assumptions? If your post was serious it clearly indicates you do not know a thing about firearms or marksmanship. In the new spirit of civilty on this blog I shall accept your post as pure humor as it’s funny whether you were serious or not; have to admit Liberals are entertaining with their ability to make things up! Who’d thunk it. . .Beason dun it!
1percenter completes the argument. If a person using a gun kills an innocent bystander then he should be prosecuted. Then soshould the person he was trying to shoot. That is why we have police.. So crazy gun touting folksdo not take the law intotheir own hands.
Dan, thanks for the link to TPM. The main article was sobering, as was the link within to “your scary story.” There is no absolute correctness in this debate, but many of us argue as if there is. As you pointed out earlier, the need to regulate is “almost” universally recognized. Can we somehow get past our culture of “I win, you lose” debates and find some constructive common ground? The President’s suggestions, in my view, are a constructive step in that direction.
“What are you smoking Beason? How does the size of clips and marksmanship correlate? Police officers must qualify to a standard which is a high standard of marksmanship. The city sheriff felt comfortable enough with it to allow fellow officers to be downrange while others were qualifying. . .felt it also necessary to train them to have bullets whizzing by. . .until the County kicked them off the range. LOL.
How can you make such senseless assumptions? If your post was serious it clearly indicates you do not know a thing about firearms or marksmanship. In the new spirit of civilty on this blog I shall accept your post as pure humor as it’s funny whether you were serious or not.”
–Comment by Leon
Considering the source, this comment is rich in hypocrisy AND hilarity.
Richard Beason:
“So crazy gun touting folksdo not take the law intotheir own hands.”
Someone defending himself/herself IS NOT “taking the law into into their own hands”!
Leon I can call up lots of police shootingswhere bullets went astray. Can you find zany where there were not. I am a former gun owner, have relatives that were true marksmen, and even they never were 100 percent accurate. But your logic fails you the most, unless you are expecting to be attacked by an army with your perfect aim, them you do not need guns with large clips. We have no incidents of anyone being attacked by more than 10 people. certainly with your and Woburn”s accuracy 10 shots would protect you. But since John carries multiple weapons, maybe he ids not the marksman he claims.
Wilburn, someone carrying a gun trying to stop an incident by helping out is taking the . law into. their own hands. Arming teachers and private citizens does just that. I believe that is what your elimination of gun free zones is asking.
“What are you smoking Beason? How does the size of clips and marksmanship correlate? Police officers must qualify to a standard which is a high standard of marksmanship. The city sheriff felt comfortable enough with it to allow fellow officers to be downrange while others were qualifying. . .felt it also necessary to train them to have bullets whizzing by. . .until the County kicked them off the range. LOL.
How can you make such senseless assumptions? If your post was serious it clearly indicates you do not know a thing about firearms or marksmanship. In the new spirit of civilty on this blog I shall accept your post as pure humor as it’s funny whether you were serious or not.”
–Comment by Leon
Considering the source, this comment is rich in hypocrisy AND hilarity.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 18, 2013 @ 12:20 am
Now. . .enhanced by additional bloviation from Dan “Hypocrit” Casey who adds nothing to render Beason’s comments sensible but can only criticize one who points such idiocy out. . .more Lypocrisy. Thanks Dan.
Richard Beason,
Please give me the reference study that states only 0.2% of violent crimes are stopped with a private citizen’s weapon each year. I would like to read the actual study. As I said in my post #139, the majority of the “studies” out there are extremely questionable (and that can work for both sides). But the Kellerman study is extremely misleading in that it compares apples and oranges. It does NOT use the standard of stopping an attack as the goal of the firearm owner, it only uses the death of an assailant, which occurs less than 1% of the time in defensive uses of firearms. Stopping the assault by scaring him away without firing a shot is a successful defensive use. The Philadelphia study purportedly showing that firearms do not prevent their owners from being shot would be laughable if it were not funded by the NIH and then held up to be serious research. And then it is covered by the media as proof that firearms don’t protect their owners. Anyone who wants to know more about that study just ask. And the Mother Jones “study” recently reported is just trash. Again, if anyone wants to know why, just ask. I don’t want to take up too much time with one post. But Richard, please give me the reference article.
Richard Beason:
“We have no incidents of anyone being attacked by more than 10 people.”
http://tinyurl.com/avgl2el
“Wilburn, someone carrying a gun trying to stop an incident by helping out is taking the . law into. their own hands. Arming teachers and private citizens does just that. I believe that is what your elimination of gun free zones is asking.”
So an armed teacher is to allow their students to be murdered right in front of them?! Your position is quite clear Beason.
Richard Beason:
“But since John carries multiple weapons, maybe he ids not the marksman he claims.”
Or maybe it’s because I have a second option should drawing with my right hand become impossible or a malfunction with my primary gun. A bad marksman would not do as well shooting off-hand.
“Can you find zany where there were not.”
Shootings were bullets didn’t go flying astray? Yes, that’s the vast majority!
Perhaps you guys missed the NY City shootout with police woth one man that wounded several innocent bystanders last fall. But then again, John, you fail to justify the need for large clips if all are such great shots. Having grown up with guns on a farm, having a policeman as a brother, having been shooting since I was 8 years old, having a relative who was known as the best shot and quick draw in the area,having a client that was runner up to the olympic squad, I know a little about marksmanship. Like wveryone, when you face a dangerous situation, you shake, you shiver, and you miss. Those bullets go astray. Your target practice is just that, it has nothing to do with real life danger.
Wilburn, Teachers are not police, they have no right to start shooting to protect anyone but themselves. Armed citizens around the schools have no right to protect anyone but themselves with a weapon. Your crass attacks on me makes no difference, they still would be breaking the law. Sorry I have attacked your hobby, but you are simply wrong on the matter. Go shoot some targets and enjoy your machismo that your guns give you, but get real about marksmanship and the need for large clips. As for Mark, do your own research, I did mine.
Richard J Beason:
“Perhaps you guys missed the NY City shootout with police woth one man that wounded several innocent bystanders last fall.”
You found one, but said most of the time
“you fail to justify the need for large clips if all are such great shots”
I just provided a link where 30-100 attacked two people. Since crime like that happens, it makes the 21 rounds I carry look inadequate by comparison. Untill I decide to put a few more mags on the belt, I will just have to hope the first dozen or so get the point and the rest reconsider.
“Having grown up with guns on a farm, having a policeman as a brother, having been shooting since I was 8 years old, having a relative who was known as the best shot and quick draw in the area,having a client that was runner up to the olympic squad, I know a little about marksmanship.”
OMG. Only the shooting experience means ANYTHING in that list. Good Lord. I had the 18th ranked Olympic swimmer in the world for a CLIENT, but that doesn’t mean I understand swimming. LOL.
“Wilburn, Teachers are not police, they have no right to start shooting to protect anyone but themselves.”
YES or NO: If the teachers at Sandy Hook had been armed and watched Adam Lanza open fire, should they have just stood there and let those kids die? Your claim is RIDICULOUS! Should a parent not shoot to protect his or her child?
Wilburn – parental rights are different than teacher rights.
Should a teacher be placed in the position of protecting a child from assault weapons and then be held accountable for the results? They are already asked to do too much for too little. Asking them to be the police as well is beyond reason and unless given police powers, illegal.
John, there are lots of examples for you and I to cite and I will not get into such a battle with you. When your logic fail, ou resort to outlandish examples. I won’t play your game tonight. Maybe another day.
Perhaps you guys missed the NY City shootout with police woth one man that wounded several innocent bystanders last fall.
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 18, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
Richard,
If that’s the incident I’m thinking of, it was the police who started shooting into the crowd and injuring innocent bystanders.
Wilburn, Teachers are not police, they have no right to start shooting to protect anyone but themselves.
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 18, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
That is why we have police.. So crazy gun touting folksdo not take the law intotheir own hands.
Comment by Richard Beason — January 17, 2013 @ 10:32 pm
Wilburn, someone carrying a gun trying to stop an incident by helping out is taking the law into their own hands. Arming teachers and private citizens does just that.
Comment by Richard Beason — January 18, 2013 @ 6:12 am
Richard,
Contradict yourself much? Is it the teacher’s right to defend herself, or is she taking the law into her own hands? Keep in mind that the law allows equally for you to protect someone else’s life as you would your very own. There really is no distinction.
Should a teacher be placed in the position of protecting a child from assault weapons and then be held accountable for the results?
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 19, 2013 @ 6:19 am
If she wants to be, and “no.” Nobody is accountable for the results except the criminal. Again, the law *allows* for you to protect your own life or the life of another innocent person. You seem to be claiming that it is not your right to protect another person, only yourself. That is simply not true. Your claim is refuted by hundreds of years of common law and, in many circumstances, statutes.
Wilburn, Teachers are not police, they have no right to start shooting to protect anyone but themselves. Armed citizens around the schools have no right to protect anyone but themselves with a weapon. Your crass attacks on me makes no difference, they still would be breaking the law. Sorry I have attacked your hobby, but you are simply wrong on the matter. Go shoot some targets and enjoy your machismo that your guns give you, but get real about marksmanship and the need for large clips. As for Mark, do your own research, I did mine.
Comment by Richard J Beason — January 18, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
Not so fast Beason. The right of self defense applies to the individual and other individuals and property around him. The Courts say it is so and you could better spend your time getting educated or “researching” about such caselaw, guns in general, and the 2nd Amendment than berating JW because you are irritated that his positions are solid and correct. IMO the man’s opinions and points are well reasoned and supported by facts.
Here’s a taste of what you might discover:
1) All of the recent shootings which have led to this recent war on the second amendment (including Columbine, Ft Hood, VT, Sandy Hook, Giffords, etc. were committed by Democrats or children of Democrats. Perhaps we are focusing on the wrong issue. Rather than guns we should be placing limits on liberal progressives. Many of us consider liberalism to be a disease of the mental health variety. Clearly, the policies of the liberal progressive agenda are harmful to the USA and it’s citizens.
UnClever thoughts arise from this mental illness like “we can spend our way out of debt”; “abortion is not murder”; “gay marriage makes sense”
“people don’t need guns”; “opposing Obama is racist”; “election fraud isn’t a problem”; “illegal immigrants are OK” ; and “it’s Bush’s fault”.
2) The 2nd amendment is an individual right. A study of the history of the constitution’s origination shows that the citizenry must be armed in order to “well regulate” the militia which in context of the times means
a military force controlled by the Federal or State governments. The founding fathers understood that militias, while necessary from time to time, must also be constrained by the highest authority; “a government of the people”. The 2nd amendment, therefore, is about the individual’s right to defend against tyranny. This is quite interesting particulary at
this time in history when we and the constitution are assailed by a tyrannical administration with policies directed toward damaging our economic system, dividing the citizenry with class warfare, assaulting the foundation principal of Judeo-Christian religion, disarming the citizenry, committing fraud and corruption to epic billion-trillion proportions, taking control of the fundamentaleconomic-physical necessity of healthcare, and bald faced lying to us about such items as Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Eligibility, Czars, Executive Orders, Election fraud and whether or not we built that.
In summary, IMO, you are another Walking Eagle like Obama…so full of it you cannot fly.
“If that’s the incident I’m thinking of, it was the police who started shooting into the crowd and injuring innocent bystanders.”
Uhh, yeah, that’s the point Richard was making.
There’s a huge difference between the law ” allowing you ” to defend someone else’s life, and forcing you to.
177. Jacck, exactly, as I said the police can’t even control their weapons and they are trained to do so.
What I said about teachers is they cannot be expected to protect students like a policeman. They have another job to do and arming them as the NRA proposes is crazy.
As for their protecting others, if in protecting themselves and others they happen to shoot an innocent child, then they too will be held accountable.
177. Jacck, exactly, as I said the police can’t even control their weapons and they are trained to do so.
Comment by Ricihard J Beason — January 19, 2013 @ 9:41 am
Richard,
With the exception of some who have special duty (SWAT, etc), I bet I take one trip to the range and go through more ammunition than those guys do in an entire year.
I also read an article the other day where departments across the country are reducing their training programs even further because they are not able to procure ammunition for training. Good for them. Until the government starts manufacturing their own ammunition, they can wait in line with the rest of us.
By the way, I have not personally attempted to “stockpile” any ammunition recently. I have, however, had a hard time finding 600 rounds of .40 S&W target ammunition that the wife and I need for a class in March. I did find 300 rounds of it a couple of weeks ago at WalMart, but it was all they had. The 300 rounds that each of us will shoot in this single Defensive Handgun class will probably be much more than most police officers will shoot this entire year.
Also, you are suggesting that we rely on the police to do something that the Supreme Court has indicated (more than once) they have no obligation to do. See Warren v. District of Columbia and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
I don’t usually suggest Wikipedia as a reference, but it makes for very easy reading and all of the appropriate references should be there, should you choose to research even further.
As usual, the progressives miss out on what is really happening. I personally beleive that these people actually want to stop gun violence. O.K. that is a good thing, however, the Elitist Leftist politicians do not care about the actual violence(never let a tradgedy go to waste,Rahm Emanuel), but only want to `ban guns` so they can have complete control over a population of subjects. It is truly a `power` thing that these politicians are obsessed with. I think the American Heritage of guns will be here forever. I think the left knows this too.
If she wants to be, and “no.” Nobody is accountable for the results except the criminal. Again, the law *allows* for you to protect your own life or the life of another innocent person. You seem to be claiming that it is not your right to protect another person, only yourself. That is simply not true. Your claim is refuted by hundreds of years of common law and, in many circumstances, statutes.
Comment by Jack — January 19, 2013 @ 9:03 am
Jack, can you provide a link to a statute that gives a person the right to protect another person. I am genuinely curious. My prior experience seems a bit contradictory, but I could be wrong or misinformed.
Jason…Why would ANYONE need a `statute` to protect another human ?
Jack, can you provide a link to a statute that gives a person the right to protect another person. I am genuinely curious. My prior experience seems a bit contradictory, but I could be wrong or misinformed.
Comment by Jason Perdue — January 19, 2013 @ 10:13 am
No statute. Common law.
“One may avail himself or herself of the defense only where he or she reasonably believes, based on the attendant circumstances, that the person defended is without fault in provoking the fray.” Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 412 S.E.2d 198 (1991)
“The Supreme Court has clearly recognized that one is privileged to use force in defense of family members. See Newberry v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 445, 459, 61 S.E.2d 318, 324 (1950); Green v. Commonwealth, 122 Va. 862, 871, 94 S.E. 940, 942 (1918); Hodges v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 265, 272, 15 S.E. 513, 516 (1892). We find no Virginia cases, nor have any been cited to us, determining whether and when a person can use force to protect or defend a third person. Generally, however, this privilege is not limited to family members and extends to anyone, even a stranger who is entitled to claim self-defense. See 40 Am.Jur.2d Homicide § 170 (1968); In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 75-76, 10 S.Ct. 658, 672, 34 L.Ed. 55 (1890); State v. Saunders, 175 W.Va. 16, 330 S.E.2d 674, 675, 76 (1985); Yardley v. State, 50 Tex.Crim. 644, 100 S.W. 399, 400 (1907); State v. Bowers, 65 S.C. 207, 210-14, 43 S.E. 656, 657-58 (1903); Stanley v. Commonwealth, 86 Ky. 440, 440-45, 6 S.W. 155, 155-57 (1887); Mitchell v. State, 22 Ga. 211, 234 (1857). Like self-defense, the circumstances in which the protection of others may be raised as a defense are carefully circumscribed so as to preclude such a claim in situations where one has instigated the fray in order to provide an excuse for assaulting or murdering his enemy. In a majority of jurisdictions, a person asserting a claim of defense of others may do so only where the person to whose aid he or she went would have been legally entitled to defend himself or herself. 40 Am.Jur.2d Homicide § 171 (1968).”
“Self-defense and defense of others are affirmative defenses for which the accused has the burden of persuading the fact finder that he or she acted in defense of self or another to the degree necessary to raise a reasonable doubt about his or her guilt. See Smith, 17 Va. App. at 71, 435 S.E.2d at 416; Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 385, 412 S.E.2d 198, 201-02 (1991) (recognizing defense of others “is commensurate with self-defense”). Although undisputed facts may establish self-defense as a matter of law, see, e.g., Hensley v. Commonwealth, 161 Va. 1033, 170 S.E. 568 (1933), whether the accused establishes that he or she acted in either respect is generally a question of fact. See Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 979, 234 S.E.2d 286, 292 (1977)
“[A] person asserting a claim of defense of others may do so only where the person to whose aid he or she went would have been legally entitled to defend himself or herself.” Foster, 13 Va. App. at 385, 412 S.E.2d at 201 (citing with approval 40 Am. Jur.2d Homicide § 171 (1968)). Thus, one may be justified in using deadly force to defend another person where he or she reasonably believes that the person defended faces an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death and that such person was not at fault in bringing about the necessity to use the deadly force. See Foster, 13 Va.App. at 385-86, 412 S.E.2d at 201-02; see also 1 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.8 (1986).”
Basically, you can defend someone else so long as they would have rightfully be able to defend themselves if they had the opportunity.
Hopefully this will get you started. There is much more case law in support.
Also, while looking around, found this one for you, which supports that Virginia is a Stand Your Ground state:
“[A] person assaulted while in the discharge of a lawful act, and reasonably apprehending that his assailant will do him bodily harm, has the right to repel the assault by all the force he deems necessary, and is not compelled to retreat from his assailant, but may, in turn, become the assailant, inflicting bodily wounds until his person is out of danger.” Dodson v. Commonwealth, 159 Va. 976, 979, 167 S.E. 260, 260 (1933) (quoting Jackson’s Case, 96 Va. 107, 30 S.E. 452 (1898)).”
Jack, can you provide a link to a statute that gives a person the right to protect another person. I am genuinely curious. My prior experience seems a bit contradictory, but I could be wrong or misinformed.
Comment by Jason Perdue — January 19, 2013 @ 10:13 am
Jason, get a clue about common knowledge. . .google it and you’ll have all you need. . .try this linky if you are really so liberally lazy: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-defense
Also, laws do not allow you to do anything. They state what you cannot do.
As an exercise for you, Jason, would you please find me the law that allows you to wear a red shirt?
184. Jack – yet you think teachers do have that obligation? The rulings said there was no recourse against the poor police work, not that the police should not have been doing their job by the way.
That’s easy Jack. It’s the same law that permits you to wear pink shirts.
Leon, not surprisingly , your link provided nothing helpful to the topic at hand.
There are a lot of laws that indicate we’re not allowed to murder people. I’m not sure there are any that make shootings acceptable.
Jack, thank you for the research on protecting others. I asked because, in a previous career, I could only have used deadly force to protect myself or a coworker. It appears that individuals may protect themselves and others as long as they can show that the person protected was in imminent danger.
Regarding the stand your ground law, as more case law develops, like that which will come from the Zimmerman case, the parameters of the law should become clearer. As I read it, the victim who becomes the assailant may only repel the threat until the threat is no llonger apparent. I think many will read the law to mean that if someone takes a swing at me with their fist and knocks me down, I am authorized to shoot to kill. I think that is over the top.
Laws do explain what a defendant may use as an affirmative defense, but in general, you are correct that laws explain what is prohibited behavior. As to your sarcastic remark about the red shirt, I defer to Ron May’s response at 7:24 p.m.
Leon thank you for the link to the dictionary. I reviewed the definition of self-defense you linked. At the bottom of the page, I found the additional definition from the concise encyclopedia:
“In criminal law, an affirmative defense (e.g., to a murder charge) alleging that the defendant used serious force necessarily for self-protection. The claim of self-defense must normally rely on a reasonable belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death and that avoidance by retreating was impossible. See also homicide.”
This is the general definition I am familiar with. The stand your ground law cited by Jack above does not contain language about ” great bodily harm or death” or language about “avoidance by retreating was impossible.” I think that is a problem.
Leon, we libs understand very well that “The Google” is a good source of information but not always a reliable source of knowledge.
196.Leon thank you for the link to the dictionary. I reviewed the definition of self-defense you linked. At the bottom of the page, I found the additional definition from the concise encyclopedia:
“In criminal law, an affirmative defense (e.g., to a murder charge) alleging that the defendant used serious force necessarily for self-protection. The claim of self-defense must normally rely on a reasonable belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death and that avoidance by retreating was impossible. See also homicide.”
This is the general definition I am familiar with. The stand your ground law cited by Jack above does not contain language about ” great bodily harm or death” or language about “avoidance by retreating was impossible.” I think that is a problem.
Leon, we libs understand very well that “The Google” is a good source of information but not always a reliable source of knowledge.
Comment by Jason Perdue — January 20, 2013 @ 8:06 pm
Liberals and a reliable source of knowledge? Who’d of thunk it? It’s obvious liberals prefer, and believe, propoganda publications like the RT, Huff-Post, etc.
It is a crime to shoot someone. Self-defense is a valid defense in many cases. Gunowners, particularly those with CCPs, are aware of the circumstances and actions which constitute self-defense and, alternatively, those circumstances and actions which do not.
Also note that the law governing self-defense may differ or stray away from a dictionary definition. This is like the Affordable Health Care act which has nothing really to do with affordable or health care.
When one considers that life threatening situations often occur at a surprisingly rapid pace allowing but seconds to act we should be thankful and respectful of those whose assume such risk of being able to act and the potential aftermath. Thank you CCP holders, you make us all safer.
If your life or that or your family were threatened would you really rather not have someone with the ability and inclination to act do so?
That said, most CCP holders never encounter such an incident and never fire a shot other than at the range.
“It is a crime to shoot someone. Self-defense is a valid defense in many cases. Gunowners, particularly those with CCPs, are aware of the circumstances and actions which constitute self-defense and, alternatively, those circumstances and actions which do not.”
–Comment by Leon
Leon, tell that to the Va concealed carry permit holder who massacred those innocent people in Appomattox, or the the Virginia CCP holder who massacred those people in Fort Hood, or to the other Va. CCP holder who killed his girlfriend and her kids in Tidewater before blowing his own brains out.
Or, tell it to the beer-drinking nuke physicist CCP holder who shot himself in the foot in a Lynchburg bar.
I mean, Jeesh.
194.Leon, not surprisingly , your link provided nothing helpful to the topic at hand.
There are a lot of laws that indicate we’re not allowed to murder people. I’m not sure there are any that make shootings acceptable.
Comment by Kristen — January 20, 2013 @ 7:32 pm
Sorry, should have provided a link with pictures for you.
198.
“It is a crime to shoot someone. Self-defense is a valid defense in many cases. Gunowners, particularly those with CCPs, are aware of the circumstances and actions which constitute self-defense and, alternatively, those circumstances and actions which do not.”
–Comment by Leon
Leon, tell that to the Va concealed carry permit holder who massacred those innocent people in Appomattox, or the the Virginia CCP holder who massacred those people in Fort Hood, or to the other Va. CCP holder who killed his girlfriend and her kids in Tidewater before blowing his own brains out.
Or, tell it to the beer-drinking nuke physicist CCP holder who shot himself in the foot in a Lynchburg bar.
I mean, Jeesh.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 20, 2013 @ 8:45 pm
Believe those you reference are best described as liberal progressives as opposed to responsible CCP holders. CCP holders, much more often than not, make us safer. Your attempt to denigrate them is not supported by the statistical evidence of postive interventions or of any crime statistics involving CCP holders. IMO, we need liberal progressive control; they are a bad lot.
Jason,
You’re welcome, friend. You cannot shoot to kill because someone punched you.
“Jason,
You’re welcome, friend. You cannot shoot to kill because someone punched you.”
–Comment by Jack
And Zimmerman’s excuse is what, Jack?
“Believe those you reference are best described as liberal progressives as opposed to responsible CCP holders. CCP holders, much more often than not, make us safer. Your attempt to denigrate them is not supported by the statistical evidence of postive interventions or of any crime statistics involving CCP holders. IMO, we need liberal progressive control; they are a bad lot.”
Comment by Leon — January 20, 2013 @ 9:52 pm
Leon, does this paragraph indicate that you support a restriction on liberal progressives having a CCP?
Never going to give our guns,ever!
Some things are more important then life!
“Never going to give our guns,ever!
Some things are more important then life!”
Tom values his guns over life itself. Wow. There sure are a lot of nuts out there, and too many of them are armed.
my comment is that obama is a fascist, racist, hater of both america and really allowing any people anywhere to live freely without interference from ‘people who know what’s best for us’. he is a liar, violates the constitution and federal law and I don’t know why he and many of his cronies have not been both impeached AND put on trial.
dream act doesn’t pass? that’s okay, just install puppet leader at ICE and order him to pretend like it has! get schools to start teaching kids that the 2nd amendment does not give them the constitutional right to bear arms, allow the saudi royal family to pay for textbooks (especially the ones in stubborn old texas) and have those history/social studies books filled with lies and omissions, institute some computer lesson plan that no one is allowed to view and that teachers are forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement stating they won’t tell anyone what is in those plans – in those plans have students call muslim terrorists freedom fighters and boston tea party members ‘terrorists’, TRY (and blessedly fail) to stop kids living on farms from working on the family farm and to remove govt accreditation of the 4-H and other teaching organizations for farm kids that give YEARS of training and replace it with a government mandated 80 hour ‘instruction class’ (make sure kids neither learn how to grow food or care for animals, all that pesky SURVIVAL type knowledge), put drones over the U.S., give the government the right to arrest & detain anybody for anything and hold them forever without just cause, right to counsel or trial AND also the right to KILL them —- REMOVE U.S. CITIZEN LEGAL GUNS – while allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal hispanic gang members to control 95% of the illegal weapons trafficking into the United States-not mentioning that gang members are responsible for up to 80% of ALL violent crime in the U.S. AND giving free citizenship to a bunch of slags who don’t deserve it, make presidential mandates allowing 80,000 Somalian muslims to enter the united states without any interview or background check required, 97% of whom are illiterate and 100% of whom believe all Christians should be killed, beating women is okay, and raping ‘western whores’ is allowed by god THEN distribute them heavily into the area of the ‘southern bible belt’, cry about some illegal getting the death penalty for viciously raping & murdering a teenager, always praise muslims but be SURE to disingenuously refer to ‘white christians’ as ‘fearful of change, clinging to their religion like the cling to their guns, and who need a focus their anger on something, blah blah so they hate immigrants because they’re horrible white racist christian blah blah blah – but that american muslim army guy that shot a bunch of unarmed american soldiers THAT WAS JUST ‘REGULAR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE’.
I don’t know why my eyes haven’t burst out of my head from the pressure caused by the intense level of frustration, betrayal, anger, and disgust I feel at both the government and the STUPID people who have never and will never take the time to figure out what is real and where the threat is coming from, because it certain wouldn’t be me with a legal gun.
I have never held so little hope for the survival of a peaceful, freedom oriented, clean, hard working society against the filth of the world in my entire life.