2009.06.12
Friday open thread
What do you mean less than nothing? I don't think there is any such thing as less than nothing. Nothing is absolutely the limit of nothingness. It's the lowest you can go. It's the end of the line. How can something be less than nothing? If there were something that was less than nothing, then nothing would not be nothing, it would be something - even though it's just a very little bit of something. But if nothing is nothing, then nothing has nothing that is less than it is.
What limits are you exploring today?
RSS feed 
It appears we elected a king. Obama has asked AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin to resign or be fired.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html
"Inspectors General are part of every federal department. They are given the responsibility of independently investigating allegations of waste, fraud, and corruption in the government, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House. Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which added new protections for IGs, including a measure requiring the president to give Congress 30 days prior notice before dismissing an IG. The president must also give Congress an explanation of why the action is needed. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was one of the co-sponsors of the Act."
Comment by Henry — June 12, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Personally I have explored enough limits for one week. I am going to coast and research some more. The opportunity for knowledge to be found at Roanoke.com simply blows my mind. You folks totally Rock! THANKS!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Apparently President Obama is using his office to remove someone imminently needing removal. From the AmeriCorps Board:
"Alan Solomont, a Democrat and the board chairman of the government-run corporation, and Stephen Goldsmith, a Republican and the board's vice chair, said they strongly endorsed Obama's decision."
And the White House:
"The president didn't offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney's criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general.
"We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that the president's decision was carefully considered," Craig wrote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html
Perhaps if you are that disliked in a position you have held for less than 2 years, a political appointment can be replaced with a political appointment. Funny how that works.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Henry... I heard about this just a while ago. It sounds like corruption was found by an IG looking into AmeriCorps funding/use by a prominent Obama backer and the IG asked to resign QUICKLY/IMMEDIATELY. Will the MSM pick this up?
Comment by BUD — June 12, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Actually Henry...we de-throned one and put in place another!
Comment by Will — June 12, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Glad you can bask in my omnipotence, Sandi!
JUST KIDDING!
Have a great weekend! Hopefully some good weather coming - I need to get some yard work done.
Comment by Ed S. — June 12, 2009 @ 11:44 am
BUD, he may well have been a friend and prominent backer of Obama after all, he was the Mayor of Sacramento! This "investigator" used his office's slipshod investigation to interfere in an election as well. If he had been a Dem who did that to a Republican candidate, you would be calling for his head and we all know it!
Hey, it's all good when you like your King.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Bud...
Care for a little cheese with that w"h"ine?
Comment by Will — June 12, 2009 @ 11:56 am
uh 7 and 8.... Obama is breaking a law he co-sponsored in that an IG can be fired WITH CAUSE.Right now the "king" isn't offering any CAUSE..SANDI slipshod investigation?? Then why is Johnson's group in question having to return half the grant money? MAYBE if he fires 1 IG and hires another, THAT'S A JOB HE SAVED OR CREATED!!
Comment by BUD — June 12, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Henry interesting how your blogger completely missed the part of the US Attorney having already complained about this guy and his tactics.
There's nothing here, as usual. Move on.
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Maybe if the investigation had been more about investigating and less about politics, there could have been charges brought and real justice done, that is my idea of slipshod.
Ed S. You are omnipotent? Wow, who knew? I love to bask, thanks
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
Come on, BUD. You can do better than that. Offering to accept a resignation doesn't mean there is no cause for firing. Where do you get that the cause would not be stated if firing become necessary?
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — June 12, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Bud...
Perhaps you should read the information from the Republican and Democrat co-chairs of the organization that the terminated IG was investigating.
Comment by Will — June 12, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Obama needs to fire him fast to stop his backer from going to jail and to send a message "Don't mess with my friends".
Even Bill Maher is pounding on Obama. "Stop the Obamathon"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-maher12-2009jun12,0,7966784.story
Comment by Henry — June 12, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
"Ed S. You are omnipotent?"
Certainly. I know all that I know...that must be all there is!
It's nice to have a Friday off once in a while. I think it went to my head.
Comment by Ed S. — June 12, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
Having read the Maher piece, it's not remotely a "pounding on Obama". It's a semi-comedic piece making fun of the press for being so fascinated with Obama that they put him on TV all the time, for any reason.
Of course, ratings drive what's put on TV. And Obama is on TV because people want to see him.
You have an active fantasy life Henry.
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Well there seems to be a lot of omnipotent people on this site, eh?
Indeed that must be all there is. A Friday off is a powerful fine thing! And a good discussion is as well.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Bill...that's part of the termination process/legislation as protection for these IGs.
That way they're not just summarily dismissed for political reasons as MIGHT be the case here.
Comment by BUD — June 12, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
WILL..the people you reference support the decision to have this IG removed...OK the organization is told to hand back half of a $850,000 grant and it's meaningful that 2 guys running the org. agree the guy should be removed?Yeah we don't like the guy who just caught us misusing over $400,000..he cost us big bucks, so get him outtathere?..Why wouldn't they want him removed Will?
Comment by BUD — June 12, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Who says it MIGHT be, BUD? If someone is told they will be fired if they don't resign, how does that translate into cause will not be stated if necessary?
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — June 12, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Hey Henry...how are the Republicans doing taking over the Senate in NY?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/nyregion/12albany.html?_r=1&hpw
Doh!
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Sandi and Kristen...
I just wanted to let you know that I will (if the weather doesn't turn to crap) be at the Salem Red Sox game this evening if you feel it necessary to avoid being around an armed citizen.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
In cyberspace...no one can hear you roll your eyes.
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
But we can still feel it, Kristen.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — June 12, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Duly noted and will be avoiding Jack.
BUD, the two people wanting him out were the Chair and Vice Chair AT AmeriCorps where he is being ousted from NOT the group he investigated...
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
You know the interesting thing, Sandi... and I didn't even realize this until today. While I would never choose to drink alcohol while carrying my gun, under current law, I can.
The law that would have prevented me from doing so was vetoed by Tim Kaine.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Wrong, Jack:
§ 18.2-308, J1. Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 12, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Sorry, Dan, Jack can open carry and have a beer if he so chooses.
Comment by Patrick — June 12, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Jack wasn't talking about open carry, I don't think.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 12, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Dan, same as driving a car, my friend. You can have a beer and drive a car. That is not illegal. You can even have two, possibly.
Can't be intoxicated, though... so it is thin ice and not something I'm interested in doing anyways. I just found it interesting.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Post #21... yes Henry, read all about it.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06092009/news/regionalnews/state_senates_gone_coup_koo_173319.htm
flippin' dems...
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 12, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Patrick is also half correct... concealed carry allows me to drink, too. Open carry is only required if the ABC license is for a restaurant. Since the stadium has a "Food Concession" license, concealed carry is legal.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
"Jack wasn't talking about open carry, I don't think."
You're right.
Which is it, Jack?
Comment by Patrick — June 12, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Concealed. My understanding is that you cannot be drunk while carrying concealed. It is probably a very bad idea to drink while carrying. I wouldn't do it while carrying openly or concealed. I think you're just asking for trouble.
That being said... the law that Tim Kaine vetoed would have made it illegal to drink at all while carrying concealed. I'm not certain that it would have affected drinking while carrying openly.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Bud...
Re your post #19....you made it sound like it was all pure politics and completely a posture of a Democrat when in reality it was both a Democrat and a Republican.
You left out that little part of the story...tisk tisk.
Comment by Will — June 12, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Definition of "restaurant" according to Virginia Code (emphasis added):
"Restaurant" means, for a beer, or wine and beer license or a limited mixed beverage restaurant license, any establishment provided with special space and accommodation, where, in consideration of payment, meals or other foods prepared on the premises are regularly sold.
"Restaurant" means, for a mixed beverage license other than a limited mixed beverage restaurant license, an established place of business (i) where meals with substantial entrees are regularly sold and (ii) which has adequate facilities and sufficient employees for cooking, preparing, and serving such meals for consumption at tables in dining areas on the premises, and includes establishments specializing in full course meals with a single substantial entree.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
All things considered, it seems a lot simpler to enjoy a night on the town unarmed.
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
"All things considered, it seems a lot simpler to enjoy a night on the town unarmed."
Why is that, Kristen? Do you find that if you are carrying 1.3 pounds less it is much easier to enjoy yourself?
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
30 Jack:
It is illegal to drink an alcoholic beverage while driving a car. The only state that is legal in is Mississippi.
Virginia is one of 8 states that allows consumption of alcoholic beverages by passengers in a moving car.
However, local laws can trump the state's inaction in these cases.
Comment by scott — June 12, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Now this is just what we need.
A discussion about whether or not you can drink and either carry a concealed weapon or an unconcealed weapon. What we really need is someone who is under the influence of alcohol trying to make a rational decision as to whether to use his/her weapon.
The total absurdity of this disuccion is beyond me.
Just as a side bar, has anyone who carries with a CHP ever considered what the liability would be if you happened to wound or kill the wrong person in your haste to "defend yourself"?
Comment by Will — June 12, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Jack what are you scared of at the baseball game? Are you worried that one of the mascots will come up and rub you on the head? I've never felt my safety in question at a Salem baseball game but then again I don't need a gun to make me secure.
I think the stadium should put up metal detectors and refuse entrance to anyone carrying a gun. They could do this legally since the stadium is only open to those paying admission. When you pay admission to get in you agree to abide by any rules set forth by the organization running the stadium or you stay home.
Comment by Greg — June 12, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
"Virginia is one of 8 states that allows consumption of alcoholic beverages by passengers in a moving car."
That I didn't know. I always thought we had an open container law. Is that just local?
Anyways, I don't think there is a law against drinking alcohol while carrying, as long as you do not get to the point where you could be considered to be under the influence, which is likely defined the same way that it is for DUI. Consuming alcohol while driving a car, though, is illegal.
I only made the comparison for the "under the influence" part. As far as I know, with regards to carrying a firearm, the when you drink it part doesn't matter like it does for driving a car.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
"Just as a side bar, has anyone who carries with a CHP ever considered what the liability would be if you happened to wound or kill the wrong person in your haste to "defend yourself"?"
I'm sure many people have considered that.
"A discussion about whether or not you can drink and either carry a concealed weapon or an unconcealed weapon. What we really need is someone who is under the influence of alcohol trying to make a rational decision as to whether to use his/her weapon."
I kind of find it absurd, too. I can't believe that Tim Kaine would have vetoed a law that made it illegal. But, he did. As I have said... personally, I wouldn't drink while carrying. But, then again, I don't drink too often regardless.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
"I think the stadium should put up metal detectors and refuse entrance to anyone carrying a gun. They could do this legally since the stadium is only open to those paying admission. When you pay admission to get in you agree to abide by any rules set forth by the organization running the stadium or you stay home."
Actually, Greg, you are wrong. Since the stadium is owned by the City of Salem, the state says that they cannot ban guns. Just like the civic center, the police department, city hall, state capitol building, etc.
Second... I'm not scared of anything at the baseball game. I'm not scared that I'll run over a nail, but I still have the spare tire in my car.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
By the way... generally, you are right. Normally you do have to abide by the rules. However, in this case, the rule is unlawful and cannot be enforced.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Jack,
Can the same be said of your peers that also carry (not just the ones you know, but also the ones you don't know)?
What is the liability for wounding or killing the wrong person?
Comment by Will — June 12, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
ignorance breeds contempt.
Comment by Frank — June 12, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
scott & Jack: Regarding your comments about local laws: Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, meaning that local governments have only that authority specifically given to them by the state (i.e., the General Assembly). The state has given localities no authority to regulate alcohol consumption, except to allow them to permit consumption of alcohol in public parks under certain regulations.
This principle applies to all areas of the law, not just alcohol, and it's amazing how often people (including, at times, the RTEB) criticize local governments for not doing things they have no authority to do under state law.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — June 12, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
"Just as a side bar, has anyone who carries with a CHP ever considered what the liability would be if you happened to wound or kill the wrong person in your haste to "defend yourself"?"
I have, and many others I know have. Indeed, all of the courses I have seen on self defense have also included a thorough discussion of the liability of injuring/killing an innocent person, and even the civil liability that can be incurred by injuring/killing the aggressor should you choose to defend yourself. Even if you're in the "right", you can face civil action. Of course, the tool used at that point doesn't matter - whether gun, knife, pepper spray, or whatever else is at hand when you're attacked. The courses have also discussed that, even if you're being attacked, *you* are responsible for being aware of the surroundings and what happens if you miss (or even if you hit, in some cases).
Some choose not to defend themselves (or choose different tools) for that reason. On the other side, the only reason to employ "deadly force" is for an imminent threat of severe bodily injury or death.
But how did we drag this into Friday? Friday is for discussions of what's on the grill and how pathetically hot it is going to be for yard work this weekend. This thread is more appropriate for a Monday atmosphere.
Comment by Ed S. — June 12, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
You do not know when the need for your concealed weapon will show up. Look in the news, how many times does a killer show up in a "gun free" zone and kills many unarmed people.
During an active shooter class I particpated in last year we were given some homework. We had to read an article called, "On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs" by LTC Dave Grossman. In it was one paragraph that describes this line of thinking better then I could ever describe...
"I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Ltc. Dave Grossman "On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs"
The point being, no one is a fortune teller. No one knows when trouble will come a calling. No one knows how long it will take law enforcement to arrive to stop the trouble.
I know that carrying is not for everyone. Very few are actually willing to train, prepare and then act. No problem. I just don't get why so many are against the ones that are prepared to act.
Comment by TScottW — June 12, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
TScottW the answer to your question is that for everyone who carries a gun that is another one who carries a gun legally that has no business doing so. I was trained extensively in the Military on when to use and when not to use deadly force. Also at my disposal were many hours of follow up training and the appropriate place to do that training. Civilians are not afforded those opportunities and some wouldn't take the time if they were. I'm not talking about the criminals, I'm talking about the gun advocates who think they know how to handle his or her weapon in a time of crisis.
As for my statement about the baseball stadium Jack, you are again wrong. The stadium is owned by the city of Salem. The baseball games are put on by the Red Sox who lease the stadium. The leesee has the right to put any restriction on entrance they choose fit. They are paying rent on the facility so it makes it their decision not the cities.
Comment by Greg — June 12, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
Well, back from the game. Sox were up when we left, but two young children are hard to control for three hours.
Contrary to what some of you might think, I didn't pull out my gun and use it to keep my kids in line. In fact, nobody at the place was in any danger of being shot with my gun, or any of the other guns in the place. I'm sure there were at least a dozen more.
Good times.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Jack,
I was there, too. Good game (Sox kept their lead to the end).
No gunshots in my vicinity, unless they rang out during the fireworks after the game.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 12, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
So did they end up winning? I wish that one guy had gone for home rather than stop at third. It would have been worth the out if he had gotten one... the in the ballpark homerun would have been sweet.
I can't believe that guy stole second... and then third right after it. They should have had a better eye on him at that point.
We left in the 5th inning. Kids got restless.
No gunshots in my vicinity, either. Pretty crowded game.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Greg,
Having served eight years in the US Military and over 12 years in law enforcement, I disagree with you. I know plenty of military and law enforcement types that do not care for guns and do not go out of the way to train with guns. They do enough to get by.
On the other hand I know plenty of good honest gun owners who do train. There is plenty of training out there.
http://www.thunderranchinc.com/
http://www.gunsite.net/
Local you can go to... http://www.dt-concepts.com/
As to your comment... "everyone who carries a gun that is another one who carries a gun legally that has no business doing so." I must have missed that part in the Bill of Rights where the rights (All of them) are only for certain people. I guess you also mean the first amendment. Only Baptist can have free religion? Only the New York Times has the freedom of the press? Just curious.
Comment by TScottW — June 13, 2009 @ 1:42 am
All things considered, it seems a lot simpler to enjoy a night on the town unarmed."
Why is that, Kristen? Do you find that if you are carrying 1.3 pounds less it is much easier to enjoy yourself?
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
With that 1.3 pounds less, I don't have to worry if alcohol is being served, or not, and no one's asking me to leave the place. I can go out to eat and drink without an exhaustive study of current concealed/open carry drink/eating establishment laws. It's very freeing.
Comment by Kristen — June 13, 2009 @ 8:13 am
"{The total absurdity of this disuccion is beyond me."
Oh come on Will...an honest open debate about whether people need to go around armed in churches, elementary schools, and baseball games is just what a great country such as ours requires. We're ALL the freer for it!
Comment by Kristen — June 13, 2009 @ 8:17 am
ignorance breeds contempt.
Comment by Frank — June 12, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Maybe Frank, but not nearly as fast as dumb behavior will.
Comment by Kristen — June 13, 2009 @ 8:17 am
TScottW,
That seems to be an argument that you'll run into a lot around here. Those that say you need a "reason" to exercise your right.
That's the beauty of something being a right as opposed to a privilege, you do not need to have a reason other than you can.
Comment by Jack — June 13, 2009 @ 8:20 am
No TScottW you must have misread my comment. I didn't say only certain people have the right to carry a gun, I said certain people have no business carrying a gun. I have the right to sing in public but that doesn't mean I should.
I also didn't say everyone in the military or law enforcement love guns. What I did say is there are minimum standards that have to be met and you are tested regularly to ensure you are authorized to carry your weapon.
I have over 12 years with the U.S. Navy including several in military law enforcement. I don't know what military you served in but if your unit just gave guns to everyone without training that would be the first time I have ever heard of that happening.
Comment by Greg — June 13, 2009 @ 9:25 am
"It's very freeing"? I think the word you were looking for is liberating, but then again, who am I to criticize a visioner such as yourself?
Comment by C Ramsey — June 13, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Let me throw this out for comments.
The article about the young woman who pulled out her handgun and foiled a carjacking, raised a red flag. I was trained to not pull out a weapon unless I intended to use it, and then to shoot to kill. If the carjacker had shot her, would it have been in self defense? Should she have shot the guy? I'm glad of the end result, but I see the potential for confusion on what an armed citizen should actually do in a situation such as this.
Comment by Blue John — June 13, 2009 @ 11:13 am
@Kristen: "I can go out to eat and drink without an exhaustive study of current concealed/open carry drink/eating establishment laws."
For the most part, I don't drink, so I'm not missing anything by carrying. Second, since I know the law there isn't really that much exhausting work to be done to figure anything out.
Third, if they don't want me in their establishment while I am carrying a gun, I'll go elsewhere. There are plenty of other places to eat that do want my business.
@Greg: "What I did say is there are minimum standards that have to be met..."
Same for those of us with a CHP. We have met a required minimum standard as well.
@Greg: "I said certain people have no business carrying a gun"
You have no business carrying around a spare tire in your car. But you still do.
@Greg: "I don't know what military you served in but if your unit just gave guns to everyone without training that would be the first time I have ever heard of that happening."
Agreed. And if the state gave someone a permit to carry a concealed gun without training that would be against the law. So I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make.
Comment by Jack — June 13, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Cramsey..the word I was looking for was freeing.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freeing
2 dictionary results no less! Envision that.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visioner
Doh! Still not a word!
Comment by Kristen — June 13, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
See, here's the thing. YOU say it is your right. You say it is your Constitutional Right. Well in fact, just as the Constitutional scholars on here are always throwing at me, it isn't really spelled out in the Constitution that you have any right whatsoever to walk among the citizenry armed. It has been accepted to some degree, it is obviously being allowed with certain parameters,(like the right to abortion) but it is by no means guaranteed against any challenge. More and more gun crimes and more and more people being made aware of people next to them at the mall, movies and ball games armed will almost certainly guarantee a challenge is coming and frankly judging by the level of argument here, some of you are sadly prepared for making us feel better about supporting your right to keep your "right".
Society has rules. We have a certain herd mentality and we all want to be as "apart" as we can be while "together". We want our personal space and we want to feel safe from any infringement. If you want to convince us that carrying a gun is a right that needs to be exercised, give us a better reason to accept that. However, as soon as you do, we will all (well a huge amount of us) also be jumping on that bandwagon so to speak. Be careful what you push for. If you do not feel safe without a gun, neither will we. If you feel that you should exercise your right, so will we. We did not all grow up with car seats, wearing seat belts, using cell phones. We did not all grow up with smoke detectors, security systems, car alarms, tazers and mace. We all believe in carrying a spare tire, maybe even a full tool box, flares and blankets too, for a reason. We were convinced that it was the way to go.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 13, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Jack it would be foolish to think everyone with a CHP is as responsible as you.
As for the spare tire analogy you keep using, that's pretty foolish don't you think. If you really think a spare tire is the same as a handgun then you prove my point and should not be carrying a weapon.
As for the minimum standards to obtain a CHP, below is the list from the state police web site. Number 1 on the list is of particular interest. According to this anyone who has completed a hunter safety course can get a CHP. Again, my training and the training of police officers is a bit more than a hunter safety course. If you don't think so, then go down to your local reserve unit and sign up for a tour in Iraq. It should be easy for you since you are so well trained.
The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence:
1. Completing any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or a similar agency of another state;
2. Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
3. Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;
4. Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
5. Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services;
6. Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in this Commonwealth or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause;
7. Completing any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;
8. Completing any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties; or
9. Completing any other firearms training which the court deems adequate.
Comment by Greg — June 13, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Comment by Greg — June 13, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
@Sandi: "Well in fact, just as the Constitutional scholars on here are always throwing at me, it isn't really spelled out in the Constitution that you have any right whatsoever to walk among the citizenry armed."
The right to keep and bear arms...
Seems to be spelled out to me.
@Sandi: "...feel better about supporting your right to keep your "right"."
You keep saying "your right"... please don't forget that it is also your right.
If it is already illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun in their possession, what makes you so certain that a new law will make it "more illegaler???" Yes, I know that's not a word, but a stupid term has to be given to a stupid idea. It really is stupid. We have laws against murder, but it doesn't keep people from being murdered.
Maybe if we have a SECOND law that makes murder illegal, maybe that will be the one that stops people from being murdered.
@Sandi: "We want our personal space and we want to feel safe from any infringement. If you want to convince us that carrying a gun is a right that needs to be exercised, give us a better reason to accept that"
Why does your personal space extend to where I am standing or sitting? If I want to feel safe from any infringement in my personal space, why can't I? If I am sitting at a table in a restaurant, there is no way whatsoever that I would be considered to be in your personal space.
Also, you ask for a reason to accept that right. I'm not asking you to accept it. You don't have to accept it. I neither need your blessing nor your permission.
Comment by Jack — June 13, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
See what I mean? You prove it over and over.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 13, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Did you miss the Heller decision, Sandi? The Supreme Court says we do have the right to keep and bear arms.
Comment by Patrick — June 13, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
@Greg: "If you really think a spare tire is the same as a handgun then you prove my point and should not be carrying a weapon."
I don't think they are the same at all. I think the analogy is perfect. Sandi, for instance, would say that I shouldn't carry a gun when I don't need it. My question is, how do I know when I am going to need it?
You carry a spare tire every time you drive. Why not carry it only when you need it?
I don't think that carrying a gun and carrying a tire are even remotely the same, and I never claimed that. I just claimed that you never know when you are going to need something.
I have a rechargeable flashlight here at home for when the power goes out. I could probably save electricity if I only plug it in for a few hours before the power goes out. Thing is, I don't know when that will be. So, for the most part, it is plugged in 99.9% of the time for nothing.
@Greg: "If you don't think so, then go down to your local reserve unit and sign up for a tour in Iraq. It should be easy for you since you are so well trained."
Nobody claimed that you had to have military combat training to get a CHP. Only firearms training. Proficiency, knowledge of how they function and how to use them safely.
Nobody said you have to be a special forces soldier to carry a gun. In fact, mine was inspected by a police officer once before. He thought it was a Glock, and couldn't figure out how to unload it. It was not a Glock, by the way, and the grip safety must be activated before the slide can be pulled out of battery. Very well trained he was.
Comment by Jack — June 13, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
Patrick, did you miss Roe v Wade that says a woman has the right to an abortion? We still have that fight practically weekly on this site alone. Constitutional rights get challenged all the time and gun control laws get brought into the news on a regular basis. Do you seriously feel this is a non-issue or do you just like to poke at me?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 13, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Jack I see you decided to avoid the fact that I posted facts from the VA State Police that you do not need any firearms training at all to get a CHP. A hunting saving course is good enough for a CHP. It's right there in black and white! A 12 year old boy can complete a hunting safety course. Do you think a 12 year old boy should have a CHP? In fact, I'm going to test out your little theory. My cousin hunts once a year with a rifle. He has no knowledge of deadly force or when to use it. I'm going to get him to apply for a CHP and we'll see if he get's it. In fact while I'm at it I am going to apply for mine too. Since the application doesn't ask me about any prior training, I'm going to submit the hunting safety certificate I got last year. I bet you anything my cousin and I both get our permits.
Comment by Greg — June 13, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Trust me, Sandi, I hardly think the matter of the 2nd Ammendment is a non-issue. You and others like you will never rest until you have succeeded in taking that right away from others.
And no, I don't just like to poke at you...I like to poke at all Liberal BS.
Comment by Patrick — June 13, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Greg.. you posted nine different sources of training. A hunter safety course, as far as I know, includes gun safety.
Do I think a 12-year-old boy should have a permit? No, I don't, and neither does Virginia. I'm not sure where you came up with that idea. In fact, a 12-year-old can't even legally possess a gun.
If you meet all other qualifications, then your hunting safety certificate will work. I'd be surprised if your hunter safety class didn't include gun safety. But, then again, maybe it was one of those classes that taught you how to safely sneak up on a deer and break its neck.
Anyways, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on what constitutes training. It is what it is. It sounds like if you had your way that only police officers and ex-military should be able to have a gun, and that is not the case.
Virginia used to discriminate when it came to issuing permits. Virginia used to be a "may issue" state. The judge could say "Greg, you're a Liberal. I don't like Liberals. No CHP for you. Have a nice day." Then Sandy could walk in and he could say "Ms. Saunders, don't like the hair. Get a haircut and come back and see me and we'll talk about that permit." Then Will walks in... "Eh... don't like gay people. Move along, and don't take the permit with you."
Thankfully all of that changed when Virginia became a "shall issue" state. That means that unless you are legally disqualified, the judge has no say whatsoever as to whether or not to issue you a permit.
By the way, most of those requirements are moot if you just want to carry it around openly. I love America... well, except for places like Chicago where they ban guns. No crime in those places... boring.
In fact, I think the Chicago police should quit carrying guns, since there would be no armed perps anyways.
Comment by Jack — June 13, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Actually... I'm wrong.
According to the Chicago Police Department there were 510 murders in 2008 in Chicago. 1,569 criminal sexual assaults, 16,652 robberies, 6,230 assaults, 10,803 cases of battery, 26,036 burglaries, 18,973 motor vehicle thefts...
Thank God none of these involved the use of a gun, since those are banned.
Comment by Jack — June 13, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
You know, I was just thinking as I was adding water to the fish tank. Considering how many automobile related deaths there are every year, you would think that someone would have to show that they are able to drive a car before they are given that license.
I don't know about you guys, but because I did very well on my written test, I was never required to actually drive a car to get a license.
Is that routine? Do they normally put a deadly weapon like that in the hands of a sixteen-year-old that has not shown any type of proficiency or responsibility when it comes to using it?
Comment by Jack — June 13, 2009 @ 9:51 pm