Super on the Sunday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan in Christiansburg
“The trouble with super heroes is what to do between phone booths.”
Ken Kesey
January 13, 2013 - 9:00 AM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Please Tell Us
Golfers: What are your favorite holes in the area? See if our Timesland Dream 18 is up to par and nominate your favorite.
January 13, 2013 - 9:00 AM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
165 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/james-yeager-gun-ceo_n_2460452.html
“Coincidentally, Yeager’s handgun carry permit was suspended by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on Friday. The department’s commissioner explained that the decision was based on “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public.”
Well…at least they took his PERMIT. I’m sure we’re all much safer now.
Glad i don’t live anywhere near this nut.
Kristen:
“Well…at least they took his PERMIT. I’m sure we’re all much safer now.”
Thanks for finally answering what I asked Dan repeatedly.
No one should have to have a permit in the first place. They are a worthless infringement.
The other day, Suzie asked the atheists to refute the miracles of Fatima. This is addressed to her.
Suzie, one of the problems I have with claims of miracles are because of the following link.
How high/low does the bar have to be set to be a miracle? Would you consider what this lady says to be a miracle? If not, why not? And why would you accept the miracles of Fatima but not this lady’s claims?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/01/13/cindy-jacobs-describes-gods-miracle/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/09/1422471/virginia-kkk-obama-recruiting/?mobile=nc
The Ku Klux Klan of Virginia is trying to find new members, and it is using President Obama’s second term as a recruitment tool.
According to local Richmond television station WTVR, residents in the area have received two KKK fliers in their driveways in the course of as many months. The fliers read, “WAKE UP WHITE AMERICA!!” and explain that “the majority of HATE CRIMES in America are committed by BLACKS against WHITES!!!”
In an interview with the station, the KKK bragged that their recruitment has been up thanks to Obama’s election, and expect it to triple during his next term: ……
JohnW, you misunderstand me. He needs his guns taken.
Has that hiker been rescued yet?
That Yeager gun nut called his business “Tactical Response” training, but I guess now he’s learning that having tactics without a strategy is for reactionary losers.
Kristen:
“JohnW, you misunderstand me. He needs his guns taken.”
I understood you perfectly. I’m just making a point about the permit itself. The antis want that permit process reigned in. Why?
Generally you don’t lose your guns for exercising your first amendment rights. The guy may have said some stupid stuff (I didn’t listen), but I don’t know that what he said is criminal.
If he had been in Virginia, I do not believe he would have lost his permit.
He only threatened to shoot people, Jack. I realize that in the gun world that shouldn’t be construed as unusual or threatening.
Sort of like this fine, solid, 2nd Amendment Rights exercising American.
http://freakoutnation.com/2013/01/12/dad-visits-kids-school-doesnt-hear-liberty-in-pledge-of-allegiance-threatens-he-has-spilled-blood-before-will-again/
I guess the gunners live in a different planet from the rest of us, a planet where threatening to “shoot people” or “spill blood” shouldn’t be taken amiss. But Jack, just as you didn’t care to listen to that tape, you won’t care to read is either. Because hey! Its all good i the hood.
JohnW, it should not be possible to buy a gun without a permit and when the permit is yanked the guns are too. Clear enough?
So, Kristen, when you called for Zimmerman to have to prove his innocence to reclaim his freedom, something that flies in the face of our justice system, are we to conclude that you are unfit to ever serve on a jury for that exercise of First Amendment rights?
“So, Kristen, when you called for Zimmerman to have to prove his innocence to reclaim his freedom, something that flies in the face of our justice system, are we to conclude that you are unfit to ever serve on a jury for that exercise of First Amendment rights?”
–Comment by John Wilburn
JW, It’s not like Zimmerman stood on a streetcorner and shouted some unkind words. He shot and killed a 17-year-old kid, for Pete’s sake. He damn well better to be able to prove that was justified.
I am coming in late because reading comments here tends to make me marvel in wonder at how an easy life tends to get people to denounce the foundations of it.
I am posting specifically on the possibility that and president post any sort of executive order on any amendment to the constitution.
Do you understand the concept of precedent? Once a thing is done and accepted, it is easier done again. We DO have precedent. In WWII, a president with a D next to his name issued an executive order that caused the rounding up and shipping of Japanese Americans to American concentration camps. These people had every one of their rights violated. Their property was taken and not returned.
If this president, any president, asserts power over any of the Bill of Rights when he or she has no power, and we accept that, damn us for that. If Obama may issue executive orders regarding the 2nd amendment, he or a future president may issue orders regarding the 1st. Any of them for that matter.
For yourselves, for your children, for us all, don’t trade away your liberty for a short term perceived gain. The fact that your vice president and your president have continued every invasive Bush policy and has instituted new ones of his own must mean something to you. Look past Obama to the possible Bush types of the future. If you let Obama have this power, you let those future Bush types have it too.
Wake up and realize that the more power you allow to be concentrated, the more corrosive that power becomes.
This is not about Obama or about Bush or Lincoln or JFK. This is about you. This is about your country. If you cannot see that, if you don’t care, the just anoint a King and be done with it.
It will be amusing (yet tragic) when Yeager fulfills the destiny of the NRA trumpeting fools’ creed: “take guns away and you only take them away from law-abiding citizens.” Because he is destined to be behind bars.
this guy needs to lay off the protein/roids and maybe go spend a day at the spa learning how to relax.
JohnW, it should not be possible to buy a gun without a permit and when the permit is yanked the guns are too. Clear enough?
Comment by Kristen — January 13, 2013 @ 3:47 pm
Likewise, Kristen, you shouldn’t be able to post a comment on this blog without a permit.
JohnW, once you shoot someone dead, you’re already guilty. I never asked for anything more for him than for any other shooter – that he be given his day in court. Reasonable doubt is a very high benchmark – I’m confident that if the shooting was justified, the state will fail to make their case sufficient to win.
I often hear the gunners chanting “Better toe judged by 12 than carried by 8.”. But in reality, you’re offended by the audacity of the state forcing you to be “judged by 12″. Youd prefer to be able to shoot people on your own say-so,and everyone else suck it up. Zimmerman should be grateful to still be alive..surely a little time in court isnt too onerous.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 13, 2013 @ 4:18 pm
Last time I checked JW, George Zimmerman was out of jail on bail. Our legal system gives judges authority to determine who gets bail and who doesn’t.
When Mr. Zimmerman’s case goes to trial, his lawyers asked for the last delay, he & his attorneys will have every opportunity to say or not say whatever they want in his defense.
In the meantime, Treyvon Martin is dead. His voice cannot be heard. Instead, his side of the story can only be told by law enforcement officers and the prosecution attorneys. That’s the only way Treyvon’s First Amendment rights can be defended.
I’m sure JohnW, against all reality, considers the Zimmerman case to be a 2nd Amendment one, which is certainly isn’t even anything close to a test of the 2nd.
So what you’re saying, Dan, is that innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply in emotional cases? Not to mention that this is beside the point I was making about Kristen’s double standard.
Should Kristen be bared from serving on a jury because of her statements condemning the Justice system?
The Zimmerman case is very important to the legitimacy of stand your ground laws and to the parameters of neighborhood watch groups. Neighborhood watch groups have every right to keep watch in their neighborhoods, but when they observe suspected criminal activity, they should call the police. What evidence will prosecutors build the case around? What will Zimmerman and his attorneys present? Did Zimmerman follow Martin and confront him, precipitating the altercation? Did having a gun embolden Zimmerman? Did Martin act reasonably when confronted by a man with a gun?
Trayvon Martins only mistake was carrying candy instead of a gun.
I’ve said before, that my guess is that the Zimmerman case will most likely come down to excusable homicide. While Zimmerman may not have done everything right leading up to the physical altercation with Martin, once Zimmerman was getting creamed, he defended himself. That’s my best guess.
There are a lot of gun haters out there who want to make Zimmerman into a murderer, but I don’t think that’s the case. NBC went so far as to edit the tapes to paint the picture they wanted. For that, I hope Zimmerman successfully sues them into the stone age. All I want is for due process to happpen, the truth to come out, and justice be served – regardless of what those who want Zimmerman burned at the stake without a trial think. If it’s proved beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is a murderer, so be it. If not, we should accept that verdict too.
“I am posting specifically on the possibility that and president post any sort of executive order on any amendment to the constitution.
Do you understand the concept of precedent? Once a thing is done and accepted, it is easier done again. We DO have precedent. In WWII, a president with a D next to his name issued an executive order that caused the rounding up and shipping of Japanese Americans to American concentration camps. These people had every one of their rights violated. Their property was taken and not returned.
If this president, any president, asserts power over any of the Bill of Rights when he or she has no power, and we accept that, damn us for that. If Obama may issue executive orders regarding the 2nd amendment, he or a future president may issue orders regarding the 1st. Any of them for that matter.
For yourselves, for your children, for us all, don’t trade away your liberty for a short term perceived gain.”
David in Salem,
Whoever has persuaded you that the president will issue an executive order that will change the Second Amendment is lying to you. You need to go back to that person, grab them by the ears, shake and shout, “DO YOU THINK I’M STUPID?”
Jack, as soon as I post a death threat, I’d expect my posting privileges to be yanked. You might not support that. Of course, since it’s a first issue and not second, you might not care. Gun control is coming, and the gunners will have a participatory spot at the table or not. Get ready.
Nice hysterical hypothetical and reality-free fear mongering there, David. But then, anyone dumb enough to think the president could overturn the bill of rights by executive order deserves to be afraid. Of many things.
“So what you’re saying, Dan, is that innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply in emotional cases? Not to mention that this is beside the point I was making about Kristen’s double standard.
Should Kristen be barred from serving on a jury because of her statements condemning the Justice system?”
–Comment by John Wilburn
Two questions here: First, when you kill someone, there is damn well going to be an investigation. If you don’t understand that, then don’t read any further. And if all you have to do to halt/thwart that investigation, after you shoot and kill and unarmed teenager, is whine: “I was afraid he was going to attack me, therefore this is justified, now go investigate some unpaid parking tickets,” well, do you understand the implications of THAT, JW? It means in a one-on-one situation, so long as you kill the other person and keep your story straight, you’re good. That is wrong. He’s been charged with a crime. The state has to prove he shot and killed Martin. Zim is the one who has to prove it was self-defense.
Second: Nothing against her at all, but “Kristen,” the anonymous blog entity who posts here, will NEVER be called as a juror. The person behind “Kristen” might be. But that is a real person, with a first and a last name, not a blog ghost. They are two different entities.
Fwiw, I dont aspire to much jury service. Ban away.
JW, It’s not like Zimmerman stood on a streetcorner and shouted some unkind words. He shot and killed a 17-year-old kid, for Pete’s sake. He damn well better to be able to prove that was justified.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 13, 2013 @ 4:24 pm
Dan,
The age of the deceased is an irrelevant fact. Juveniles can and do commit adult crimes and as I am sure you have seen from the pictures released are capable of violence and physical injuries.
I’m not so sure that in the spirit of the United States justice system that it is Mr. Zimmerman’s or his attorney’s duty to prove that his actions was justified, rather it is the duty of the state to prove that his actions were not justified and were in fact criminal.
Mr. Zimmerman’s defense only must only strive for reasonable doubt.
I would have figured those in the media may have backed off of trying these cases through their outlets by now, but as we have witnessed the media love to milk these cases for all they are worth. Much like school shootings, I guess it sells papers and boosts ratings.
Re: Kristen @ 4:53 pm
“once you shoot someone dead, you’re already guilty”
—————–
Kristen,
Very succinctly stated.
Very wrong, IMHO.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is a principle of Roman law, Islamic Sharia Law, Common law (criminal & civil), Case law, and flows from 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments (See: Coffin v. United States – 156 U.S. 432 (1895) and re: Winship – 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
From: Coffin
**
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is ‘reasonable doubt.’ It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.
**
Also see: the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Dan:
“The state has to prove he shot and killed Martin. Zim is the one who has to prove it was self-defense.”
No sir. The state must prove that the battered and bloodied Zimmerman murdered Martin. Based on everything I’ve read, I don’t think they reasonably can.
“Second: Nothing against her at all, but “Kristen,” the anonymous blog entity who posts here, will NEVER be called as a juror.”
Got it. The guy in Tennessee should have posted anonymously to preserve his CHP. Right?
I have a gun. More than one, actually. I’ve had them for many years. I will still have them tomorrow. I will still have them next year. I will have them until I decide I don’t want them. No storm trooper in jack boots is going to come after them. Nobody is planning to repeal the 2nd amendment (they wouldn’t have the votes, anyway). If someone oversteps their authority, they will be reeled in. Ever heard of Joe McCarthy?
I also have a couple of magazines for each gun. What I don’t have are any of the high capacity variety. When have you ever heard of someone needing thirty rounds to stop an intruder?
If ever forced to shoot at someone and the the first nine shots don’t resolve the issue (me/them/both either dead, wounded or fleeing), I will be freaked out and of no use to anyone anyway.
I will defend my home and family but I refuse to be armed 24/7 because someone ‘might’ want to harm me.
My house may catch fire, too, but I don’t keep a firetruck in the driveway just because it ‘might’.
Sorry, I don’t see the boogerman around every corner.
Kristen:
“Fwiw, I dont aspire to much jury service. Ban away”
I’m not at all surprised that this civic duty is unimportant to her.
Dave Hicks, I blew that post. What I wanted to say was that shooting someone makes you -correctly- a subject of investigation and possible prosecution, and potential conviction. Not that a genuine shooting in actual self-defense is an impossibility, just that the shooter should not assume that his version of events is going to be swallowed whole without a closer look.
Killing someone in cold blood is an immense decision, and with immense decisions goes equally immense responsibility.
JW, based on everything I’ve read, I think they’ll find him guilty of manslaughter. Zim went after Martin, before Martin (if he did go after Zim) went after Zim. The gunman provoked the fight and shot the unarmed kid.
You should hope that Zim DOESN’T get off. Because if he does, it’s going to bring a whole new dimension to the gun-control debate. People will then be demanding idiot-with-a-gun control, too.
“Battered and bloodied” LMAO
Zimmerman appeared to have popped a zit on his fat head.
And of course, JohnW, you want to ignore the way Zimmerman tried to extort millions of dollars from Florida tax payers. He’s got TONS of credibility! And his partner-in-crime wife.
As for your views on my commitment to “civil duty”, I honestly couldn’t care less.
Newman,
If you want to leave your rights and safety to chance, that’s up to you. I’m glad I chose a different path.
Newman hit the nail on the head. Why the heck so many people live in so much fear is beyond me. 11 years active duty military, 82nd Airborne, stationed in a lot of bad places. I’m not scared, I don’t carry although I’m permitted to do so. Why the fear gun carriers? Is this simply the “sand kicked in the face” syndrome playing out?
An interesting article about the history of the NRA which once supported gun control. This included tracking sales through receipts and a waiting period to purchase guns. Surprising how an organization which advocated reasonable gun control could morph into an entity which now fights tooth and nail against the slightest hint of regulation.
http://www.alternet.org/suprising-unknown-history-nra
Seems to be an awful lot of italics…
5.JW, based on everything I’ve read, I think they’ll find him guilty of manslaughter. Zim went after Martin, before Martin (if he did go after Zim) went after Zim. The gunman provoked the fight and shot the unarmed kid.
You should hope that Zim DOESN’T get off. Because if he does, it’s going to bring a whole new dimension to the gun-control debate. People will then be demanding idiot-with-a-gun control, too.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 13, 2013 @ 7:58 pm
Think your read is all wrong Dan. Zim was doing a job and, based on what
has been deemed news so far, did not overreact. Martin attacked. Zim shot him in self defense. I think we should have controls over idiots against guns and biased media allowing themselves to be call news organizations.
Tell us more about Zim’ s “job,” Leon.
Yes Leon…what was Zimmermans job description. I’m interested.
Seems the blog is transforming our font. Blasphemy and unconstitutional! Freedom of speech without freedom of font is neither worth…..well nevermind.
Ernie:
“I don’t carry although I’m permitted to do so.”
Tell us becoming permitted to carry.
Make that
“Tell us about becoming permitted to carry”.
JW, do you favor requiring licensure to sell real estate in Va.?
By the way Ernie, I’m not scared either. I’m not scared of crashing when I put on a seat belt. I’m not scared of fire despite having a fire extinguisher. I’m not scared of cranial injury when I wear a helmet. I’m not scared when I slip my gun in its holster, walk out the door, and go about my day.
It’s important to have those things in time of need.
So what you’re saying, Dan, is that innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply in emotional cases?
Comment by John Wilburn — January 13, 2013 @ 5:13 pm
John Wilburn, if you were Mr. Zimmerman’s attorney, how would you argue the case? Would you attempt to help the jury understand that Mr. Zimmerman feared for his life and acted in self-defense? Would you attempt to present eivdence that helped the jury understand Mr. Zimmerman’s mental and emotional state at the time of the incident? Or, would you dispense with any testimony regarding Mr. Zimmerman’s emotions and stick to a disoassionate recitation of the law and Mr. Zimmerman’s rights under the 2nd Amendmant?
I am reasonably confident the prosecutor will introduce testimony that will describe in detail Mr. Martin’s emotional state in the moments leading up to his death. They will do the same for Mr. Zimmerman. To remove emotion from this incident is impossible. It was fraught with emotion.
JW, I encourage you to attend a criminal trial. Some are fascinating, sometimes boring, but emotions are almost always on display. Of course, you would have to leave your equalizer at home.
JW, here’s what you can do. First you get a six pack of beer. Then you go home and you crack a beer and sit down at your desk. Log onto the Concealed Carry Institute website. Crack open your second beer. Pay the $40 with your credit card. Watch the 1-hour video (or not) as you drink the rest of the beer. Then take the 20-question T-F and multiple-choice “test.” Don’t worry. It’s ridiculously easy. When you get at least 15 right, your certificate of handgun “competence” will pop up on your screen. Print it out.
Take it to your Circuit Court clerk. Fill out a form. Pay $45 or $50, whatever.
If your criminal background check comes out clean, the gotta give you a carry permit. Even if you’ve never touched a handgun in your life.
This is how I got mine, BTW.
Jason Perdue, I have attended a criminal trial and know how the emotion is not only present, but exploited to the max.
I wasn’t there, but I think Zimmerman did get into a bad place and needed to defend himself. I think Martin initiated the physical assault. Exactly how the defensive situation came to be is important. We shall see.
Dan,
I do think that process needs to be changed. Basically, removing everything you did in the first… well, also the second and third paragraphs.
If you want to leave your rights and safety to chance, that’s up to you.–Comment by John Wilburn
How am I leaving my rights to chance? Do you really think the second amendment will be repealed?
You leave your safety to chance every time you get in a car, bus or airplane or turn your back on someone you don’t know.
Dan:
“JW, here’s what you can do…. [to get a CHP]”
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Warren:
“JW, do you favor requiring licensure to sell real estate in Va.?”
To sell your own real estate? No. To sell for others, as there is no Constitutionally protected right to do so, yes.
On the other hand, I think professional standards would evolve just fine without the aid of state licensure. The license itself is the lowest qualifier for competence. My designations and experience mean a lot more to the public.
5.”JW,…You should hope that Zim DOESN’T get off. Because if he does…People will then be demanding idiot-with-a-gun control, too”
John Wilburn has already shown that he joins the NRA in opposing idiot-with-a-gun control, since he joins the NRA in opposing steps like universal background checks with tougher penalties for violators, civilian magazine capacity limits, toughening the absurdly easy Va. CCP qualifying, new ATF dealer inventory audit requirements, and well, gun permitting of any kind, since these are all elements of an idiot-with-a-gun control environment.
But you can’t blame paid gun coach John Wilburn for swallowing the NRA line intact, since more idiots with guns means more gun profits, which John Wilburn has never criticized the NRA for holding sacrosanct. After all, it’s the only type of NRA that self-described student of history has ever known:
http://www.alternet.org/suprising-unknown-history-nra
JW, if Zimmerman put himself in the “bad place” through a series of poor decisions, how much resposibility should he shoulder for Trayvon Martin’s death?
The fact that Zimmerman chose to ignore the 911 operator’s instructions to stop following Martin will be what gets him convicted.
Jason Perdue:
“JW, if Zimmerman put himself in the “bad place” through a series of poor decisions, how much resposibility should he shoulder for Trayvon Martin’s death?”
Of the 24 words in your question, “if” is the biggest. I make no excuses for Zimmerman, but am a strong believer in due process and am disgusted by people who think he is not entitled to it.
The first six minutes of this video from Friday are good viewing for anyone, but especially for David in Salem, Jack, JW, Dave Hicks, and any other gun fanatic who opposes making gun slaughter even slightly harder to carry out because they think someone is going to take their guns or their “liberty”. I dare them to watch it:
“Hey, got a message for you. They can’t take your guns away.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/12/joe-scarborough-nra-slaughter_n_2463161.html
Newman:
“The fact that Zimmerman chose to ignore the 911 operator’s instructions to stop following Martin will be what gets him convicted.”
The 911 operator is no authority. They do have some audio that helps tell the story. Nothing more.
Warren sticking his foot in his mouth:
“But you can’t blame paid gun coach John Wilburn for swallowing the NRA line intact, since more idiots with guns means more gun profits”
I have been a strong proponent of expanding Constitutional carry from open carry only to both open and discreet carry. If that becomes law, Virginia will no longer suspend one’s right to discreet carry until he/she has taken a training course and obtained a CHP.
If profit was my motivation, as is for some instructors, I would never support this.
By the way “universal background checks” is a sanitized name for a federal registry of gun owners. That is precisely their goal and WILL facilitate more control of people and their guns.
“You leave your safety to chance every time you get in a car, bus or airplane or turn your back on someone you don’t know.”
Comment by Newman
Or even just go to sleep, as heavily armed Nancy Lanza found out.
Ernie, obeying a 911 operator could possibly get you killed
Lay down my gun and be killed because the 911 operator says so… no way!
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8459092
JW, so-called “constitutional carry” is not gonna happen in the 2013 Virginia General Assembly.
Warren quoting Joe Scarborough:
““Hey, got a message for you. They can’t take your guns away.””
Scarborough is a FOOL.
This italics nonsense is going to give me a seizure.
The 911 operator is no authority.–comment by John Wilburn
Really. You can bet your boots if the operator had told Zimmerman to continue to follow Martin, he would be using that in his defense.
Of the 24 words in your question, “if” is the biggest. I make no excuses for Zimmerman, but am a strong believer in due process and am disgusted by people who think he is not entitled to it.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 13, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
Agreed.
Dan:
“JW, so-called “constitutional carry” is not gonna happen in the 2013 Virginia General Assembly.”
At some point it will and it will be uneventful. Revenue is the real hurdle. I figure the state makes about $3 million per year off of the CHP process. It took several years to restore discreet restaurant carry. And despite Dan Casey claiming the sky would fall, nothing but the quiet restoration of liberty happened. It only makes sense that Constitutional Carry’s expansion will pass. Maybe some spinelessness in the General Assembly will push it off a year, but it isn’t going anywhere.
John Wilburn offers strident opinions about a case he no direct knowledge of, even declaring “I think Zimmerman did get into a bad place and needed to defend himself” (9:21pm). Then 22 minutes later (9:43) he lectures someone else that “Of the 24 words in your question, “if” is the biggest”, and his complete inconsistency totally escapes him.
Move along, people expecting honest intellectual consistency, nothing to see here…
“By the way “universal background checks” is a sanitized name for a federal registry of gun owners. That is precisely their goal and WILL facilitate more control of people and their guns.”
Ok. So?
30: “Warren sticking his foot in his mouth: “But you can’t blame paid gun coach John Wilburn for swallowing the NRA line intact, since more idiots with guns means more gun profits”…If profit was my motivation, as is for some instructors, I would never support (constitutional carry)
comment by JW
I never said your motivation was profit, John, and your overall gun obsessiveness makes clear it isn’t. I said you’ve never (at least here) criticized the NRA making protecting profits of the gun industry a primary part of their mission. Have you?
So it’s you who’s got something in your mouth, but thank goodness it’s not one of your guns.
Statistically, if black on black/Hispanic gang related gun deaths were eliminated, 80% of gun deaths would disappear. And, virtually none of them own legal weapons. As with most PC conversations in our country today, we choose not to identify the real problem due to the risk of potenially offending a minority. I refuse to do that. The lack of traditional family and personal values in the inner city communities is the bulk of the problem. The first step in solving a problem is identifying the source. The type of weapon or the magazine capacity is not the problem. I suggest less emotion and more common sense.
“Warren” knows exactly ONE thing about the Zimmerman case. If he can use any discussion of it as a lead pipe to try to main my character he will. Now that’s a shining example of “Warren’s” intellectual honesty.
AC, references maybe.
+1 Another Chuck!
Warren at 9:29pm:
“But you can’t blame paid gun coach John Wilburn for swallowing the NRA line intact, since more idiots with guns means more gun profits…”
Warren at 10:38pm:
“I never said your motivation was profit, John…”
Can’t get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Another Chuck, you will be berated for that politically incorrect post. Thanks for posting it.
Here’s one Kristen: http://www.blackyouthproject.com/2012/03/report-gun-homicide-is-the-leading-cause-of-death-among-black-teens/
I will follow up tomorrow.
43.“Warren” knows exactly ONE thing about the Zimmerman case. If he can use any discussion of it as a lead pipe to try to main my character he will. Now that’s a shining example of “Warren’s” intellectual honesty.”
comment by JW(10:45pm)
Although I’m not sure what trying “to main” your character means, yes, JW, pointing out your self-inflicted wound as I did in #39 (10:22pm) was indeed intellectually honest. So, we agree. Or, to paraphrase Hearst’s yellow press, Remember The Main!
Dan,
I do believe our Vice President said something about an executive order and the 2nd amendment. Do you want me to take what he has to say seriously because he is the VP or do you want me to disregard it because he makes the stupidest person I have ever met in my life look like a genius?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/index.html
By the way…what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is unclear? The Bill of rights was a restraint upon the federal government in case it decided it wanted to take on more than it’s enumerated powers. The first Ten amendments were not included in the constitution directly because many felt that the limitations on the federal government were in plain sight as the enumerated powers spelled out all that the federal government should do and all other things fell to the states and the people. The states could describe their own rules for firearms as could the localities. The states could describe their own laws for religion, speech, press, privacy, etc. Then there cam this thing in the earlier part of the 1900s called the incorporation doctrine. This was used to punch the bill of rights down every level of government. This sounds good until you realize that it was a federal power play. Amazingly, they were semi selective about the incorporation. But if we disregard the incorporation doctrine for a moment, each state could have it’s own laws on the book to reflect it’s populace. Today, we think of a state almost the way we think of counties – as part of a whole. A state as the language was used in the 1700s was a nation. You could say the United Nations of America. That each state was it’s own nation is how Jefferson, Washington, Madison etc. thought of it. The constitution was a voluntary pact between the nations (states). If the incorporation doctrine had not had it’s unholiness foisted upon us by a supreme court acting outside it’s boundaries as it has been inclined to do from almost the outset, then New York could have it’s laws, Illinois theirs, Virginia ours. Under that understanding, the Supreme Court ruled wrongly against Chicago in the case involving it’s gun ban. I like the result, personally, but the decision was wrong. If I follow and believe in something, I cannot disregard it when it isn’t convenient to me. That is called intellectual honestly.
I thougbht “Warren” and pretty much everyone else would gather from the context that “main” should have been “maim” and I struck the wrong key. Obviously I gave the anonymous blog entity who routinely posts a randomly corrected word in a follow-up post, too much credit.
There is a mechanism to do anything we want. Why is it ignored? It is called the amendment process. Is it because people know they can’t form the majorities needed? So then it is desired to circumvent the law of the land in order to subject the ‘others’ to things as you would have them. If we do not have rule of law, we have rule of men. Rule of men has always failed as has socialism and it’s sister communism. Their mama tyranny and all her children always fail. Always…..without exception. Ours is …was….a nation of laws. We had a cancer – slavery – it was eradicated. No one alive today has been legally a slave in this country. No one alive has legally been a slave holder in this country. There is a black man as president. That black man has a cabinet less racially diverse than his predecessor GW Bush. So what!!! We are all men or women…all human. We have a system of law. We should not attempt to circumvent law to get us what we want. If we do it, cannot they when THEY are in power? If circumvention is allowed, the circumvented laws have no force. If those circumvented laws are allowed to be circumvented for one group and another group must adhere to them, Is that equal protection under law? We have a process in place to allow the changing of the laws. Why not do it that way. Once an amendment is passed, the courts can do nothing…it is constitutional. For those who think we should not have unfettered ownership of firearms for law abiding citizens, have an amendment passed that nullifies the 2nd amendment. That is all you have to do. If that is not to your liking, too bad. That is the way it works, and right now, the 2nd amendment IS law of the land. Militia is the public is the citizen according to George Mason – who wrote the 2nd amendment. Right now…..shall not be infringed is the law.
David in Salem, you have no idea how little most of these people care about our nation’s sovereignty or our Constitution. They are quite content to see us spiral into government-dependent mediocrity. They are the modern day equivalent of those who wanted to remain British subjects while hypocritically enjoying their freedom.
“By the way…what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is unclear?”
–Comment by David in Salem
By the way David in Salem, what part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is unclear?
In spite of that language, and in fact, there are legal limits to freedom of speech, there are legal limits to freedom of the press and there are legal limits to the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It’s against the law to yell fire in a crowded theater, it’s against laws in many places to peaceably assemble without a permit and there are there are laws that limit press freedoms as well.
I’ll tell you this the portion of the 2nd amendment that you quoted does not mean what YOU think it means, either by itself or in the context of the entire amendment.
How do we know this? Because the first people to enact “gun control” in this country were . . . (wait for it) . . . the Founding Fathers! They passed laws barring blacks and any whites who didn’t support the revolution from owning firearms. Whoa! Infringement!
Seriously: From this we know they they did not mean what you say the amendment means. Sorry, but I will take their interpretation of it over yours.
Finally, notion of a constitutional INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms has been with us, in terms of Supreme Court jurisprudence, for LESS THAN 5 YEARS. That’s when the court, overturning centuries of previous court rulings, ruled there was such an individual right in Heller vs. DC. Previous courts had ruled that the 2nd Amendment right was within the context of a citizen militia (you left that part of the amendment out).
EVEN THE HELLER RULING, THOUGH did not say gun control was illegal or unconstitutional. In fact, it said it WAS constitutional.
Your notions of the president issuing an executive order to amend the 2nd Amendment is beyond silly. And so is you interpretation of it and the “knowledge” you back it up with.
EV
Why didn’t you include the rest of the sentence, John? The part that goes “…which John Wilburn has never criticized the NRA for holding sacrosanct”?
Here’s why: it’s because it shows that what I was saying was NOT what you hoped your truncated snippet suggested, but instead restores my original meaning, that your acceptance of the NRA party line is shown in your lack of criticism of their efforts at protecting gun profits. As I explained in the next post, which you apparently missed. (“I said you’ve never (at least here) criticized the NRA making protecting profits of the gun industry a primary part of their mission. Have you?”)
And you didn’t ever answer the ensuing question: Do you support the NRA making protection of gun profits a central part of their activities?
I care about gun RIGHTS, “Warren”. I also care about the money, indirectly, as far as interfering with commerce just because it has to do with guns.
Which do you hate more… guns or me?
The NRA has 4 million members + or -. Its annual dues are $35. That’s an income of 140 million dollars. Its annual budget is 300 million. Wonder where the rest of its cash comes from?
Colin Powell speaks sense. What are the odds that the GOPTParty will listen?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-benghazi-libya-184718922–politics.html
“Whoever has persuaded you that the president will issue an executive order that will change the Second Amendment is lying to you. You need to go back to that person, grab them by the ears, shake and shout, “DO YOU THINK I’M STUPID?”
Dan, I think he may be getting that impression from the Vice-President. Of course should anyone really be surprised if this administration is lying?
I love how you guys are okay with changing one of the fundamental principles of our justice system to “guilty until proven innocent” if the case involves the use of a firearm in self-defense. I’m guessing you don’t really want to adopt that standard for anything other than gun cases, right?
How do we know this? Because the first people to enact “gun control” in this country were . . . (wait for it) . . . the Founding Fathers! They passed laws barring blacks and any whites who didn’t support the revolution from owning firearms. Whoa! Infringement!
Comment by Dan Casey — January 14, 2013 @ 12:50 am
Dan, when was that? These are the first couple of gun control measures I could find:
In 1813, Kentucky enacted the first carrying concealed weapon statute in the United States. The Kentucky Court of Appeals struck down the law in 1822 as a violation of the state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
In 1837, Georgia completely banned the sale of pistols, with the exception of larger pistols known and used as “horsemen’s pistols” and other weapons. The Georgia State Supreme Court overturned this law in Nunn V. State (1846).
Also, you shouldn’t look just at the Constitution of the United States. Most states have a similar clause in their own Constitutions, often with more direct wording than the US Constitution. Even if you were to successfully repeal the Second Amendment, you’d then have Constitutions in almost every state to repeal.
Oh yeah, Chuck and JohnW, its not the guns. It’s the nasty little black and brown people. Totally ignoring the fact that mass shooters in this country are white. Chucks post wasn’t “politically incorrect”, it was stupid. There’s a difference, although in your hysteria, JohnW you might not pick up on it.
DavidinSalem, do you think that states so inclined should be able to write legalized slavery back into law?
Wayne, the NRA accepts larger donations from members. $35 is the base minimum, and i know a lot of people who regularly donate more to help fund firearms safety programs, legislative work, etc. Plus, I’m pretty sure they get contributions from businesses that benefit from their work in DC. I’m not sure how admissions fees to their museum factor in, or if that’s a separate entity from a financial standpoint.
Comment by David in Salem — January 14, 2013 @ 12:16 am
“By the way…what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is unclear?”
By the way…what part of a “well Regulated Militia” is unclear?
Just so you’re clear…
Regulate = To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
Kristin, we cannot legislate crazy. Therefore, mass shootings will continue and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. The black kids are killing each other… Perhaps you should care more and call people stupid less.
“The NRA has 4 million members + or -. Its annual dues are $35. That’s an income of 140 million dollars. Its annual budget is 300 million. Wonder where the rest of its cash comes from?”
Don’t forget there are a LOT of members who donate well above their dues, life members who pay about $1,000 each, and numerous Friends of the NRA chapters who raise funs year round with raffles, social events, and the like.
From Kathleen Parker today:
Quote from Gov. Ronald Reagan: There’s “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”
Of course that was after black activists legally carried loaded weapons up the steps of the California capitol building.
Oh yeah, Chuck and JohnW, its not the guns. It’s the nasty little black and brown people. Totally ignoring the fact that mass shooters in this country are white.
Comment by Kristen — January 14, 2013 @ 8:15 am
Kristen,
Why are you only concerned with stopping mass shootings? Why are you not interested in stopping other gun-related homicides, which far outnumber the deaths in mass shootings?
Another Chuck, I saw a stat years ago that claimed 50% of homicides were committed by black people who were, at that time, 13% of the population.
Do you have any source for your stats or this one for that matter? I have a ton of work to do, but may dig for it later.
Jack:
“Kristen,
Why are you only concerned with stopping mass shootings? Why are you not interested in stopping other gun-related homicides, which far outnumber the deaths in mass shootings?”
I guess for the same reason she doesn’t care about the Sandy Hook numbers that happen every week in Chicago.
gdad:
“Quote from Gov. Ronald Reagan: There’s “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.””
He had an armed security detail. I don’t. That’s an elitist statement for sure.
Thank you, Jack and John Wilburn. Like many liberals (not all), Kristen seems to enjoy playing intellectual word games that have nothing to do with solving real problems. 7000 of 11,200 in the US gun murders were black on black crime and mostly gang related….and mostly with illegally owned weapons. But Kristen wants to spin it back to the mass murders because they tend to carried out by white males. She appears to have no real desire to identify and solve the problems with guns, which is primarily a gang and inner city culture issue.
Since 2006, 99% of homicides committed with firearms are not the mass shooting variety.
It is not remotely possible to stop other gun related homicides. Not even a way to slow them down. Not now, not thanks to efforts such as the NRA and VCDL and other gun nuts. Mass shootings have some similarities that we can work on lessening, we still have a chance with stopping them.
David in Salem, Do you understand the concept of precedent? If you did, you would not have asked “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is unclear?” There have been gun controls since the 1800′s. THAT is precedent. There have been restrictions on the guns and weapons people have been able to have since we founded police and armies. THAT is precedent.
Actually, Sandi, some data I found indicates that the numver of firearms-related homicides dropped steadily from 2006-2010, and was basically flat from 2010-2011. But, before that, the data showed a steady increase between 1998-2006. What caused those changes? It’s Hard to say, let alone find any meaningful correlations.
But I think we can meaningfully cut down the number of homicides committed using a firearm. I know it isn’t popular, but I’m increasingly in favor of requiring background checks for all firearms sales, be they from a licensed dealer, or a private person-person sale. I know that would require a licensed dealer to be the intermediary, and there would be an added cost associated with it, but it would help screen out people with criminal records or mental health flags from obtaining firearms. It wouldn;t eliminate it, because black market sales would still exist. But, it’s a start. Then, hike up the penalties for black market sales…punishing both the buyer and seller…and increase jail time for people who use a firearm while committing a crime.
Nothing will ever eliminate murders and other violent crime, but I do believe a significant chunk can be eliminated, without overly burdening or restricting the law-abiding firearms owners with regulations that don’t do much to actually fix the problem.
Jack, I chalk up a lot of the inner city gun violence to being an artifact of our insane drug policies. If the “war on drugs” were ended or waged differently than we’re doing now, a lot of that violence would find a natural end. I’m not sure how much changes in gun policy would actually impact on that group, except that access to certain types of weapons would be as limited to them as to the rest of the population.
Chuck, I care plenty about that group. And I think your position on “mass shootings” is pathetic. Why don’t we look at all the many countries where the population isn’t as homicidal and insane as ours, and see what THEY’RE doing. As a gun rights supporter, I’d say it’s more imcumbent on your and those like you to come up with an answer, because the problem is of your creation. Because there is a 100% chance you can’t shoot someone with a gun you don’t own, and I like those odds.
John Wilburn, the guy in Tennessee should have posted responsibly to preserve his CHP and any hope of credibility. I get it you think he should be allowed to rage against the machine and threaten violence and incite others to join him while enjoying a privilege granted, but most people do not.
Zimmerman should have not followed Martin and there is no way he is getting around that simple, deadly mistake. It SHOULD cost him IMO.
Kristen, this blog should have taught you that you do indeed live near nuts just exactly like the one in Tennessee so happy to broadcast it. And many more hiding in the safety of anonymity who feel the same and have their bags ready as he suggested. One day that “powder keg” is going to erupt again and another “Ruby Ridge” or “Waco” will happen. It will end the same too. The idiotic notion that we should respect people who believe they can violently resist or overthrow our government is just too prevalent in simple minds not up on reality.
“a 100% chance you can’t shoot someone with a gun you don’t own”
“Can’t” should be “can”. Sorry for the miserable structure there.
Chuck, whatever world you are living in, from the moment the police charge you with a crime, you are guilty until proven innocent. From a speeding ticket to murder. The system treats you as guilty, they investigate to prove your guilt and they prosecute you to ask for your punishment. Only those with money, wherewithal, resources or well placed friends are innocent until proven guilty. The concept is still in play, the reality is another story.
Sorry Kristen, I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. No where did I reference race or “black or brown people” at all. I linked to a post where Biden stated that there was executive action to be taken via executive order. I also pointed out the legal and logical problem with your argument that anyone who kills someone is already guilty of murder. Guessing you’re pretty supportive of the troops returning from combat, eh?
Sandi, the reality and the concept are often one and the same when you actually visit a courtroom to see how the justice system works instead of just a blog site about what someone thinks it is. Your post indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. People are prosecuted to prove guilt, not ask for punishment and that is actually how it works. Crimes are investigated to find out what happened and who should be prosecuted. The state still has to prove you guilty, not the other way around. One of the biggest problems our justice system faces is that somewhere along the way, large segments of society decided that it is okay to lie about things they think are unimportant or excusable. Take the hypothetical speeding ticket you reference. How many people are outraged about the ticket because they are actually innocent as opposed to those who are outraged because, even though deep down they know they were going too fast, they don’t think they deserved to get a ticket, don’t like the consequences, don’t think it was fair that they got caught and someone else, didn’t., etc.
So you think the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin obligated him to take whatever beating Martin decided to give him? Is that what you’re saying? Are you saying that everyone should adopt a MTOB approach to the world and we would all be better off?
oops – that should have been “MYOB”
Sorry Chuck, I got lazy and skipped the “Another”. I wasn’t talking to you.
“73.It is not remotely possible to stop other gun related homicides. Not even a way to slow them down. Not now, not thanks to efforts such as the NRA and VCDL and other gun nuts. Mass shootings have some similarities that we can work on lessening, we still have a chance with stopping them.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 14, 2013 @ 12:20 pm ”
what do you care, you’ll kill innocent babies in an abortion in a new york second lil missy..don’t pretend you care about life
“Do you understand the concept of precedent?”
sandi do you understand the concept of death? no matter how it occurs, you’re gone, killing babies in abortion or shooting people, all the same in the end
Stalking someone, picking a fight with them, and then shooting them dead is not “self defense” on any planet. Hopefully Zimmerman gets what he deserves. And pays his attorney fees.
“you’ll kill innocent babies in an abortion in a new york second>..”
Gosh, pammala, Sandi is doing abortions now? When did that happen?
#52: Mea Culpa, JW. My apologies for not getting your meaning. I did fail to recognize your typo, and the similarity of words didn’t occur to me, surely because my vocabulary of violent verbs doesn’t come close to matching that of a gun user who has to describe many different shades of violent harm. Hopefully among the many terms for violence that you know you’ll wish a rather mild one as my penance.
Kristen, I have attached a link of mass shootings in the UK. Many of these are since the hand gun ban in 1996. Their track record is similar to ours. http://www.murderuk.com/mass_murderers.html
As I have written before, an insane person willing to lose his life carrying out his violence is practically impossible to stop in a free society.
57.I care about gun RIGHTS
comment by John Wilburn
Guns don’t have rights
or feelings
or a conscience
but their bodies can be hot.
Right, John?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
“Their track record is similar to ours”, Another Chuck? The rate of fire arm death in the UK is .25 per 100K population. Us? 10.2. I’m not sure what metric would make these two rates “similar”. Ours is 40 TIMES higher.
What I’m looking for are links about deliberate rapid mass violence in the U.S. in the last ten years that didn’t involve a gun. Who’s got those to post?
Like all the other simplistic voices on the complex topic of abortion, pammala shows no consideration of when death begins.
Kristen, earlier, you wanted to talk about mass killings. I am having the hardest time pleasing you. I’m in Roanoke, VA and it is cloudy and raining today. I look forward to you explaining how I’m wrong.
Sounds like if we cured the cultural/gang problems in the inner cities, the US rate would be around .25 per 100k people, also. Do you want to discuss this now, or go back to the mass killing conversation?
So you think the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin obligated him to take whatever beating Martin decided to give him? Is that what you’re saying? Are you saying that everyone should adopt a MTOB approach to the world and we would all be better off?
Comment by Chuck — January 14, 2013 @ 1:53 pm
Chuck, what I am saying is that Mr. Zimmerman had no obligation or duty to follow Trayvon Martin. If Zimmerman thought criminal activity was imminent, a call to 911, which he made, was the proper course of action. Had Zimmerman chosen to leave it at the 911 call, Trayvon Martin may well be alive, and Mr. Zimmerman may not be facing criminal prosecution for murder. A call to 911 to report suspected criminal activity is not minding your own business. It is, indeed, a proactive step to protect one’s community.
Re: Dan Casey @ 12:50 am
In spite of that language, and in fact, there are legal limits to freedom of speech, there are legal limits to freedom of the press and there are legal limits to the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It’s against the law to yell fire in a crowded theater, it’s against laws in many places to peaceably assemble without a permit and there are there are laws that limit press freedoms as well.
———
“1A does not give you the right….” type statement is a common Anti-RKBA ‘Imperfect or False Analogy” type of semantic error/logic error.
The restrictions to 1A are not prior-restraints type laws. They don’t tape your mouth shut as a condition of entering into crowded public place, because you might yell “fire.” The limits on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil.
There are already many similar post-violation restrictions/penalties, either criminal or civil, on the law books — e.g., murder, maiming, armed robbery, etc.
It’s against laws in many places to to carry a firearm without special approval, also. So that example is rather academic. In both cases both types of restriction should be reduced — significantly. I do believe that you had a tread on such restriction on speech. Voicing your displeasure with such a restriction in at a monument in DC. How about supporting the reduction on both right?
What we need to focus on is removing the prior-restraints type restrictions on the RKBA, IMHO. An analogy between the two might be valid, once the 2A is actually on a par with the 1A. If you really want to see them as the same, please work to remove the prior-restraints type laws on the RKBA.
Re: wayne goodman @ 1:43 am
Join and you will be surprised at all the stuff they try to sell you, Wayne.
“Chuck, what I am saying is that Mr. Zimmerman had no obligation or duty to follow Trayvon Martin. If Zimmerman thought criminal activity was imminent, a call to 911, which he made, was the proper course of action. Had Zimmerman chosen to leave it at the 911 call, Trayvon Martin may well be alive, and Mr. Zimmerman may not be facing criminal prosecution for murder. A call to 911 to report suspected criminal activity is not minding your own business. It is, indeed, a proactive step to protect one’s community.”
I’m still waiting to hear from Leon what Zim’s “job” was. Because the only “job” I can divine from Zim’s actions is that he was a self-appointed busybody who wrongly assumed that any black teen in his community was a thief or worse.
Re: Warren @ 3:08 pm
When are you going to play word games with other shorthand references / bumper stickers e.g., “Pro-Choose”, “Give Peace a Chance”, “War Is a Racket”, “End the War on Women”, OBAMA cares”, “OBAMA 2012″, “Yes, We Did It”, “Tax Wealth – Not Work”, “Police The Boardroom – Not The Bedroom”, “Abolish Corporate Personhood”, “Don’t Montgomery Floyd”, “We All Live Downstream”, “Every Day is Earth Day!”, “Good Planets are Hard to Find”, “Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do or do without”, etc, etc, etc.
Or is it an intellectual integrity issue?
Do you want to discuss this now, or go back to the mass killing conversation?
Comment by Another Kristen — January 14, 2013 @ 5:05 pm
Welcome Another Kristen. Don’t try to apply logic to their arguments. They do want to talk about mass killings, but only when it is a couple of dozen dead at a time, which is rare. They are not concerned about the thousands of others dead, because they died one at a time. Talking about that would require that they admit that they want to outlaw gun ownership.
By the way, 22 murders in 11 days in gun-free Chicago. Gun Control capital of America on its way to 730 homicides this year.
The restrictions to 1A are not prior-restraints type laws. They don’t tape your mouth shut as a condition of entering into crowded public place, because you might yell “fire.”
Comment by Dave Hicks — January 14, 2013 @ 5:14 pm
I think Dan’s right to post articles on the Internet should be revoked because James Yeager posted something stupid and could have potentially incited violence. The Internet was his tool, and it should be taken away from everyone else.
99: When are you going to play word games with other shorthand references
(question from Dave Hicks @5:47pm)
When you give an explanation of the intellectual integrity in claiming that inanimate guns don’t kill people, but they do save people, Dave Hicks.
Comment by Other John — January 14, 2013 @ 12:32 pm
Excellent last couple of paragraphs John. With all the yelling in here, who knows if anyone else saw it, but it was intelligent.
Comment by Jack — January 14, 2013 @ 6:22 pm
“They are not concerned about the thousands of others dead, because they died one at a time. Talking about that would require that they admit that they want to outlaw gun ownership.
By the way, 22 murders in 11 days in gun-free Chicago. Gun Control capital of America on its way to 730 homicides this year.”
What is it with you gun guys using the “them and us” mentality?
Grand sweeping statements of “they are not …; they admit that they…blah blah blah.
Since you are concerned about the single homicide rate of Chicago, why not look at what the NRA has accomplished by their pursuit of states to adopt the “Stand Your Ground” law:
A new study found that states with so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws have higher homicide rates.
“These laws — which permit people to use lethal force to defend themselves in public – have passed in nearly two dozen states already and were enacted in Florida in 2005. Typically, people are only allowed to use lethal force in their homes for self-defense. However, these laws allow people to fire a gun in parks and out in the street if they feel threatened.”
“[...] analyze national crime statistics to see what happens in states that pass stand your ground laws. He found the laws are having a measurable effect on the homicide rate”.
“Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn’t pass the laws over the same time period,” he says.
As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, “we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period.”
http://fcir.org/2013/01/04/in-states-with-stand-your-ground-laws-homicide-on-the-rise/
If past practices prevail, this research and findings will be dismissed out of hand for one reason or another by many gun guys/girls…but, a necessary discussion must be about the ramifications of the Stand Your Ground law replacing the Castle Doctrine – which in my opinion led to the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Might this be a place to start a discussion about gun regulations…?
And Jack, I am “concerned about the thousands of others dead” who die violently, whether by gun or other means – and I don’t advocate for the “outlaw [of] gun ownership”..so now your original comment can no longer true…
Re: Warren @ 6:30 pm
So, you don’t examine all issues and apply the same word-play or faux inability to understand shorthand references, button, bumper-stickers and the like?
Come to think of it have I missed comments from you on issues other than the RKBA? Are you one of those single-issue, knee-jerk voters, which I keep hearing about?
For your edification:
“Guns in the hands of the law-abiding don’t kill innocent people” is one of the claims that the shorthand references, which “Guns Don’t Kill People” refers to. That is what I usually mean by the shorthand. There are others that are as accurate, with which I could agree. How about “Guns don’t jump out a their holsters or storage and kill innocent people — without a human with criminal intent or a human responsible for a negligent discharge”?
As you can see, that would be hard to fit on a pin or bumper-sticker and still be readable — hence shorthand. It isn’t rocket science.
“Guns in the hands of the law-abiding can save the lives of innocent people / victims when those people / victims are threatened with grievous (or whatever adjective the individual State uses in its self-defense statute, common law or case law) bodily harm and/or death” is one of the claims that the shorthand references, which “Guns Save Lives” refers to. How about Guns in the hands of the teacher / principal / an armed volunteer / an armed guard at a school can save lives”?
See, it really isn’t hard to understand various shorthand references, button, bumper-stickers and the like.
Kristen, earlier, you wanted to talk about mass killings. I am having the hardest time pleasing you. I’m in Roanoke, VA and it is cloudy and raining today. I look forward to you explaining how I’m wrong.
Sounds like if we cured the cultural/gang problems in the inner cities, the US rate would be around .25 per 100k people, also. Do you want to discuss this now, or go back to the mass killing conversation?
Comment by Another Kristen — January 14, 2013 @ 5:05 pm
LOL.
It IS cloudy and rainy today. You got one right. Another Chuck.
“Welcome Another Kristen.”
Um. Jack? You might want to check “Another Kristen’s” icon. He wasnt bright enough to figure out it would follow his email address. And neither were you.
LOL. Ok this gave me a giggle.
Indeed, Another Kristen is actually Another Chuck. Perhaps he’s suffering from some gender identity issues.
Dan, I was named “Another Kristen” in my last post….I trust that was and editorial oversight?
I have typed Kristen so much today, I did enter myself as “Another Kristen” from my I phone. I’m sure Dano had a little chuckle as he let that one slid through:)
#99 You’re sure he had an armed security detail back then, John W. And btw, that armed detail did him a lot of good against Hinckley.
Chuck, I am more than aware of the reality of the “justice” system and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is not it. I have served on juries, been involved in court cases and been a courtroom witness on quite a few occasions over the years and most of all, I read. I met with a CA years ago for a “lesson” in the system and how it “works”. I KNOW I am speaking the truth.
What is seen in a courtroom is often the tip of an iceberg and nothing more. It is all to often a “turn ‘em and burn ‘em” day in any courtroom.
It is not me that has a “fundamental misunderstanding of how it works” in reality. The concept is that “People are prosecuted to prove guilt”, the reality is that people are prosecuted to “ask for punishment” and THAT is virtually how it works. The police investigate crimes to prove their arrest was valid and their charges merited and often find more charges to add as a “bonus”, the more charges, the more likely a plea deal or a jury who thinks they have Manson. The police are under no obligation to interview anyone who can exonerate, mitigate or explain any action beyond the lens they choose to view it. There is no such thing as “to find out what happened and who should be prosecuted” in most arrests and situations. Homicides, rapes and some crimes do get more effort, but the everyday activity in the “justice” system is closer to a railroad than anyone has any idea happens. Which is WHY Yeager is back-peddling and trying to change his tune. He does not want the “justice” system after him. As the gun advocates point out, it is not the job of the police to protect anyone. It is to make their case and prove their arrest.
The “state” has virtually ALL of the arrows in their quill until you appear in court and God help you if you have inadequate (all too often as well) counsel or cannot afford the attorney who can work the good ole boy network in a courthouse. The “state” does not go to court until they believe they can “prove you guilty”. Once they determine they can, there is no more investigation and they are under no obligation to do one. In many cases when they lose, someone else DID investigate.
IMO, one of the biggest problems our “justice” system has is that people believe the police actually investigate, that they actually look at both sides of the situation, that they know or care what happened and why. And it is not at all only “society” that decided it is “okay to lie about things”.
The everyday “justice” system is more like a speeding ticket than people know, until it is too late.
I think “the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin” is a gross mistake that he needs to pay for. He walked into a situation he should have left alone and the fact that he “won” the confrontation does not change the fact that he pushed the confrontation. WTF “obligated” Martin to take his own death? Zimmerman was “obligated” to not follow and confront anyone. And yes, we all are.
Any parent, or responsible person, will tell you that there are situations and events for which “prior restraint” is the only preventative. Waiting until the mass shooting is over is not working for us. For thousands of Americans, waiting until a law abiding citizen breaks the law is not working for them either. In the case of a lethal weapon, prior restraint is the only real option. We have to make these guns harder to get for some people and yes that will make it harder to get for some other people. It cannot be helped unless we choose to go on living with mass shootings as the price for the same gun rights. I won’t.
7000 of 11,200 in the US gun murders were black on black crime and mostly gang related….and mostly with illegally owned weapons. But Kristen wants to spin it back to the mass murders because they tend to carried out by white males. She appears to have no real desire to identify and solve the problems with guns, which is primarily a gang and inner city culture issue.
Comment by Another Chuck — January 14, 2013 @ 12:18 pm
Another Chuck, my question and the one you pro gunners all seem to ignore is “Where do the ILLEGALLY OWNED weapons come from?” They come from gun shows and private sales from gun owners in states where obtaining a weapon is kind of like going to the store and buying a candy bar. Then, for a small (or large) profit, they end up in the hands of gang bangers, drug dealers etc. If we didn’t have three hundred million guns out there floating around, they’d be a whole lot harder for those people to get them.
“I have typed Kristen so much today, I did enter myself as “Another Kristen” from my I phone. ”
I am suitably flattered/creeped out.
Re: Dave Hicks @ 7:35pm
You’re hyperventilating about the silly semantic issue of shorthand slogans, when that isn’t the issue. The intellectual integrity question is about absolving the role of guns-as-agent in “guns don’t kill people” vs. giving guns credit for their role as agent in “guns save lives”.
Why did you divert from the substantive to the silly semantic analysis? Probably it’s because if your obviously treasured self-image as a rigorous logician is to co-exist with your refusal to admit any unflattering reality about guns, you cannot afford to acknowledge the logical inconsistency of “guns don’t kill people” vs. “guns save lives”, irrespective of whether expressed in shorthand or full exposition.
Now if you’ll address that logical inconsistency, you’ll be a step closer to justifying your frequent need to be seen “edifying” others.
And for YOUR edification, (and to my surprise that it’s necessary to remind you), of course I’ve posted on many other topics; in fact you’ve responded to some of them. But not knowing what personal challenges have prevented your recalling that I have, I won’t dwell on it. Just keep reading and you’ll notice many non-firearm posts I make, but you’ll have to shoot me to stop me pointing out the illogic of some massacre weapon supporters and their paranoid faux-libertarian opposition to humane common sense.
Re: wayne goodman @ 9:46 pm
Wayne,
I’d like to see that data, also. Most of what I have seen talk about just those that were traced. Rather like the lash-up on Mexican guns traced. Duh. Many of those that could “be traced” were from the US.
See: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/politics/35454066_1_operation-fast-and-furious-assault-weapons-gun-traffic
**
Mexican authorities have recovered 68,000 guns in the past five years that have been traced back to the United States, the federal government said Thursday.
SNIP
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in releasing its latest data covering 2007 through 2011, said that many of the guns seized in Mexico and submitted to the ATF for tracing were recovered at the scene of cartel shootings while others were seized in raids on illegal arms caches. All the recovered weapons were suspected of being used in crimes in Mexico.
SNIP
[my bold]
**
Note the lack of information on the % the 68,000 represented out of total seized. Note the info was limited to just those Mexico submitted to the ATF for tracing.
Many, many reports the Mexican killings were done with full auto (including belt feed) and devices such as RPG which are far more expensive in the US than on the world black-market. When reporters started digging into the details of the PR it was clear the numbers were ginned.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html
**
Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can’t calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact. But we also conclude that the number is at least double what Fox News has reported, based on its reporters’ mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony.
Whether the number is 90 percent, or 36 percent, or something else, there’s no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegalIy transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.
**
So, my rewording of your question would be. “Where would gun own/used by criminals come from, were the law-abiding folk disarmed?”
—-
Did we learn nothing from the Great Prohibition?
Is the “War on Drugs” stopping the flow of drugs into this country?
Is Mexico’s Draconian prohibition of private citizen firearm ownership stopping the flow into Mexico and the thriving black-market of guns?
From the US government:
http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/tijuana/warning.html
**
If you are caught with firearms or ammunition in Mexico…
You will go to jail and your vehicle will be seized;
You will be separated from your family, friends, and your job, and likely suffer substantial financial hardship;
You will pay court costs and other fees ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself;
You may get up to a 30-year sentence in a Mexican prison if found guilty.
If you carry a knife on your person in Mexico, even a pocketknife . . .
You may be arrested and charged with possession of a deadly weapon;
You may spend weeks in jail waiting for trial, and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, court costs, and fines;
If convicted, you may be sentenced to up to five years in a Mexican prison.
**
Re: Warren @ 10:01 pm
What inconsistency is there between:
1) “Guns don’t jump out a their holsters or storage and kill innocent people — without a human with criminal intent or a human responsible for a negligent discharge”?
and
2) “Guns in the hands of the law-abiding can save the lives of innocent people / victims when those people / victims are threatened with grievous (or whatever adjective the individual State uses in its self-defense statute, common law or case law) bodily harm and/or death”
In both cases the human being is responsible not the firearm.
Very “We have met the enemy and he is us” Pogoese:
http://tinyurl.com/ayqdy5r
**
Despite Newtown, we crave violent movies
updated 1:01 PM EST, Mon January 14, 2013
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
√ LZ Granderson: Tarantino’s bloody “Django Unchained” got two Golden Globes
√ Film that makes mass murder look cool is hugely popular even after Newtown, he says
√ He says celebrities who protest gun violence yet star in ultraviolent films are hypocritical
√ Granderson: Films shouldn’t be censored; the real culprit is our addiction to violence
SNIP
**
—–
**
SNIP
Mass shootings — like those at Newtown, Columbine, the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater — and everyday street violence, like what’s going on in Chicago, can be addressed immediately by legislation. But background checks and assault rifle bans will not free us from our most debilitating shackle, and that is our numbness, if not addiction, to violence, particularly in film.
Of the 100 top-grossing movies of 2012, only three were rated G. Most in the top 10 were PG-13, including “The Hunger Games,” a film about kids brutally killing each other for sport; two were PG and one was R.
SNIP
**
Sandi, your comments at January 14, 2013 @ 8:14 pm regarding our criminal justice system are a bit too absolute. While most everything you allege has an indicia of truth, there are significantly more fundamentally fair prosecutions than not. I worked in the court system for 26-years, and the most important lesson I learned was “do your job.” Investigators investigate, prosecutors prosecute, defense attorneys defend, juries hear the case and reach verdicts, and judges render judgment. With all of these moving parts, dictated by a detailed criminal code, the process may seem chaotic and imbalanced. However, I found the inherent checks and balances worked roughly as intended. I personally did not observe the conviction of an innocent defendant, but I did observe a handful of defendants, whom I thought were guilty, go free. There are lots of good, fair people in the system, Sandi.
We do share one major area of agreement. The rich are much more successful in our civil and criminal justice systems!
Dave Hicks, those long explanations don’t describe the way that the respective shorthand versions are usually wielded; more importantly, the need for you to give such lengthy explanations inherently contradicts your earlier claim that shorthand is as unambiguous as the full version.
When you start acknowledging that the VCDL’s unqualified slogan “guns save lives” doesn’t clarify what you needed an entire paragraph to delineate, you’ll be a step closer to intellectual consistency, if not honesty. But, heck, just keep thinking you have such persuasive mastery of reason; it’s too late for you to change now, and can sometimes be amusing to others.
And I’m not about to switch topics here, I’m about to introduce a new, related one:
Do guns save more American lives than they take?
A new study found that states with so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws have higher homicide rates.
…
Comment by Hillary — January 14, 2013 @ 7:26 pm
I searched that article, but didn’t find anything about Virginia. Is Virginia an exception to that “rule?” Virginia, of course, is a Stand Your Ground state.
I am also assuming that you, like Sandi, do not support Diane Feinstein’s proposed bill. Thank you.
If we didn’t have three hundred million guns out there floating around, they’d be a whole lot harder for those people to get them.
Comment by wayne goodman — January 14, 2013 @ 9:46 pm
Yeah, and if we didn’t have Slurpee machines at every 7-11 it’d be a whole lot harder for people to get them and get fat, but there is no reason to punish those of us who drink them responsibly.
Remember that obesity is the nation’s top national security problem.
I didn’t realize that Slurpees were invented primarily to kill things.
Tell us more about Zim’ s “job,” Leon.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 13, 2013 @ 8:40 pm
George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American, was the appointed neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily staying and where the shooting took place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
As requested
gdad
Not to kill things, to kill Americans. Part of the larger terrorist plot to make Americans too fat to fight wars in the middle east.
I bet you could kill some grass if you spilled Slurpee on it.
“Not to kill things, to kill Americans. Part of the larger terrorist plot to make Americans too fat to fight wars in the middle east.”
Sounds nefarious.
George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American, was the appointed neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily staying and where the shooting took place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
As requested
Comment by Leon — January 15, 2013 @ 10:41 am
Now tell us, Leon, what did the dispatcher tell Zimmerman when he called in? Was he not told to stay in his car, was he not told not to follow him? A neighborhood watch coordinator is not a police officer. He/she coordinate with the police, they don’t take it upon themselves to do the police officer’s job.
Really, Leon? Being “Neighborhood Watch Coordinator” is a “job” much in the same way coaching your kids Little League baseball team is a “job”. Which is to say…not a job.
“He/she coordinate with the police, they don’t take it upon themselves to do the police officer’s job.”
IOW, Zimmerman did a poor job.
Really, Leon? Being “Neighborhood Watch Coordinator” is a “job” much in the same way coaching your kids Little League baseball team is a “job”. Which is to say…not a job.
Comment by Kristen — January 15, 2013 @ 12:21 pm
Kristen; why do insult coaches who volunteer their time to help children.
Do you hate kids? IMO; Zim does/did more job than you. . .running off at the mouth/keyboard isn’t much of a job.
Re: Warren @ 12:09 am
Unambiguous shorthand like “End the War on Women” and “Good Planets are Hard to Find.” Yawn.
All depends on who’s numbers and/or definitions and/or assumptions you want to believe as to saving more American lives. As always YMMV. Again, yawn.
Yes Leon…Zim has gunned down one more person in cold blood than I have. And unlike Zim…I don’t “hate kids” enough to put a bullet in one. But thanks for playing.
There are two things in this conversation that seem to be mistakenly assumed:
1) That you are for some reason obligated to obey what a 911 operator tells you; and
2) that the police are obligated to show up and help.
Neither of these are true.
Comment by Jack — January 15, 2013 @ 7:31 am
“I searched that article, but didn’t find anything about Virginia. Is Virginia an exception to that “rule?” Virginia, of course, is a Stand Your Ground state.
I am also assuming that you, like Sandi, do not support Diane Feinstein’s proposed bill. Thank you.”
Gee Jack – let’s discount the research because Virginia was not included…boy is that lame. Most studies do not include every variable – too expensive – too time consuming or the state didn’t wish to be a part of the study.
The fact of the matter is, the results indicated that states with the Stand Your Ground law that were included in this study, had a higher homicide rate. Let’s not kill the messenger…
Also, your comment, “I am also assuming…”, well you know what they say about assuming, no?
7000 of 11,200 in the US gun murders were black on black crime and mostly gang related….and mostly with illegally owned weapons. But Kristen wants to spin it back to the mass murders because they tend to carried out by white males. She appears to have no real desire to identify and solve the problems with guns, which is primarily a gang and inner city culture issue.
So if we completely banned gun sales to blacks only, that would eliminate 62.5% of the gun crimes in America?
Let me tell you a little secret: Libbies wouldn’t go along with that one if it eliminated ALL the gun crime.