Oh gimme a break.
Today's lead story is gun owners snapping up every weapon they can find. They're afraid an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic Congress will trounce on their gun rights.
Got news for ya: This time, you're not the center of the universe. The nation is too busy trying to save itself from an imploding economy, collapsing automakers and the laughable state of health coverage.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In her signature plainspoken style, Michigan native Shanna Flowers peels away the layers and gets to the heart of the issues. No pretense. Just straightforward perspective. Shanna writes about local people whose circumstances reflect decisions made as near as City Hall or as far away as the halls of Congress. Other times, she weighs in on a topic because it is incredibly ridiculous. Or heartening. Or fascinating. Read Shanna's column three days a week, Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, at roanoke.com
I've got news for you, Shanna - unless you've been following gun rights closely for the past few years, you really have no idea. Everyone who says things like you looks at the situation from an uninformed and overly-broad viewpoint. An all-out gun ban is not the worry, things like the ignorant "Assault Weapon Ban" are what are of concern, banning normal everyday guns because they "look scary" - seriously.
These things aren't about "urban safety" as Obama poses it - that is just a coverup for disarming good people, like New Orleans post-Katrina. And Obama will need a disarmed population - he has astounding potential for tyranny. Don't laugh and think "never in the US" - just pay attention.
Comment by Gun owner — November 8, 2008 @ 11:30 am
We don't think we are the center of the universe. It is very easy for an anti-gun administration or Congress to attach riders to legislation for health care that would go under the radar of the American people. It happens all the time. We all have our concerns, and maybe you shouldn't be so flip about what your fellow citizens think about these issues. Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, I don't recall seeing anything in there about health care or the rights of auto makers.
Comment by Anthony Gilbert — November 8, 2008 @ 11:51 am
The rush to buy guns comes from the fear held by many that this country will descend into a third-world, socialist toilet and we should, therefore, protect ourselves. I, and many other conservatives, happen to agree with them. This nation(?) has run it's course. The lethal combination of a left-wing media and an pathetic, anti-western civilization public school system has left us with a sheltered and unintelligent generation of crybabies who made their feelings known by voting for their Marxist Messiah. We law-abiding taxpayers need to seriously consider relocating to a safer place where people are responsible for no one but themselves. Western Canada is full of decent people. We can move there before the liberals take our assets and redistribute them to a bunch of slack welfare cheats.
Comment by Rob C — November 8, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Violence Increases In Wake of British Gun Ban
A couple of years ago we reported on Britain's draconian Firearms Act of 1997, which tightened that country's already-severe gun laws and virtually disarmed the population, making armed self-defense illegal.
Now the mainstream British media is reporting a massive new wave of crime, including gun crimes.
On January 18, BBC News Online reported "a huge surge in muggings": "The figures for recorded offenses, a blow to the government's anti-crime crusade, show the first rise in England and Wales for six years. The number of robberies - most of them muggings - increased by 19% in the year to September 1999 compared with a fall of nearly 6% over the previous 12 months."
The headline for a January 16 London Times article was: "Killings Rise As 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain."
Total crime in London rose by 22% for the year September 1998-2006, and armed crime rose 10%. Gun prohibition has also created a massive new black market smuggling in powerful guns for criminals.
The January 14th Manchester Guardian reported that city is now being called "Gunchester."
Police -- who are usually unarmed -- report some gangs are now armed with fully automatic weapons and that guns are "almost a fashion accessory" among young street criminals.
The government's response? Plans being discussed include: further increasing penalties for gun possession; cracking down on drugs; creating a national DNA database of both innocent and convicted citizens;
and restricting knives and air guns.
And we seen the increase of knife fatalities among teens in Britain.
Comment by Backlash — November 8, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Shanna, Maybe a little more research on your part would have been advised.
We are NOT the center of the universe (gun owners & hunters)but we have the right to keep & bear arms! Just as you have the right to enjoy whatever hobbies & interests you may have no matter if someone else likes it or not ! This is the USA.
Comment by Wayne Huffman — November 8, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Knowing that many responsible, concientious gun owners will probably read this, and perhaps a few people with a deeper violence obsession too, I wonder if I could ask them to share their knowledge on a very specific question:
Like hundreds of thousands of others, I faced a disruption of my personal security in the fall of 2002, when Malvo & Muhammed were on their killing spree in metro DC and Ashland. I noticed that none of the victims used a cheaply made, easily concealable handgun to protect themselves from the shooter's high powered sniper rifle. My question is, for those who wish to do so, what are the best ways to use a very cheap, easily hidden handgun to protect themselves from a high powered rifle fired at a distance?
Please don't answer that this is like asking Chuck Norris for the best karate move to use against a shotgun from nine feet away; that answer's obvious, that no karate move could protect one from a shotgun blast at that distance. I know that a hand grenade lobbed in time to preempt the shooter firing at me might work if I knew they were aiming at me and my aim were good, but for some reason the personal weapons lobbyists, such as the groups that represent cheap handgun makers, won't do anything to protect our second amendment right to bear arms for those whose arms of choice would include items they don't themselves sell, like armor piercing grenades. (By the way, what's up with that? I guess it must be like the distilled spirits lobby opposing reform of marijauna laws, from economic self interest or something).
But I digress; what I'd like is to hear from gun experts sharing their expertise about the best, most effective way to use a cheaply made handgun against a gunner using a high powered sniper rifle, or a semi-converted-to-fully automatic rifle. By explaining the proper technique that makes it possible to do so, you'll be helping the debate by demonstrating how those foolish surrenderists in DC could have taken responsibility for their own safety while loading their groceries or pumping gas.
For regular readers of the blog, the writer of this response should NOT be confused with blog regular "Percy Kution."--s
Comment by X. E. Kution — November 8, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Shanna,
We'll disagree here, I guess. As many others have said, very few gun owners feel they are the center of the universe. But we know that a (liberal) Democrat in the White House combined with Pelosi and a Democrat legislature can easily be a rubber stamp for any gun ban, direct or indirect ("punitive" taxes, "sporting arms" clauses, obscene regulation, etc). It cold come in the form of its own bill, or as a rider to another bill as someone already mentioned.
The executive and legislature will be busy trying to right the economy and doing whatever they plan to do with Iraq and Afghanistan. That may keep them busy, or may be a distraction for them to pass what they like. Hopefully they've learned from 1996, as well as the lack of wild killing sprees by honest Americans who have made use of various states' concealed handgun laws in the last decade.
Just as a side note and example...the lunacy of gun bans has gotten so bad that some people wish to classify guns somehow as a "disease", so it wouldn't be too far to think bans could come under some health care bill, especially when the administration has explicitly called for bans.
Comment by Ed S. — November 8, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
"X.E. Kution"--
The answer is that you've asked the wrong question. How do you change the oil in your car with a toilet? You don't. Does that make toilets useless? You've concocted a situation and inferred that a negative answer speaks for all situations that may apply. I don't know the legal term for what you've done, but I'll use the layman's term specious (having the ring of truth, but actually fallacious).
First off, your use of terms (sometimes incorrect) indicates your position. I live in Fairfax County. The year I moved up here, there were a series of reports of people shooting at cars on I-495 ("the beltway"). I was also here through the "sniper" shootings. Guess what, there are many things that can befall us all without sufficient time or warning to take counter-action. I also remember a case on the beltway where a lady was beheaded; the truck in front of her kicked up a piece of sheet metal road debris that came through her windshield. Her seat belt failed to protect her.
There are many situations where a pistol would be a preferred method of self-defense. Cheap or expensive does not matter. I may be able to afford something a little more expensive. My neighbor may not. He is no less entitled to protection simply because he cannot afford a $1500 1911, though.
I will also note that the rifle used by those chumps was not "high powered". As far as rifles go, the .223 is quite low-powered.
If you *really* want advice on how to better protect yourself, it is quite simple. 1) Always be alert and aware of your surroundings. 2) Look at available self-defense tools, choose what you can and will use, and *PRACTICE* with it. 3) Know there is no catch-all, end-all plan that will keep you safe from everything.
Comment by Ed S. — November 8, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
Hey guess what.........Theres no regulation on private gun sales.I can sell to another person....all day long..no rules..
Comment by larry — November 8, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
Why are we reading or careing what a "michigan native" is commenting about? Go back north yankee.And yes I own many guns and feel safer having them.
Comment by james west — November 8, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
Here is a Obama quote as reported by the Boston Globe:
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen…. We can work together to enact common-sense laws … so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists and criminals.”
Here is what appears on Obama’s campaign website:
“Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.”
As a member of the Joyce Foundation board of directors from 1998 through 2001, Obama approved over $30-million in grants to fund anti-gun projects – including massive funding of the Violence Policy Center (VPC) whose singular goal is to rid America of private ownership of handguns. Obama has repeatedly voiced support for local handgun bans like Chicago’s oppressive law.
In addition, there is a long list of radical gun control strictures that Obama sloughs off now calling them “common sense gun safety.”
-Voted for legislation that would have given government bureaucrats free rein to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting.
-
Supports a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
During the April 16, 2008 Philadelphia Democratic debate Obama said “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right…”
When asked what if you are in mortal fear for your life, he responded you have your local police authority to handle specific emergency situations.
Comment by Backlash — November 8, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
You gun freaks are living in a paranoid fairyland. Your right to bear arms is meaningless. Who are you going to shoot? The current whacked-out sniper? The US Army? A swat team come to get you? Are you going to join a gang of vigilantes, revolutionaries, outlaws? Are you going to go wading into gangland and shoot 'em all up and restore law and order in the ghettos? The world has changed just a wee bit since 1776. Owning a gun doesn't empower you; it just makes you an accident waiting happen.
Comment by CSB — November 9, 2008 @ 12:01 am
CSB
This is not 1776 nor is this Star Date umpliy squat. The headlines becomes grim each day you look at the news each day you read the headlines of the paper.
Some people will tell you hey don't look at the news or read the paper due to the carnage man do to one another, it hopes crime will go away.........
I have lost family members to violent crimes and I say this each person have a right to bear arms to protect themselves, sometimes the police isn't around the corner and in some instances the police being there doesn't make a hill of beans difference.
Case in point Brian Nichols Atlanta Court House Murderer of 4 People or
in Britain which have some of the strictest gun laws:
Police chief appeals for calm as 20th teenager stabbed to death in just 72 hours as Blade Britain's knife Ban.
Maybe Japan Temp worker stabs 7 to death, injures 10 in Akihabara, another country with strict gun laws.
But when I read stories like this: 19 yr Missouri woman shoots, kills would-be rapist at her home, or
75 yr old Woman Shoots Intoxicated Home Intruder in Groin.
Would you like to tell these people they don't have the right to defend themselves when their very lives is in grave peril, knowing me I would buy them a box of bullets.
You are right this isn't 1776 and I bet they didn't use harsh language and sling shots.........
they hung criminals.
Comment by Backlash — November 9, 2008 @ 1:50 am
Man's inhumanity to man, never ceases to amaze me, and as we see in our news daily, guns are not needed to kill, if the intent is there,it will be done.
Shoving a cell phone down a woman's throat, so deeply it had to be surgicaly removed, or the police's legal use of tasers[shouldn't we all have a portable electric chair????] when discounting someone might be just plain scared.
If you think someone is out to get you, you invite negative energy and someone will try to get you.{Manifistation}
Yes there is always a situation, say at Virginia Tech, when dispite the "red flags" the "professionals" do nothing, effectively passing the buck. And then Cho "hidious criminal", "master-minding" mass distruction, when intervention could have been lifesaving.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, if it's your time, it is your time. That is called a higher power.
Scarey is the people who decide who and what is "normal".
Comment by Dona Wheeler/Roanoke — November 9, 2008 @ 4:03 am
I see. We can't defend ourselves so there is no point trying. If the criminals kick in your door with their guns in hand while you cower in the bathroom, make sure you enlighten them about their lack of empowerment. Then post it to Youtube because I want to see it.
Rally round the family
with a pocketful of shells
Comment by Henry — November 9, 2008 @ 8:17 am
To CSB: You, sir, are 100% WRONG. There are myriad ways on this earth to "empower" oneself. Education and knowledge is the number one way, accumulation of wealth, is another. But in the end, POWER COMES FROM THE END OF A GUN BARREL. Chairman Mao said that, and you can't reject the message just because you reject the messenger. He was absolutely right. The end of a gun barrel is what keeps ALL governments in power. Not the ballot box, not "voting" for candidates already picked by the corporate elite on BOTH sides so the corporate and special interests can't lose no matter who the sheeple "vote" for. And whoever "wins" the election is then protected by the government's own guns. The ONLY power any Judge has, from Roanoke General District Court to the Supreme Court of the US depends on the cops, federal agents, or the US Army backing up and/or enforcing that decision with the end of a gun if need be. You get a parking ticket and don't pay it? The man that comes with a warrant for you is going to have a gun on his hip. You fall behind on your house payments and the bankers decide to throw you and your possesions out of the house? The men that come to do it for them are going to have guns on their hips. Sure, they might have "papers" in their hands, but those "papers" have no power whatsoever without the end of that gun barrel to back them up. These are absolute, irrebuttable FACTS. The government of the US or any other government in the whole wide world would be totally, absolutely POWERLESS without the end of a gun barrel. And of course, all governments know this. So the only question is, WHY is the government so afraid for it's own citizens to have a gun? Not really hard to figure out is it?
Comment by Percy Kution — November 9, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Why worry about guns? Do you sheeple realize there's not ONE SINGLE Federal, State, or Local law to keep a beaver from owning a chainsaw or a cement mixer? Now right there is an act of eco-terrorism waiting to happen!! Write your Senator or Congressman TODAY and ask them to support House Bill OI812, the "Beaver Chainsaw and Cement Mixer Control Act of 2008" before the little beasts get back from a run on Northwest Hardware, Lowes, and Home Depot, driving 27 cement mixers they "appropriated" from Roanoke Redy-Mix and build something on Tinker Creek to make Smith Mountain Lake look like a frog pond!!
Comment by Percy Kution — November 9, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Why are we reading or careing what a "michigan native" is commenting about? Go back north yankee.And yes I own many guns and feel safer having them.
Comment by james west — November 8, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
James West: Go west, young man. Whether we agree or disagree with the opinions expressed by the blogger, the one thing the vast majority of us agree on is that we are glad to have her and she presents her views in a fair and logical manner, quite unlike your ranting and name calling.
Comment by Mike — November 10, 2008 @ 3:44 am
I look forward to the day when every single American will carry a concealed weapon, with an assault rifle in the trunk of their car. Then, and only then, will we be the greatest and safest nation on the earth. Robbers are nothing more than domestic terrorists, and we should educate our eight year old children on how to handle and use firearms for a lifetime of security. People would not have been frightened into voting for Obama n the first place if they had a firearm at their side. There is a reason our founding fathers wanted to arm every single citizen of America, do not doubt their great wisdom!
Comment by Rocky Mountain Man — November 10, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Geez Shanna, why you have a job in Roanoke is beyond me. You're way out of touch with Virginians, but then again, so is that liberal rag you work at.
Guns are always at the forefront of any democrats mind. Their goal is to ban them completely. Ask Senator Diane Feinstein of California. I could pull the quote up for you, but you have google. I'll be here to call you out in February when Osama the new messiah decides that we don't need guns with more than X amount of bullets.
This is the same guy that voted to prosecute people who defend themselves in Illinois. This is also a guy who is a Senator from a state with very restrictive gun laws, yet own the worlds biggest hood called Chicago. If Chicago isn't a big enough example as to why gun control never works, then you are blind.
But hey, just keep gulping the Osama kool aid. Keep thinking the messiah of America is here. I don't expect we'll here from you much now that Mr. Evil George Bush is out of office.
The Roanoke Times. Setting a new standard of trash news.
Only one Messiah. I can assure you He's not here...at least not now. But then you know that cuz you said last week you wanted people to come to Him.--s
Comment by Goodbye democracy — November 10, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Hey Larry, you might want to look up HR 1022 that sits in congress right now.
I doubt Shanna's ever heard of it.
It would prevent you from selling certain types of firearms. It would also take classic WWII rifles like the M1 carbine and make it an "assault Weapon."
What was that Shanna? I believe you are wrong as usual.
Hey Shanna, go look up HR 1022 for yourself.
Comment by Goodbye democracy — November 10, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
I guess protecting yourself is one reason for having guns. I was raised in a family of hunters...I don't know; is it just me or would that be a little hard with out a firearm. Maybe we could wrestle the deer to the ground before beating their heads in with branches and rocks. I don't think we have anything to worry about with Obama. Hopefully, he is telling the truth and will only make commonsense laws. But like usuall the only people these laws will hurt are the people who follow the laws. The criminials, who get their guns off the street etc, will still be left untouched.
Comment by shan — November 10, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Take Fire arms away from law abiding citizens and only criminals will have them.
The then kid that stop Kip Kinkle was taught to hunt and shoot at age 7yrs old. How many would have would have died if he didn't use those learned skills to tackle and eject the magazine from the gun?
The gun violence you see is children in part indoctrinated on Hollywood Movies and video games where they believe people will rematerializes after they are shot, not happening.
For whatever the case only discipline, not a basketball hoop will discourage gun violence and enforcing those laws that people feel free to ignore.....
will control those that choose to kill.
Comment by Backlash — November 10, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Funny...I seem to recall Obama saying he supported an individual's right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd amendment.
Still mad about the outcome?
Comment by Pat — November 10, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
the 2nd amendment reads as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just wondering... what militia do you belong to?
Comment by Shaun — November 10, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
For all of you who think all guns should be outlawed and confiscated, I was about 100 yards away while a burglary was in the process of being committed. By the time I received the call (the victim was fortunate enough to have not been seriously injured after being assaulted to be able to call the police) and responded, the criminal had gotten into a car and made it to the end of the block. This brings me to my point. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away! ANYTHING can happen in those SECONDS! I hope none of you ever need to learn this the hard way! Stay Safe!
Comment by Jim Lanier — November 10, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
"Just wondering... what militia do you belong to?
Comment by Shaun — November 10, 2008 @ 7:30 pm"
Thanks to former Governor Wilder, the unorganized militia. Look it up!
Comment by Jim — November 10, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
"Funny...I seem to recall Obama saying he supported an individual's right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd amendment.
Still mad about the outcome?" - Pat
Yeah, I also seem to remember the Chosen One saying about 4500 other things that he didn't mean. Barry Obama has one of the most anti gun stances of ANY polotician in the history of politicans. I don't base that on what he says, just his voting record.
Oh, and Shanna, seriously, get a clue. I'm sure you're a nice person and all, most of my friends that work at the paper are, but if gun owners aren't the "center of the universe this time", then shouldn't you be busy having your opinion about something that IS important right now? The entire country is pretty sure Barry and his pals Harry and Nancy will be acting sooner rather than later to once again curb the rights of gun owners. Sure, there's other stuff to do, but I promise you, they're gonna find time for it since it's one of the left's pet causes.
Comment by Clay Rathburn — November 10, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
"Funny...I seem to recall Obama saying he supported an individual's right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd amendment.
Still mad about the outcome?
Comment by Pat — November 10, 2008 @ 3:39 pm"
Subject to 500% tax increase on each firearm and 500% tax increase on ammunition. That sounds like infringement to me!
Comment by Jim — November 10, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
he 2nd amendment reads as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just wondering... what militia do you belong to?
Comment by Shaun — November 10, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Maybe he/she belongs to the "people?"
Comment by Mike — November 10, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
Shanna I think I am going to buy you a NRA membership, so that you can start to get informed on the issues. The Second Amendment protects the First, which of course is why any journalist has a job.
Comment by Jared — November 11, 2008 @ 8:25 am
Shaun, I belong to the same militia you do if you are under the age of 45. According to the BOR, all males, age 17-45 are part of the militia. So, where's your gun?
Proof right here.
10 U.S. Code sec. 311 gives the legal definition of the federal militia.
(a) says the militia of the US consists of all able-bodied male citizens (or who have declared their intent to become citizens), age 17-45, and of female citizens who are member of the National Guard.
(b) says the classes of the militia are the organized militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia, which is all other militia members.
And did you just notice the Supreme Court ruling? 5-4 personal right. You have no argument.
Comment by Goodbye Democracy — November 11, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Pat
Obama also said he was going to give a Tax Cut to 95% of Americans, how can he do that when only 55% of Americans pay taxes.
Just another politician, lying to a naive public.
Comment by Backlash — November 11, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
More Obama gloating. Maybe gun owners are worried that the President elect will immediately attempt again to dismantle the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to pay off the political and media tab he ran up over the last 2 years. How long will it take for our new president to order an assault on a group of citizens so the media can hype that up? Maybe he will re-appoint Janet Reno so she commit more Waco like atrocities.
As far as the disasters our nation is facing, I say thank you to the liberals who have controlled the house and senate for the last 12 years. I guess I would expect nothing less than more gloating from media that blamed President Bush for everything from hurricanes to people not able to manage their personal budgets.
Shameful yellow journalism.
Mike
Va Beach
Gloating is so not my style.--s
Comment by Mike Bartha — November 11, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
Did you know?
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Comment by Dan — November 11, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Backlash:
Through "sharing the (your) wealth", of course.
Comment by Mike — November 12, 2008 @ 3:39 am
Backlash: Your comment "just another politician lying to a naive public" is RIGHT ON. EXACTLY. There's 535 of them in two different buildings in DC.
Comment by Percy Kution — November 12, 2008 @ 8:09 am
Being as this is my first ever post to Shanna's blog, bear with me folks, this one's gonna ramble.
Obviously, here in SwVA, the second amendment is a VERY hot button issue. While I do agree with a citizen's right to own (bear) firearms for whatever reason, I don't understand why folks feel the need to own fully automatic weapons. Thay are good for one thing and one thing only, spraying a lot of lead in all directions in a hurry. Not a smart way to get your friends to go hunting with you again should you try to hit that deer or turkey while on "rock & roll". Personally, I do not own a single weapon, but that is my choice. I am worried about the democrats controlling both the White House (law enforcement) and Congress (law maker) for the next two years at least, and continuing to erode gun rights, but "we the people" elected these folks, so we've got no one to blame but ourselves.
As for "Yankee go home", honestly, Shanna's column and blog are just about the only things I read when I visit Roanoke.com. While I don't always agree with what she says and what she believes, she is willing to present opposing and contrasting points of view to her own, which is more than it appears some of her regular bloggers seem willing to do.
Just wanted to weigh in with a few disjointed thoughts......
Comment by Purvis Ledbetter — November 12, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Shanna, you really did it with this one!
"POWER COMES FROM THE END OF A GUN BARREL."
Percy, I hear you and there is no denying the validity of your agrument. The problem is that the thugs and criminals of the world think the same way! I think those who oppose guns are concerned about the people who use their "gun barrel power" to break the law rather than enforce it.
However, Backlash makes an excellent point: "Take Fire arms away from law abiding citizens and only criminals will have them." Like every other law, criminals will still get them and use them just like people buy and sell drugs, sex, stolen merchandise, etc. It will also turn decent citizens into criminals when they choose to keep their firearms because we all know someone who will not hand over their currently legal weapons without a fight.
Comment by Lo — November 12, 2008 @ 11:09 am
Purvis,
Just a couple of items on your post:
1) "I don't understand why folks feel the need to own fully automatic weapons"
That's fine. No reason to understand the need. I don't understand a lot of things, but I don't go out and try to ban them just because I don't understand them.
2) "Thay are good for one thing and one thing only, spraying a lot of lead in all directions in a hurry."
That's it? Please refer me to the manufacturer's specification or CONOPS that lists this. I would also note that while there are some automatic guns that have multiple barrels, I've *never* seen one that has them pointed in more than one direction.
3) "Not a smart way to get your friends to go hunting with you again should you try to hit that deer or turkey while on "rock & roll"."
Where did "hunting" come into it? Also, you make an incorrect assumption. Full auto can be darn fun. I'm sure many friends would come back to the range if you were bringing full auto.
And "welcome" to the blog. You should post more often. Shanna writes on quite a variety of topics.
Comment by Ed S. — November 12, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Where oh where to start...
Shanna. Pick up a History Book once in a while and read it. I find it amazing that you can grow up in America and not understand nor appreciate the "Right to Bear Arms". Shanna your Liberal ramblings are not surprising however. You do need to keep the editors of your Liberal Toilet Paper happy. The fact of the matter is that you enjoy all you own because "Men with Guns" have done what was necessary to preserve Freedom not only here, but around the world.
The Founding Fathers, who I am certain understood the path to Freedom and Liberty FAR better than yourself felt it so important as to make it a "Right". Along with that "Freedom of Speech" thingy I am sure you would defend zealously. But I hate to break the bad news. There is no "Freedom of Speech" with the "Right to Bear Arms". The Second Amendment is the Teeth that allows the First to survive. If you don't understand that concept then you my friend are very lost indeed.
I fear and mourn the day when it is illegal to defend my Family, Property or Life from a criminal be it Foreign or Domestic. If that day does comes, then America the Great Nation truly is no more. I find it interesting that so many who wish to "Ban" Guns are protected by men in suits who carry "Guns".
Comment by Steve — November 12, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Ed S.
Unfortunately, sarcasm and my warped sense of humor don't translate well via the written word. I am an avid reader of Shanna's column as well as her blogs. Like I said in my first post, I have read her for quite a while, it's just that some of the most recent posts, both on this subject as well as other recent ones, lead me to finally put in my two cents worth.
Yes, I have fired an M16, as well as a M60, on full auto while stationed at Fort Campbell as a proud member of the 101t Airborne back in the mid 80s. I agree it's fun. I also agree that once you let "them" start nibbling away at our constitutionaly given rights, once it starts, it is almost impossible to stop. That being said, the crack about spraying lead and hunting were intended to be tounge in cheek humor which didn't translate. I notice that you and a few other folks are amongst Shanna's crew of regular posters, and I look forward to many lively discussions in the future.
What I DON'T understand is why folks feel the need to try to belittle Shanna and others just because they have differing views. Again, I don't neccesarily agree with everything she or anyone else says, but those differences are what make life "interesting". If we all believed the same and marched in lock step, think how boring life would be. Every one of us has had our own life experiences that have formed our opinions on everything we say and do and believe. If someone can present me with facts and proof that shows me the way I view something is wrong or incorrect, then congratulations, you've changed one person's point of view. Name calling and belittling does nothing but make folks mad, and then ain't nobody listening to nobody and you get nowhere.
Thanks for the reply and the welcome, and I'll be putting in my two cents worth now that I've finally started.
Comment by Purvis Ledbetter — November 12, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Purvis:
Welcome and thank you for serving our country. The vast majority of us, like you, are Shanna's "groupies" even in those few instances when we don't share her views. She's the "rock star of Roanoke".
Comment by Mike — November 13, 2008 @ 1:20 am
Right on, Mike! I, for one, admit to being a huge fan of this blog and I'm thankful that Shanna provides us this kind of forum to express whatever we want.
Comment by Lo — November 13, 2008 @ 7:09 am
Purvis,
Not taken on sarcasm/humor. Yes, voice inflection doesn't translate on the printed word.
I can't call Shanna a yankee until I find out whether or not she drinks sweettea.
Hah "Shanna's Groupies"...hmmm.
Ed, let me tell you a little story. Many years ago, I was eating grits in a Florida restaurant. The man at the next table, noticing me putting sugar on them, excused himself and asked in a drawl, "Ma'am, you not from here, are you?" Of course, it caught me off guard. I asked him why he asked. He promptly told me that Southerners don't desecrate grits by adding sugar. That, Ed, was my realization that whatever Southern blood coursed through my veins, I was, indeed, a cultural foreigner. So to answer your question, I don't like iced tea, sweet or otherwise. I'll drink an occasional cup of hot tea, but only those fruit flavors, with a packet or two of Equal and a wedge of lemon.--s
Comment by Ed S. — November 13, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Hell is full of people tonight who broke the 11th Commandment and put sugar on their grits. Yes, it's one of the Commandments. The reason you don't hear too much about it is because number 11 was written on the BACK of the other 10, and when the news media did the story on Big Mo coming down the hill with the wrote-on rocks, they only got pictures of the FRONT side. Then that burning bush fire thing happened and the media started in on that when the Fire Camel Brigade roared up and they never looked on the BACK of the wrote-on rocks. The ONLY way to EVER redeem yourself from breaking this Commandment is if you also NEVER drink that NASTY, NASTY, NASTY tasting tea mess. So I guess 'Ol Shanna-Pooh has evened it out.
Comment by Percy Kution — November 13, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Percy:
Your loquatious (I hope that's a real word) writing style is unparalleled on these threads. Good one.
Shanna:
Although I don't eat grits, and do like iced tea (more so since giving up the "fun" libations), we have yet another common trait ... for years I have sugared (now Equal) my daily carton of cottage cheese, and for variety I like to substitute raspberry or blackberry preserves into the mix. Yeah, I know that salt, pepper and tomato are the usual condiments, but, like Popeye, I am what I am and in the words of Bill Clinton (?), it IS what it is.
Comment by Mike — November 14, 2008 @ 5:06 am
Anyone reading this story by Shanna Flowers needs to consider the source.
Comment by Va Patriot — November 14, 2008 @ 8:11 am
"Patriot": We have and did. Your point?
Comment by Mike — November 14, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
"Va Patriot"(?) I DID consider the source. I might marry her one day next Tuesday so she can read to me in bed. Whatcha think about that, homes?
He's teasing, Va Patriot. But if you hang with us more often, and not just on gun stuff, you'll come to appreciate PK as our "class cut-up."--s
Comment by Percy Kution — November 15, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
Percy:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... there you go again. LOL.
Comment by Mike — November 16, 2008 @ 4:13 am
Shanna, read this and try to sincerely comprehend. Not asking you to agree, asking you to see through the "sheepdog's" eyes.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
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?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Comment by Mike the Sheepdog — November 17, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
1st, The 2nd Amendment was put there by our Founding Fathers for good reason. We, The People, have a RIGHT to defend ourselves againt Criminals & even our own Government, if our Government tries to Be Tyrannical & Dictatorship in Nature. 2nd, as has been stated, and IS Law, the 2nd Amendment is an "Individual Right". 3rd, as far as The Police go, ask ANY Officer: When seconds count, they are minutes away. 4th: Let's say a Rape Victim puts the offender away by testifying against Him. When He get's out of Prison in a couple years, He's got revenge on His mind. He finds out where His Victim is and breaks in Her home. Most likely She has a Gun to protect Herself after Her tragic experience. Criminals CAN & WILL ALWAYS have Guns. Are any of you Anti-Gun Liberals going to live with Her NOT having the Gun to defend Her life & She gets Killed? Can you have THAT on you Conscience? By the way, We have not forgotten that The Roanoke Times published names & addresses of Va. CCW Holders a while back! I wonder how many people got hurt or killed because of that very irresponsible act! The 1st Amendment let the Times do it, but just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should! Same thing applies to the 2nd Amendment, Law-Abiding Gun Owners & CCW Holders KNOW when they can & can not & should not use deadly force with a gun. In fact: Law-Abiding Gun Owners are some of the most Law Abiding Citizens in the USA. Most are Sportsman, some are just Citizens that BELIEVE in The Constitution, SOME are Victims of Violence that want to Protect Themselves! How would ANY Gun Hater feel IF a Criminal had a Gun on them trying to rob, rape or harm them, and a Law-Abiding CCW Holder SAVED their Life? The Police CAN NOT be everywhere all the time.
Comment by Law Abiding Citizen — November 17, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
You are a very mis-informed journalist. Liberals like you are the problem with this country. Mis-informed with a big mouth. Get a life and educate yourself on guns. You have a lot to learn.
Comment by Darren Lloyd — November 17, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
You are really off, and we all know that "you" know you are off.
Let's just make a simple statement....
"Your freedom is given by the blood of patriots." Nothing is free. The 2nd amendment exists so that a government does not possess tyranical powers over it's people. People should not fear their government, the government should fear it's people...
Responsible gun owners are not committing crimes, FELONS are committing them with illegally purchased guns. A person whom legally purchases a gun from a gun store in Virginia has passed a state police background check... are you aware of this?
This country is getting ready to have another "great depression" and will sink to more than likely a 3rd world state. Yeah, you liberals can sit and say it won't happen. I know you're going to say it.
I'll say this. When it happens and people riot and come to your house to take what you have, don't whine about how they took what you owned and you couldn't stop them... you deserve it to be taken.
Comment by R. Davis — November 17, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
One thing to keep in mind, is that "self-defense" does not include the defense of one's property. A person is not allowed to use deadly force for that purpose. That being said, my personal opinion is that the 2nd amendment applies much more broadly than just to the police.
Comment by Mike — November 18, 2008 @ 3:38 am
>>The nation is too busy trying to save itself from an imploding economy, collapsing automakers and the laughable state of health coverage.<<
Uh huh…obviously you didn’t watch the debates-with all those problems facing the country, how many times did the candidates completely ignore them and yak ‘bout other (useless) topics. After all, it’s much easier to deal in banality than to actually face said problems, and if past history is any indicator, they’ll govern the way they campaigned (probably going to fiddle with gun laws while Rome burns)!
Comment by Outed by RT CHP holder — November 18, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
Darren Lloyd and R. Davis: I dont think either of your IQ's would match your chronological age. What difference does the 2nd Amendment make or how MANY guns you and those like you have or can buy? None of you have guts enough to use them or you already would have.
Comment by Percy Kution — November 19, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Associated Press, Sept. 11, 2004:
-Obama Voted ‘No’ on letting people claim a self-defense protection in court for using a gun in their homes despite local weapons bans. (SB2165, 2004)
- Obama Voted ‘Yes’ on letting only retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (SB2188, 2004)
Chicago Defender December 13, 1999,
Obama unveils federal gun bill
Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.
Obama also voted against a bill permitting gun owners to claim self-defense when using a gun in their homes if the local community bans the use of handguns.
Comment by Static Lines — November 20, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Chicago Tribune, October 8, 2004:
In 2001, Obama was one of just nine senators to vote against a bill that toughened penalties for violent crimes committed during gang activity.
Obama said the law did not clearly define a gang member and he questioned why lawmakers were targeting Hispanics and blacks for stiffer sentences.
Two years earlier, after the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado, Obama voted “present” on a bill requiring juveniles to be prosecuted as adults for firing a firearm on or near school property.
Comment by Static Lines — November 20, 2008 @ 8:18 am
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators.
James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme Court decision,
whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of detailed and favorable decisions.
Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted.
Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms,"
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
Comment by Static Lines — November 20, 2008 @ 8:29 am
Every citizen of the US should have the means to defend themselves with what ever means available. Would you as a home owner want to defend a home invasion in the middle of the night with a knife, bat, or the gun ?
There are over hundreds of cases of self defense each year where the victim used a gun to defend his/her personal safety and property. None of it makes the news why?
Maybe because the presence of a gun stopped the situation from getting worse and the glorification of the firearm.
From a historic standpoint, only socialist, communist and tyrants try to enact gun control over their citizens and subjects, because that was the only way to keep their control.
The founding fathers knew this and made sure that if the government got too much control the people would be able to take it back. The government needs to fear the people, the people should never have to fear the government.
Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to ... imposed
Weimar Law: Jewish population in Germany, prohibited from possessing guns, this is a pretty good example of what happens when people get their guns taken away.
He knew without the means to defend themselves he would have free reign.
Japan never invaded America because of our 2nd Amendment. “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
I am not saying Obama is going to go on some crusade of genocide.
On the contrary he is only nibbling on our rights.
Comment by Static Lines — November 20, 2008 @ 9:54 am
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
–Thomas Jefferson.
Comment by Static Lines — November 20, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Static Lines: You CANNOT document a legitimate source for your attributable quote. It's a FARCE. Manufactured. Mis-information. Didn't happen. Never was. In other words, YOU'RE FULL OF BULLSNOT.
Comment by Percy Kution — November 20, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Percy Kution
John Petrie’s Collection of
Thomas Jefferson Quotes
The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
Percy the problem with know to much, is not knowing enough. You may apologize as soon you remove your foot from your mouth.
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html
Comment by Static Lines — November 21, 2008 @ 2:55 am
Static Lines: John Petrie was once an online student of mine at UNC-CH. He has compiled a rather large collection of notable quotes from famous historical figures, Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill being among them. I, along with a now retired history professor from Hollins University assisted him in this endeavor. While the quote you referred to DOES appear in his published online web page, it is taken COMPLETELY out of context, as are most of the others on that personal web page. I accede that those exact words you quoted ARE shown there, but the quote and it's implied meaning, taken out of context, are greatly distorted and ambiguous. I would also point out that this method of "quotes" would never pass even the most cursory inspection of historical writers due to the lack of citation of any other primary or secondary source. These quotes were also a part of his Masters thesis, and I can assure you they WERE properly cited, documented, and footnoted. However, the one you proffered, was not. This explanation is the best I feel I can do as to an apology. Please accept it. Peace.
Comment by Percy Kution — November 21, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Percy Kution
From Obama speeches and thoughts, one would wonder why is higher taxes and the confiscation or the controlling ones weapons is a viable means to controlling the economy and crime?
Higher taxes less jobs more crime. Lack of means to defend ones persons more victims.
His rationale to me is arrogance. Isn't this what drove dictators for world domination?
Weapons or weaponless killers will kill just like the season changes, strengthening those existing laws for criminals.
People do make mistakes, but the words "Career Criminal" speaks volumes.
Comment by Static Lines — November 21, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Static Lines: Perhaps you have misjudged my opinion as to Barry Obama OR gun control. You can rest well assured I support neither. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is just a Chicago street thug whose brilliant motivational speaking ability, coupled with the well deserved, country wide hatred of the FOOL George Bush put him in the White House. And I don't support ANY kind of "gun control" whatsoever. I DO support years long MANDATORY sentences for criminals who use guns. And an automatic INSTANT death penalty for drunk drivers.
Comment by Percy Kution — November 21, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
As I posted on the Jacksonville, FL. Site, there ar very few legal fully auto firearms in the hands of true gun enthusiasts. Fully Automatic firearms were made illegal by the Firearms act of (get this) 1934. A person must have a class 3 FFL in order to own a fully automatic weapon. To define Fully automatic, Depress the trigger one time to fire multiple rounds. Semi Automatic, for each depression of the trigger, one bullet will fire and then cycle the weapon to load another round. Bolt Action, depress the trigger to fire one round, manually cycle the bolt to load another round. Lever action, see bolt action, replace the word bolt with lever. If you are going to write about guns, get your terminology straight. By the way, 99% of semiautomatic weapons do not use a "clip", they utilize a removable magazine. The last semi auto produced to use a "Clip" was the M1.
Comment by WOW!!! — November 21, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Rape Victim tried to call 911, but couldn't because the power was off.
Cops: Cape Girardeau woman kills man who returned to rape her second time
An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.
The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.
The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier. Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.
In the first incident, the woman heard glass breaking in her basement about midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when she opened the front door. He punched her in the face and then forced her into a bedroom, where he raped her, said H. Morley Swingle, prosecuting attorney in Cape Girardeau County.
The victim reported the crime to police, and her landlord repaired the broken window.
She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same basement window. The victim was awake watching television, when Preyer switched off the electricity to her house.
She tried to call 911, but couldn't because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door. When Preyer collapsed, the woman escaped and went to a neighbor's home, where she called police. Officers, who arrived within a minute, found a bleeding Preyer stumbling away from the house. He was taken to St. Francis Medical Center, where he died several hours later.
Swingle said the victim identified Preyer as the attacker in both incidents. Preyer, of Jackson, Mo., had wet caulking from the recently repaired basement window on his clothing when he was shot.
"I will not be filing any sort of charge against this 57-year-old woman, who was clearly justified under the law in shooting this intruder in her home," Swingle said.
The choice is clear to me how about you.
Comment by Static Lines — November 21, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Percy, my good friend: Your knowledge of history is very impressive. I do have to take issue with you on the idea of executing drunk drivers on the spot, however. This violates many (and I know you probably know this better than I) constitutional rights of the accused, not the least of which is the right to a trial by one's peers. While I no longer imbibe in alcoholic beverages, there were many times in my youth and twenties when I drove and very likely would have flunked the breath or blood test by today's .08 standard, which is but three beers in an hour for someone of my weight. I never came close to having an accident and never injured anyone as the result of driving while impaired. Surely, you wouldn't have me executed for the indiscretions of my youth, where (thankfully) no consequences were incurred by anyone else as the result of my violations of law, would you? I am as against drunk driving as anyone here, but I believe that it is no different from any other crime when it comes to the constitutional rights of the defendant.
Comment by Mike — November 24, 2008 @ 12:47 am
Mr.Mike: I'm going to include the honorary salutation in front of your name, because you HAVE earned my respect with your posts to this forum, notwithstanding the several complimentary flowers you've given me here.
I'm going to give you your point on drunk drivers. I went overboard with my solution to their problem. My attitude towards DUI comes from my empirical experience in another lifetime, now seemingly so long, long, ago, when I spent 18 years, 6 months, and 19 days making a living dealing with them. I KNOW what they will do. I've SEEN what they will do. THEY WILL KILL YOU. I'd rather be confronted with a gun pointed at me than have a drunk coming at me 60 miles an hour in a 3,500 pound automobile. The man behind the gun might not have guts enough to use it. And if he does shoot at me, he just might miss. And even if he shoots at me and hits me, I might not die. BUT THAT DRUNK DRIVER WILL KILL YOU. And in the end before I retired from that line of employment, I was totally "burned out" by the actions of the "defense" lawyers. Those lawyers "defend" these cretins and put more money in their pocket for it than the man that arrested them will make in 3 months time, sometimes FAR more. But again, I'll give you your point. My solution can't be implemented, because then the lawyers wouldn't make any money off of it.
As for the historical knowledge, UNC-CH and UVA say I'm qualified to profess it, one of them even actually PAYS me to do so, so I'm glad you noticed what I hope is my competency at doing so.
Peace, my friend!!!
Comment by Percy Kution — November 24, 2008 @ 1:42 am
I can't refute anything you say, and why anyone would get into a car and attempt to drive in that convoluted state is beyond me. If it's any consolation to those whose mission is to fight this heinous and unnecessary crime, the fees charged by DUI legal specialists are a pretty stiff punishment for the offender in and of themselves, win or lose in court. By and large, the high rate of convictions in these cases should send a message to the community and potential drunken drivers that even if an accident is TRULY that, or if the victim's conduct has somehow caused or contributed to his or her injuries, odds are in this day and age that the judges and/or juries have had enough, and they are likely to place responsibility upon the drunk driver no matter what may be the proximate cause of a crash. In my younger days the "drunk" percentage was .15% and even if a kid was over that limit, more often than not the officer simply called the parents and had the kid driven safely home to repeat the same behavior the following weekend (if he could sit down to drive after his dad got through with him). Times and attitudes have greatly changed. Even judges and police officers are routinely arrested and jailed for DUI now. In short, the message that I think we both are trying to convey, albeit in slightly different ways, to our comrades in the community goes something like this ... IT'S NOT WORTH THE F#&@*$NG RISK! TAKE A CAB AND SAVE YOUR OWN AND MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE'S A$$!
Comment by Mike — November 25, 2008 @ 3:37 am
EXERCISE IN IGNORANCE
In Compton, California they had their little annual gun buy-back program this past weekend. They paid a hundred bucks each for a variety of guns turned in by the local citizenry.
What nonsense. Are we expected to believe that a criminal is going to turn in his only gun for a hundred bucks? BullShszzit. He's going to USE his gun to get take that hundred bucks.
Has anyone ever done a scientific study to see just how effective these guy buy-back programs are? Oh, wait. That's right.
Several years ago a statistician at Georgia Tech study the situation to come up with a number of guns that had to be bought-back to reach a statistical certainty of having saved one life.
The answer? About 65,000 guns. Now in this weekend's Compton effort they collected what was described as "several hundred."
It seems to me that the several thousand dollars spent buying back several hundred guns from people who would never use them in a crime might have been better spent ---
perhaps on buying bullets for the bad guys.
Comment by Static Lines — December 1, 2008 @ 10:10 am
First Gun Buy Backs and now Brittan they will have Knife Buy Backs
According to UK's Domestic BBC Radio
In the UK, guns are readily available for criminals yet much scarcer (they still have shootings), but the most common crime weapon is a knife and the Crime Rate is very high comparative to street crime in the United States.
So the UK Cities will actually start having their first
"Knife Buy back programs"
Comment by Static Lines — December 1, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Who said you needed a gun?
Man Murdered With Knife & Fork, 1 Arrested
MARIETTA, Ga. -- Police have charged a 21-year-old Marietta man with killing an acquaintance with a knife and fork.
Richard Smith was arrested on Wednesday in the parking lot of an apartment complex in College Park.
Enforce those existing laws for criminals and let the punishment fit the crime.
Comment by Static Lines — December 4, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Muslims extremist's angry over Lego toys.
A range of Lego-style fighting figurines - including an Islamic terrorist militant - has sparked outrage among Muslims and Extremists.
The toy mini-figures, made by American Will Chapman, includes a masked terrorist bandit with an assault rifle, grenade launcher and belt of explosives.
Shocked by the playthings, British Muslim organisation the Ramadhan Foundation has branded the figurines "absolutely disgusting".
Chief executive Mohammed Shafiq said the figures were "glorifying terrorism".
He said: "I don't think there's any difference between someone that shouts hatred through a megaphone and someone that creates a doll that glorifies terrorists.
Father-of-three Mr Chapman boasts on his website that his nine-year-old son gave him the idea for the range.
The site advertises 31 different Lego-style weapons, weapons packs and 10 miniature militant figurines.
Other fighters in the range include World War Two troops, US marines - and a Nazi SS officer.
A spokesman for Lego UK said they were "not associated" with the toys being sold by BrickArms, "which have been customized without LEGO UK's knowledge or permission."
He added Lego is "committed to developing toys which enrich childhood by encouraging imaginative and creative play - and does not endorse products that do not fit with this philosophy."
Welcome to the free enterprise system and when it comes to weaponry and the use of violence the news media have shown that Muslims have chosen the rock, gun, bomb, and the Airplane as the weapon of Choice when getting a point across.
Comment by Static Lines — December 5, 2008 @ 10:30 am