Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
Open thread 8/6
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Aug. 6, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
356 Comments
Nite…
nice “meeting” most of you, be back soon.
Wonder if the weekday crowd is a colorful as the weekend crowd…
JEP! It’s the same crowd. ;)
Can somebody please let the cons know that nobody will be coming today to collect your guns. Neither Hillary, Obama nor Edwards will be knocking today. But it sure is fun to see you red faced and angry!
You DEMOCRATS who support the 2nd Amendment and gun rights, if you think that Hillary Clinton will defend your 2nd Amendment rights, then you do not know the history of the Clintons on the gun control issue.
It’s very clear Hillary Clinton will work very hard as President to take away your guns.
But go ahead, you thoughtless dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, just keep pulling that Democratic lever without doing any research on your own on where the candidates stand on the issues.
Speaking of guns.Pentagon loses track of weapons for Iraqi forces By David Morgan
Mon Aug 6, 12:49 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, or about half the weapons earmarked for soldiers and police, according to a government report.
ADVERTISEMENTThe Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, said in a July 31 report to lawmakers that the Defense Department also cannot account for 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets reported to be issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22, 2005.
The GAO said the Pentagon concurred with its findings and has begun a review to ensure full accountability for the program to train and equip Iraqi forces.
“However, our review of the 2007 property books found continuing problems with missing and incomplete records,” the GAO report said.
The report raised concerns that weapons provided by the United States could be falling into the hands of Iraqi insurgents, just as lawmakers and policymakers in Washington await a September report on the success of U.S. President George W. Bush’s surge strategy for stabilizing Baghdad.
One senior Pentagon official told The Washington Post some weapons probably were being used against U.S. troops. He said an Iraqi brigade created in Fallujah disintegrated in 2004 and began fighting American soldiers.
Many in Washington view the development of effective Iraqi army and police forces as a vital step toward reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
Since 2003, the United States has provided about $19.2 billion to develop Iraqi security forces, the GAO said. The Defense Department has recently asked for another $2 billion to continue the train-and-equip program.
Congress funded the program for Iraqi security forces outside traditional security assistance programs, providing the Pentagon with a large degree of flexibility in managing the effort, the GAO said.
“Officials stated that since the funding did not go through traditional security assistance programs, the DOD accountability requirements normally applicable to these programs did not apply,” the GAO report said.
Military officials in Iraq reported issuing 355,000 weapons to Iraqi security forces from June 2004 through September 2005, including 185,000 rifles and 170,000 pistols, the GAO said.
But the Defense Department could not account for 110,000 rifles and 80,000 pistols, the GAO said. Those sums amount to about 54 percent of the total weapons distributed to the Iraqi forces.
The GAO quoted officials as saying the agency responsible for handling weapons distribution was too short-staffed to record information on individual items given to Iraqi forces.
Accountability procedures also could not be fully implemented because of the need to equip Iraqi forces rapidly for combat operations, the GAO found.
Useful Emoticons
http://republikan.typepad.com/republikansan/2007/08/useful-emoticon.html
It is interesting that the right to keep and bear arms was primarily meant as protection against the minions of King George…
they feared their government.
Which is why, when the 2nd Amendment was written, so free people could protect themsleves from oppression, not each other.
Now it has been perverted into this strange version, where people keep guns because they are afraid of their neighbors. And the right to keep those arms is defended primarily by gun manufacturers, not for patriotism but for profit.Posted by: JEP | August 06, 2007 at 01:29 AM
I love it how libs can speak for all Americans. It’s almost comical how they live in some make believe fairy land.
I can only speak for myself, although I know one or two others who agree.
1. Guns are needed more than ever today for protection against the minions of congress and presidents.
2. Yes, I fear our government. Liberals do too when it’s convenient (e.g. Bushy’s illegal actions)
3. I’m glad you know why the constitution was written. Not too many kings and queens were shot by the founders. But they did shoot a lot of game, Indians, and neighbors. Gee, I wonder what was going through their minds?
4. The right to keep those arms is defended financially primarily by gun manufacturers, and in spirit by millions of private citizens, and for for patriotism and not for profit. Without those guns in citizens hands – the constitution could not be defended.
Jeb’s interpretation of the constitution and his applicability of it’s meaning on all of us is what is really scary.
Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour—
After the horrible but predictable tragedy of the Minnesota bridge collapse, the House of Representatives designated 250 million dollars to rebuild it.
Interestingly enough, 250 million is slightly less than the amount the United States spends EVERY DAY in Iraq.
Just imagine how many other needless deaths could be prevented if we were spending tax money on things that benefit and protect Americans instead of benefiting and protecting the interest of big oil companies.
This has been your Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour.
Take away your guns!! heeheeheeee!! Grow up.
No one is going to “take away” your guns.
You can keep your toys. No one is going to take them away from you. Feel free to endanger yourself and your family and your neighbors……
I knew a guy who once stated that the 2nd amendment gave him the right to possess an atomic bomb!!!
I seem to remember a president Clinton who was the puppet for his wife and she banned assault weapons.
If I can’t buy them, that is the first step in taking them away.
“Just imagine how many other needless deaths could be prevented if we were spending tax money on things that benefit and protect Americans instead of benefiting and protecting the interest of big oil companies.”
Yes, like bridges to nowhere and the 11 BILLION (not million) dollars in earmarks democrats just approved.
Which is only half of what the republicans spent the year before but still includes PORK for each elected officials home district, none is really going to protect America.
(This has been a equal opportunity political public service announcement)
Links, Hotdog, links . . .
You know Capt (now Krunch), the way you follow people around on this blog, as someone said, “Like a dog with it’s tongue hanging out”, it’s no wonder people switch NIC’s.
Why don’t you post about my opinion posted on the WEBLOG, instead of playing games?
What’s next? Name calling?
Hotdog–
The “bridge to nowhere” was a Republican project.
That’s why I asked for links.
Where did you get that information?
Because I’m guessing that not all of that $11 billion of those earmarks are pork, for instance.
“a dog with it’s [sic] tongue”
It’s = it is
Its = possessive pronoun
His hers ours theirs yours ITS,
see a pattern?
I readily ADMIT it was a republican bridge to nowhere. In fact, you KNOW who that is because he is under investigation.
My point is pork is pork and is not limited to party. I congratulate the new Democratic Congress for bringing visibility and ownership to earmarks.
I simply am stating that they then turnaround and spend billions too. (I think I said something about this above).
Put the billions in relation to the millions you speak of for infrastructure. I’d rather have bridges we ALL use that are safe than the muesems they are building across this country in small town USA.
Why does a person have the right to own assault weapons? What possible use does it have for the average American? I don’t think the right to collect guns of this nature trump the danger to our society by those with that particular mindset.The idea that all guns will be banned if people can’t buy assault weapons is stupid….ALWAYS the argument of extremes by the gun rights crowd.
You’re right of course, Mary.
But now all the gun-nuts who obsess in their arcane knowledge of all things guns are going to feel to compelled to “educate” you on why an assault weapon is really just like any other rifle and the ban was the thin edge of the wedge to separate gun owners from the constitutional protection to own a gun.
Oh, Lord, here it comes.
It’s going to SNOW posts in a minute.
Time to bail outta here . . .
Mary, unfortunately the second amendment answers your question.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the a free state…”
Please do not get the idea that I am in favor of assault weapons or nuclear bombs in the home, I am not; I am merely pointing out what the rule says.
http://www.youtube.com/programmersguild
gotta love the bizness crowd
The idea that all guns will be banned if people can’t buy assault weapons is stupidPosted by: Mary Caruso | August 06, 2007 at 09:06 AM
Did I or anyone ever mention ALL guns?
And it is stupid to you because you do not understand that if the government can bend the constitution a tweak – they can bend it just about any way they want. There is much more at stake than just an assault weapon.
And I have a RIGHT to that assault weapon. You might get them banned again. But you will note come into my house and take them away.
Again, ask the gun dealers why everyone is hurrying to buy them. It’s not because the ban was lifted. That was some time ago.
It is gun owners fear of Clinton destroying the constitution with her PREVIOUS comments on gun control – and president Clinton’s.
A “ban” does nothing to control assault weapons or the use of them by criminals. There are more on the streets, in cars, garages, lock boxes, attic’s, than any ban will control. And citizens have a right to them.
I’m not excited, red in the face, or radical in this stance.
But I’ll defend it, along with millions (not hundred, not thousands) of other Americans from all parties.
But now all the gun-nuts who obsess in their arcane knowledge of all things guns are going to feel to compelled to “educate” you on why an assault weapon is really just like any other rifle and the ban was the thin edge of the wedge to separate gun owners from the constitutional protection to own a gun.
Oh, Lord, here it comes.
It’s going to SNOW posts in a minute.
Time to bail outta here . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 06, 2007 at 09:10 AM
CapnAMerica-
As you have professed to be a gun owner, you know the only basic difference from an assault weapon, and any other semi-automatic is in appearance. That’s it. And the
is the same one used by liberals to defend partial birth abortion procedures. But, that is not my argument about the assault weapons ban. My argument is that it was worthless, was a con by politicians to make the public THINK they were doing something when they were not. Because, other than appearance, they were not funcitonally different than any other semi-automatic. By the way, I think there are two types of anti-gunners. One is the largest group, who strongly believe that private ownership of guns causes
people to shoot one another. THey are simply wrong. The smaller group, who often stir up the larger, is committed to make the citizen unable to own guns, in order to control them. This group is small, I would say very small, but they are there (at least in my opinion)
gotta love the bizness crowd 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6CHyguDQtM
Wow, are you off base! America has far more gun deaths than any other industrialized country. The more guns, the more gun deaths.
Since CC was passed here, the murder rate has gone UP…what about that argument that CC owners were going to protect the rest of us? According to Lott and Mustard..murder rates go DOWN when a communtiy has CC…what the heck happened to that ill concieved theory that the gun nuts were praising?
Mary, Gun deaths are not caused by guns. They are caused by greed and hate. Guns only facilitate the opportunity to use them. If not guns, then it would be somehting else. and the cc laws have nothing to do with the increase homicide rate here, it has been primarily gang related. and they are primnarily killing each other. WHat does that have to do with the cc laws? answer: nothing.
Of course it does Littlejohn…the CC guys said they’d be able to protect others and the murder rates would go down..isn’t that what the Lott and Mustard study proved?Guns make it too easy to kill, that’s the problem. Tempers get out of control and it’s so much easier to do a drive by shooting…ever heard of a drive by knifing? Or a drive by strangling? More than 30,000 people die by guns in this country each year (5,000 children)..compare that with other countries that have strict gun control. London is a bigger city than New York…compare the gun deaths of those two cities and see the difference. Those that say that gun control doesn’t work are wrong.
The lord made men, but Sam Colt made them equal”
Without a gun a smaller less powerful person may think twice about attacking. Without a gun combat becomes a closer more personal act.The time it takes for a bullet to travel from point a to point b leaves little room for changing ones mind.
I’m a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. As those who argue “original intent” in constitutional matters, individual citizens have an unalienable right to keep and bear smooth-bore, muzzle-loaded, single-shot, flintlock muskets.
Or, if “original intent” means state-of-the-art military weaponry should always be in the hands of ordinary citizens, I support your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear a thermonuclear device in your rumpus room.
Just so long as you adhear to the 2nd Amendment’s original intent which clearly indicates your personal arsenal is dependent upon your membership in a “well regulated militia.” (Just what part of “well regulated” do some of you people not understand? It doesn’t mean you just have to dress alike and follow each other around.)
Guns without constitutionally-mandated *regulation* constitute a recipe for anarchy, chaos, and wanton murder.
I don’t care about the types of weapons people own. I worry about the types of people who want to own them.
America would be a much better place if everyone could keep and bear firearms… except for those who really *REALLY* want them.
You got that right LTP/FTL… gotta watch out for those OCD types for sure!!
Gun deaths in America average about 30,000 per year. Gun deaths in the entire United Kingdom average about 150.In Japan, it’s even lower than that.I can quarantee you, if everyone in America owned a gun, it WOULD NOT be a better place. Anyone who believes that nonsense has their head in the sand.
The anti-Gun-loons are howling at the sun this morning. I stirred up their irrational thinking big-time. They seem to be a few left-over communists who still believe all-powerful government is the answer, even after the Russians and Cubans proved in doesn’t work.
Even Lenin said privately that communism could be sold, but once in place would stagnate economics.
I guess the anti-gun Loons never read that far, or noticed the stark poverty communism brought the Russians for over 80 years.
When a society is “Packed” the crime rate goes down, otherwise it’s like the now Zionist New York City.
Mary
How many times do we have to tell you Mary that you 5000 children a year number is just bullchit?
We’ve explained it over and over and provided you links to the govt. data that proves it. Yet you continue to spread that lie.
What gives? Are you just a mindless emotion driven sheep repeating the Brady Bunches talking points or are you a propagandists that knowingly spread lies about guns in America?
Dear Mary,
“Why does a person have the right to own assault weapons?”
Gentle lady, we have a right because the second amendment to the Constitution recognizes and afirms that right.
What possible use does it have for the average American?
Who cares? Doesn’t matter. It’s recognized as a God given right. As such the Constitution has affirmed this right. Government can’t give you the right to do anything. They can only take rights away.
I don’t think the right to collect guns of this nature trump the danger to our society by those with that particular mindset.
Iteresting. What particular mindset? A mindset that exercises the right to keep and bear arms? What do yo have to fear from a law abiding citizen that wishes to have guns? Must you characterize them as not being normal? Has your irrational fear of guns prevented you from intelligently debating the subject?
The idea that all guns will be banned if people can’t buy assault weapons is stupid….ALWAYS the argument of extremes by the gun rights crowd.
Dear lady, do you even know the definition of ‘assault weapons’? Every gun I own is either for recreation or self protection. Fun or assault. Where do you draw the line when the government starts whittleing away at your rights? You might ask the citizens of Great Britain or Australia.
If we allow them to ban ‘assault weapons’ we will be involved in a never ending debate over the definition of the characteristics fo weapons that determine them to be ‘assualt weapons’
Hank (Your freindly neighborhood gin nut)
I don’t care how many guns my neighbor owns but I do care what happens with those guns. If any child finds my neighbor’s guns and shoots himself or one of their friends, then the gun owner should be held responsible for that reckless act.
Are all gun owners willing to take on that responsibility? If so, then I don’t care how many guns you have.
Interesting, Hank, that you equate gun ownership as a God-given right. I didn’t know God walked around with an assault rifle in his hands. You must worship a different God than Jesus talked about.
If any child finds my neighbor’s guns and shoots himself or one of their friends, then the gun owner should be held responsible for that reckless act.
Posted by: kate | August 06, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Kate-
I am not sure, but I believe that is exactly the picture following several lawsuits and new laws. Like Isaid, I am not sure, I don’t follow it that closely.
Owning a gun is a “God given right”, oh please Hank, don’t make me laugh!!Just because something has always been a certain way doesn’t mean it shouldn’t chnage. Guns and the nuts who own them have caused too much harm…Dear Sir, it’s time for a change and to allow common sense to rule!
Owning a gun is a “God given right”, oh please Hank, don’t make me laugh!!Just because something has always been a certain way doesn’t mean it shouldn’t change. Guns and the nuts who own them have caused too much harm…Dear Sir, it’s time for a change and to allow common sense to rule!
damn, the double post gremlin is at it again!
GUN CONFISCATION – Phony issue… move on please..
If he is so afraid that he need to arm himself… let’s not frighten them anymore . . .
Have sympathy…
kate
The men who wrote the Bill of Rights considered the right to keep and bear arms an extension of the right to self preservation. If you read the things they wrote as individuals that becomes obvious. After all, what good is the right to self preservation without effective tools with which to defend oneself.
Estimates are that there are approx. 200 million firearms in private hands in this country. The number of children who die in accidental shootings is approx 300 per year. I’d say thats a testament to how seriously most gun owners take safety in handling and storing their weapons.
“Guns and the nuts who own them have caused too much harm” Mary
Now I am a nut. I wonder what harm I have caused?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.
“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”
“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”
The term “Assault Rifle” is so “anti-Gun Loon,” as what could be more obvious?
All gun assault the person trying to harm you.
Gun collectors prize the AK 47 and others for its looks if not its ability to fire under the worst conditions.
The “Loons” don’t like guns, so I don’t like the “Loons”….we’re even.
If you don’t like guns, then get yourself shot. Problem solved.
Gentle lady,
“Wow, are you off base! America has far more gun deaths than any other industrialized country. The more guns, the more gun deaths.”
So what? America also has more deaths due to automobiles than any other industrialized nation. We have more children turning blue in swimming pools every year than any other industrialized nation.
Hank
Okay, let’s guess Tom Tancredo’s party affiliation, shall we?
He issues crazed threats of retaliation against Islam’s holiest sites to “deter” terrorists.
I you guessed “Republican,” congratulations.
Republicanism–the party of bitter, crazy white men.
heckler – my point was that I don’t care how many guns my neighbor has as long as he/she will be held responsible for what happens with their guns.
If the gun owners accept that repsonsibility, fine. If they just want to stockpile guns and take no responsibility for them, then I have a problem with that activity going on in my neighborhood.
I would like to see the many illegals guns on the streets tracked down and confiscated from the gangs and drug dealers. If the legal gun owners have to register their guns, then I believe more needs to be done aboutg the illegal guns out there.
The Enemy is in Tel Aviv.
Woohoo!! #34 in health-care, but we’re # one in gun deaths!!!!!
The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24Brazil 12.95Mexico 12.69Estonia 12.26Argentina 8.93Northern Ireland 6.63Finland 6.46Switzerland 5.31France 5.15Canada 4.31Norway 3.82Austria 3.70Portugal 3.20Israel 2.91Belgium 2.90Australia 2.65Slovenia 2.60Italy 2.44New Zealand 2.38Denmark 2.09Sweden 1.92Kuwait 1.84Greece 1.29Germany 1.24Hungary 1.11Ireland 0.97Spain 0.78Netherlands 0.70Scotland 0.54England and Wales 0.41Taiwan 0.37Singapore 0.21Mauritius 0.19Hong Kong 0.14South Korea 0.12Japan 0.05
Another rational, well thought out opinon by ED. I’m surprised he’s not blaming the Jews for all the gun deaths in the US, Ed..what’s the matter, haven’t had enough caffeine yet?
“Owning a gun is a “God given right”, oh please Hank, don’t make me laugh!!”
Actually dear, that’s merely the ‘mindset’ of the good men that gave us this country. What other parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights bring your mirth?
Just wondering.
Hank
Opps, posted too late…Ed starting to get on his roll!
Registration…Taxation….Confiscation…
The oldest trick in the world.
A really good take on the gridlock in congress. HEE HEE HEE
I suggest all those who get the cold sweats at the thought of DU just walk on by….
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1525073
Nobody has despised me for 6 thousand years.
Maybe you need to change your act?
Good argument, Gentle Sir. Let’s just do away with seat belts, car safety standards, pool codes that require they be behind a fence, and any other nasty law that infrige on our rights. Afterall, people are dying anyway, so who are WE to try and make the world a safer place?
I don’t think anyone has despised me for that long either…your point is?
The term “Assault Rifle” is so “anti-Gun Loon,” as what could be more obvious?
Why the nitpicking about the terminology? Is an assault rifle not an assault weapon? Just because you see everything in worded encryption against your right to own a gun, does not mean that this term is just for the anti-gun loon.
Geesh…get a grip
Mary, did I miss something? I have not read anything in the Constitution about seat belts, car safety standards, or pool codes.
Since when did these become “our rights”?
Well first you need to start with honesty.
Mary Caruso
Liar or dupe? Which is it?
“Anti-Gun Loons” don’t have a grip. They just want a grip on everybody elses’ Constitutional Rights.
Sounds like both to most.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you, Mary.
“Gun control” means castration to these post-ers who are so insecure in their masculinity.
For the rest of us gun-owners, a gun is just a gun.
It doesn’t represent freedom or power or virility like it seems to for the gun-nuts.
Maybe it’s time to look at what needs to be changed about “our rights”. God didn’t create the Constitution, man did….and man can be wrong.Just like the Bible was written by man, believing that it’s God’s law is only a matter of faith. Nothing is indespensible, but many would have you believe so.
Ed calling me “a loon”…now that’s priceless..Why don’t you go find some Jews to persecute, Ed?
Estimates are that there are approx. 200 million firearms in private hands in this country. The number of children who die in accidental shootings is approx 300 per year. I’d say thats a testament to how seriously most gun owners take safety in handling and storing their weapons. Posted by: Heckler | August 06, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Excellent point Heckler! It’s like a bridge falling down and everyone gets all worked up about it. Millions of bridges in this country doing just fine and transporting millions of people. One bridge falls down and less than two dozen die – and we have a major crises on our hands.
THE SKY IS FALING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Two reasons:
1. Slow news day (media $)2. Politicans get sound bites (political $)
4 children a day die from parental abuse or neglect. Time to ban parents.
Source- National Center on Child Abuse prevention.
There are laws against “assault” and you’re trying to automatically acquaint guns with lawlessness.
{ a rusty old debating trick }
The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Constitutional guarantee, which makes your “Guarantees” worthless.
Well Mary while you are rewriting the second amendment can I give you some ideas to changes I would like to see in Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.
As you say, “man can be wrong”.
BTW, I am sure you would not like my changes.
Hillary and Barack need to join Tom and just SHUT UP!!!
All are doing our country more harm than good.
State Department rips presidential candidates’ statements
By Matthew Lee, Associated Press August 3, 2007 WASHINGTON (AP) –
The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up.Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.”Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do,” said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer.First it was Barack Obama’s talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants, then it was Hillary Rodham Clinton refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.
More at:http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37669&dcn=todaysnews
This is interesting to watch.
My post goes pretty much unnoticed while the gun fetishists attack “Mary.”
We’re seeing the dynamics of prototypical gun nuts. They don’t want to address the issue of a “well regulated militia,” because they fear they wouldn’t qualify.
We saw one of them on the YouTube Debate, with a certifiable nut referring to “his baby” and bragging that he acquired it illegally.
Gun Nuts are immune to irony. They don’t understand how, every time they rail about threats real and imagined against their sacred 2nd Amendment rights, they undermine their cause because they’re just a bit too passionate (paranoid?) about their weaponry.
It starts to have nothing at all to do about guns. If someone were as obsessive about keeping fuzzy teddy bears I’d be concerned about their mental health.
More cops die in motor vehicle accidents than die of gunshots. Time to ban cars.
It’s time to fix our bridges with the money we’re throwing away on the Jews, which now stands at 1.7 trillion with a “T” and rising expendentially.
Not only do we not get a positive return on out trillions, we get even more trouble and more hatred of the United States from a world who sees us a fools for giving those Zionist bastards any money at all.
Time to register all Terrorist.
They kill people.
Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.Posted by: Hotdog1 | August 06, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Actually, Tancredo’s remarks are based on historical facts. During the Cold War, we had mutually assured destruction (MAD), which said if you bomb something vital to us, we will bomb something vital to you.
In the case of Muslim extremists, (who will one day nuke us out of uniform), we have no country to threaten under MAD principles (which worked by the way).
So you threaten something vital to all of them.
I’ll admit it may sound sick, but I didn’t see all these muslim nations condemning Osama Bin Laden’s dastardly attack in New York. Heck, they sell Bin Laden dolls, flags, and shirts and praise him.
But I guess we are supposed to represent the “good guys”.
They always finish last.
If it was not for the Jews, we would not have a Deficit or a National debt.
And bridges that wouldn’t be falling down due to poor maintenance.
5,000 children die each year in this country from guns….not 300. My nephew died because a gun collector didn’t lock up his guns and his grandson got hold of one and shot my nephew. Both boys were 11 at the time. The gun owner had no negative consequences for his irresponsibiity other than a guilty conscience.
I really don’t give a rat’s ass about your “right” to own a gun. Your “right” wasn’t worth my nephews life.It’s been fun boys, but my life beacons me to work. Hope I don’t get shot today, in the neighborhoods I frequent on my rounds, it can be a concern…hopefully some CC citizen will protect me from all the evil in the world.
‘Bye, see you next time.
If it was not for the Palestinians, we would not have a Deficit or a National debt.
And bridges that wouldn’t be falling down due to poor maintenance.
would like to see the many illegals guns on the streets tracked down and confiscated from the gangs and drug dealers. If the legal gun owners have to register their guns, then I believe more needs to be done aboutg the illegal guns out there.
Posted by: kate | August 06, 2007 at 10:25 AM
All my guns are registered. Go after the criminals, the shooters, the drug dealers and thee gangs. No midnight basketball, yes to midnight raids on gang houses.
My nephew died because a smoker didn’t lock up his matches and his grandson got hold of one book and burned my nephew. Both boys were 11 at the time. The smoker had no negative consequences for his irresponsibiity other than a guilty conscience.
“Republicanism–the party of bitter, crazy white men.”
hehehehe. Dont forget closet gay men, the pedophiles and the poopy diaper perverts….
My nephew died because a gun collector didn’t lock up his guns and his grandson got hold of one and shot my nephew. Both boys were 11 at the time. The gun owner had no negative consequences for his irresponsibiity other than a guilty conscience.
I really don’t give a rat’s ass about your “right” to own a gun. Your “right” wasn’t worth my nephews life.
Hence the pain and the villification of those who own guns. Mary, I am sorry your nephew was killed. It shouldn;t have happened.
After all we’ve done to the Arabs through the Zionists, how could anybody in their right mind not understand that OBL is their hero as Admiral Nimitz was ours during the Pacific Campaign in WWll.
It you can’t understand that, then you’ve bought into Bush’s Bullshit.
You gotta be a low life sumbitch to make fun of Mary’s family tragedy with the “matches” story.
Mary
READ!! I said 300 in accidental shootings!!
And your 5000 children a year number is a lie that has been illustrated on this blog again and again. Yet you continue with it. Tragedy does not grant liscence to lie.
Mary Caruso uses the Zionist trick of changing the subject to the “poor Jews” instead of the debate she is losing.
She would argue that the reason the ice melted was due to “anti-Semitism.”
They’ve been getting away with that trick for years.
I guess you can count me in as one of the “gun nut loons”. I own and collect. In the last couple of years, I’ve moved into the really big-bore stuff. About half of my weapons are registered and I have no problem with that.
I don’t hunt, I don’t kill animals, and I’ve never shot and killed anyone that the government didn’t pay me for.
I didn’t have much sympathy for assault weapon owners until I got into big bore weapons. My big guns don’t serve much practical purpose (not many charging rinos or elephants in Kansas), but I get a lot of pleasure firing a weapon that makes the ground shake. I only fire at targets on an approved range. I’ll concede that maybe, just maybe assault weapon owners feel the same way. As long as they use them properly and safely, more power to them.
Mary is a Zionist plant lying through her teeth.
This blog has an infeatation of Zionists
infestation
Jawohl, Herr Goebbels!
The blog is no place to put a family tragedy.
The Zionists make-up those stories to fit their needs, just as they lie about everything else.
hehehehehe. What were we saying earlier about republican men?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-all...
“State Rep. Allen (R-FL) explains sex case: Fear (of Black men) made me play along
TITUSVILLE – State Rep. Bob Allen told police he was just playing along when a undercover officer suggested in a public restroom that the legislator give him oral sex and $20 because he was intimidated, according to a taped statement and other documents released Thursday.
Allen has already denied any wrongdoing, but the recordings and documents offered new details about what he and police say happened on July 11 inside the men’s room at Veterans Memorial Park.
“I certainly wasn’t there to have sex with anybody and certainly wasn’t there to exchange money for it,” said Allen.
“This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park,” Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he “was about to be a statistic” and would have said anything just to get away…. “
“5,000 children die each year in this country from guns….not 300.”
Your phoney 5,000 number includes gang bangers, dope dealers, etc.,. The 300 number is an acurate number for children that die from gun related accidents each year. If it’s children’s deaths that you have your panties in a wad over, you can merely enforce the seat belt and car seat laws. You could save thousands of lives each year if people used car seats.
“I really don’t give a rat’s ass about your “right” to own a gun. Your “right” wasn’t worth my nephews life.”
And there we have it. We now have to hinge the continuation of our rights that are acknowledged by the Constitution on a personal anecdotal tragedy. What other rights should we take away based on your irrational fear and illogical arguments?
Hank
One list of Democrat scandals
http://boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm
Being putrid has no claim on either party
You gotta be a low life sumbitch to make fun of Mary’s family tragedy with the “matches” story.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 06, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Don’t get your ti-s in a sling over this. No one made fun of anyone. Someone made a comparison, which is a fair comparison to her using her personal and tragic family event to a call to ban guns.
When a poster uses this sort of personal rationale, they open themselves up to opinions which are counter to their post.
No one called names, was disrespectful or in any way mean to her.
Don’t make it into something it was not. But if you do, I understand it is a great talking point for you to reap attention upon yourself.
” Ed Jew Hater Friedemann ”
There they go: Sucking sympathy { and whatever else they find hanging}.
Ever think about changing your act? Or are you too happy with your Hitler imitation?
KansasCityBOy-
The satire of Mary’s family tragedy had nothing to do with refuting an argument. It was trashtalk, and despicable.
OMG, and it’s always republican who says someone DESERVES to be mocked. Like Tom DESERVED to have his office broken into.
Everyone DESERVES what republican dishes out. Heheheh.
Editors?
…and whose favorite expression is “tits in a sling”? I’ve seen that pop up several times lately.
Editors?
OK, well, mowing calls, and you right wingnuts can have fun with your trolls all day long.
Must make you feel good to be associated with trash like republican. What an accurate nic.
Guns are an “art form” as well as ” never mind the dog, it’s me that’s going to blow your ass away.
It was trashtalk, and despicable.
Posted by: littlejohn
Whatever. It was based upon facts.
Which kills more children annually. Matches or guns?
http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=281&itemID=18271&URL=Research%20&%20Reports/Fact%20sheets/Children%20playing%20with%20fire&cookie%5Ftest=1
From your link:
“In 2002, children playing with fire started an estimated 13,900 structure fires that were reported to U.S. fire departments, causing an estimated 210 civilian deaths,”
I would guess guns
XXX–
You grew up with guns, you collect them, and you enjoy them.
That’s fine. That’s what I do, that’s what my dad does, what my brother does and my bros in law do, my nephews etc.
But I don’t think that makes you a “gun-nut.” To be a gun-nut, you have live in constant fear that the government is going to confiscate your guns, you have to join organizations that stop any and all restrictions on the sale and tracking of any and all guns, and you have obsess about how you will take up arms against your own government when they come to render you impotent by stealing your guns.
I don’t think you’re in that group.
Depends on if the 300 number is an average or a specific year,
to compare.
Regardless, both kill close to the same number of children tragically every year. Both are preventable by responsible adults.
You don’t ban either.
Hey, Ed!
Remember “bullet boy”?
KSB-
From the cdc
2000 – 2004, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 16
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34
Number ofDeaths Population*** CrudeRate
508
Twice the rate, 0=16 compared to all.
THANK-YOU DEMOCRATS FOR HELPING BUSH TAKE AWAY MORE OF OUR PRIVACY:
Bush Signs Law to Widen Legal Reach for Wiretapping
By JAMES RISENPublished: August 6, 2007New York Times
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 — President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.
Law gives Bush more than he asked for.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html
Traitors!
Good morning Captain!
Thanks for that comprehensive definition of “gun nuts”!
Based on that, I’m just as sane as XXX!
Hank
Again the CDC:
Accidental gun deaths, 0-19 age, 2004 was 143.
Total deaths in this group: 2852which includes
Suicide – 846Homicide – 1804Undetermined – 59
How many of the suicides and homicide were gun related?
Me too!
I’m saving it for posterity!
These are all National Firearm Deaths.
Hud,
How many of these were by “assault weapons” (whatever those are.
Way up the thread, and into late last night, the discussion started with someone saying we don’t need “assault weapons”.
So how many deaths from these?
If any gun kills you, then I would consider that an assault weapon. Does it really matter how big the gun is or is that just a male ego thing?
Does not break down the type of weapon. Probably because no one knows what an “Assault weapon” is.
Is an M-16 an “assault weapon”? The M-16 is nothing more than a glorified semi-automatic .22 I had as a kid.
Maybe I am a terrorist.
Does it really matter how big the gun is or is that just a male ego thing?
Posted by: kate | August 06, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Kate,
Heck if I know. But the discussion began last night with “automatic” guns (see below).From there it went to “assault” and now I guess to your opinion to all guns. The only thing that caught my opinion (which is a minority here)was discussion of banning certain types.
(it all sorta went downhill from there.)
The second amendment doesn’t say which arms you may bear. If owning arms was to protect us from our own government, we’re gonna lose…unless you want me and your neighbor having a nuke, biological weapons, chemical weapons…you can’t even buy fertilizer anymore without being watched by the govt (and I support that). So if we can limit SOME arms, why is it against your whatever to limit automatic guns?
Posted by: political_mom | August 05, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Does not break down the type of weapon. Probably because no one knows what an “Assault weapon” is.Posted by: hud | August 06, 2007 at 12:57 PM
If people don’t even know what they are – why are they posting we need to control them?
By God if we can pass out assault rifles to our enemies in Iraq, then we can pass tham out here!
To all you folks that think that Social Security funds should be funneled to private accounts, read this–
Last Week My Retirement Savings Lost More Money Than My Annual Retirement Payments
I am retired from the Federal Government. I receive a monthly check. I also have considerably savings still nested in the Government’s Thrift Savings Program (TSP). It is essentially the same thing as a limited mutual fund and is tax protected for retirement savings purposes.
In the last week my retirement savings, which is invested in various stocks, lost more money than the total of a year’s worth of my monthly checks.
I only tell you this to remind you that if the Republicans had their way this is what the Social Security System would look like. The Government’s TSP is the model Republicans would use to replace Social Security as we know it with their “ownership” scheme.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1519617
Hmmm…
Looking at 1 week to make an investment decison – bad idea.
Wonder what TSP returns have been like YTD thru July?
For the last year?
For the last 3 years?
For the last 10 years?
American Home REIT filing for chapter 11; Bear Stearns a likely takeover candidate. The revervberations have just begun, if they don’t keep pumping the financial pipe line full of money, bush house of cards economy is going to crumble around our ears.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
One type of Assault Weapon:Semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as “assault weapons” if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor.
In 1998, less than 1% of homicides were with Assault Weapons.
Machine guns are not assault weapons.
In the last week my retirement savings, which is invested in various stocks, lost more money than the total of a year’s worth of my monthly checks.Posted by: CapnAmerica
Capn you are quoting an individual who obviously does not understand their investments. Go to the TSP.gov website and look for yourself (don’t you normally verify information before posting, or only if you are in opposition?).
There was no CRASH last week. Minor bump in the market, as many of you agreed last week. I didn’t look, but I think the DOW percentage was off 2 or 3 percentage points overall.
But don’t take my word for it. Go to the TSP website and you can see for yourself. Still going strong!
And you are smart enough to know with your vast investments Captain, that we are in this thing for the LONG RUN.
You don’t invest if you are not.
SCARY stuff from DU, Capn. Designed to influence the fearful and gullible.
But anyone with a brain knows that stocks are a long term investment that have over time consistently beaten other types of investments. If we could free individuals to invest a portion of their social security, it would be a big boon to Americans and the economy.
pumping the financial pipe line full of money, bush house of cards economy is going to crumble around our ears. Posted by: The Phantom
Don’t worry Phantom, the liberal democrats are about to bail all those, poor, stupid people with bad credit who signed ARMS without reading what they signed.
It will be good for all those rich people too.
Scratches everybodies backs.
“Hank (Your freindly neighborhood gin nut)”
Some Freudian slips are just too good to not repeat.
The Congressional retirement fund is still going good:
http://www.tsp.gov/rates/returns-5years.html
C Fund 20.63S Fund 19.47I Fund 27.18L 2010 Fund 12.15L2020 Fund 15.90L2030 Fund 17.60
So CapnAmerica is living off the dole of the government on our dime.
How do the Socialistic Liberal Democrats feel about that, now that your Blog leader has admitted sponging off the government all these years?
Makes CapnAmerica hypocritical from all those remarks he made about me receiving Disabled Veteran checks and Medical Retirement, don’t ya think?
:)
CapN doesnt say he is living off the government… He is quoting from another source… which is given the link… get out your reading glasses, Kansas
To the anti-gun people –The best way to go after the gun owners would be to disband our military forces and our police enforcement.It is after all where the root of learning of weapons and the desire to indulge into the interest of weaponry comes from.Without our military forces and our police enforcement, after thousands of years of conditioning in the art of war, we will finally rid our species of the bad character traits that is passed down from generations to generations.
We will finally be safer…”NOT”
CapN doesnt say he is living off the government… He is quoting from another source… Posted by: Chas.
Wow. On Monday, 6 August, 2007.I agree with Chas.
PS: Capn did you check your sources yet?
Here’s a good idea.
If everyone needed at least three legitimate references to get a gun in the first place, like they do to get a job, or to get credit to buy a car, it might keep something like Virginia Tech from happening.
And just stop and think about it, if you can’t find three legitimate citizens without violent criminal records who will vouch for your sensibility, why on earth would any of us strangers EVER want you to own a gun!
JEP-
Is it a constitutional guarantee or not? If it is, your proposal is useless and against the constitution. If it is not a constitutional guaranteee, then it is worth considering, though I think perhaps unworkable.
That’s nice Jeb. You posted it yesterday and it went over like a wet noodle.
How you going to “CONTROL” the millions of guns in the hands of criminals?
Define “legitimate” references. Would that be like blue state party control and approved?
Non-starter buddy.
“Define “legitimate” references.”
Anyone without a violent criminal record.
Anyone else who could own a gun.
Are you suggesting you couldn’t find three honest people to vouch for you?
If your friends and neighbors don’tthink you should own a gun, and you can’t find three of them to vouch for you, why should us “strangers” trust you.
The Virginia Tech killer would have had a very hard time getting a gun if he had been required to have references, the people around him knew he was dangerous.
Not only do I think you should provide references, but if anyone who knows you should come forward and oppose that gun ownership for some good reason, you shouldn’t just get one on demand.
We aren’t trying to keep sane, honest, law-abiding citizens from having guns, just crazies who fondle them and defend them as if they are essential to survival.
And who would know those crazies are crazies, better than the people around them.
Jep-
I would conclude that you do not believe that fire arm ownership is not constitutionally protected. Is that right?
Simple question; would you hire someone to babysit your children if they couldn’t get three references for you?
Of course not…
Would you bring a new pastor into your church if they couldn’t get three references to support them?
No?
Would you loan money to someone without any reliable credit references?
Boy,that would sure be dumb…
But you are offended that you can not buy a deadly weapon without three references?
Something’s amiss…
Bad typing, let me try again:
Jep-
I would conclude that you believe that fire arm ownership is not constitutionally protected. Is that right
Constitution says “to keep and ber arms” it doesnt say you can do that without registration… Why would gun registration be UN Constitutional??
Chas.
All my guns are registered. All of them. I have no problem with that. The proposal by JEP was to make it necessary to get others permission and recommendation. I do have a problem with that.
Health would be part of a pursuit of happiness, I would think — but you need “permission” to buy drugs when you are sick…
What’s the big deal about getting some kind of permission before buying a lethal weapon???
littlejohn, my ancestors fought the Revolution (they had been her 130 years by then) partially because the English too their claymores away years earlier, when they were still in Scotland.
I posted last night, I respect the 2nd Amendment.
But we live in a society with new rules and new dangers, and one of them is that some crazy person willuse a gun to kill innocent people in a blind rage.
I don’t say for a moment that a sane, rational person shouldn’t have a gun,or even collect guns if they choose.
I’m not suggesting guns be outlawed, just that everyone who owns one should have some serious accountability.
It isn’t a jug of water, ora t-shirt we are talking about here, it is a deadly weapon, and if that doesn’t resonate somewhere, again, something’s amiss.
Let me put it this way…if you and some of you NRA friends learned that the crazy kid up the street, who purposely ran over your dog and used to shoot at your kids with his BB gun, was going out to buy an AK47, wouldn’t you feel better if you could go to someone and say, “Hey, this kid is dangerous, lets think twice before we hand him a gun?”
Or would you prefer to let him walk out of the store with a weapon?
I would have no problem letting the NRA members (sans manufacturers) do the vetting on who gets guns, what do you guys think of that?
As long as SOMEONE has the sense to sort out the crazies…
but this system is just plain dangerous, and the only beneficiaries of such chaos are gun manufacturers, not sportsmen, collectors or citizens.
The silence is golden…
JEP-
I did not question your veracity, your patriosm, your heritage. I am not an NRA member. I simply asked the question, which you did not answer, is gunownership a constitutionally protected right?
littlejohn;
Maybe you are a bit thick, when I mentioned the claymores, you should have understood my answer was “yes”.
Didn’t I say “I respect the 2nd Amendment?”
You are the one who won’t address my ideas.
IMO, gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. But every other right we have is regulated in one form or the other. Look what just happened with our 4th Amendment right to only be subject to search with a warrant.
If the hardcore gun lobby thinks its okay to limit 4th Amendment rights, then shouldn’t the very same people be looking at regulating 2nd Amendment rights in similar ways?
All too often, the gun debate hits the same brick wall the abortion debate hits. The take-no-prisoners, no compromise position of the radical “conservatives” makes intelligent dialog impossible. Then the civil libertarians call the radicons “stupid” or some other equivalent, and the whole argument turns nasty, personal, and petty.
::sigh::
Hey JEP,
Maybe, just maybe, if “sane, honest, law-abiding citizens” in Virginia that had taken the time, effort and money to get their CCW license were allowed to carry on campus maybe the killings at Virginia Tech wouldn’t have happened either.
Three character references? Are you really serious? Are you telling me that the kid that used to run over my dog and shoot my kid with his BB gun couldn’t come up with three references? BS.
Why don’t we pass a law that newspapers must pass a fairness test before being allowed to publish. Or maybe we can come up with a rule that if your neighbors don’t like you the 4th amendment doesn’t apply in your case.
Three references! Sheese! What next?
Hank
Tom,You lost me on the 4th amendment thing.
I do agree the real problem is the “no compromise position” many seem to take.
That and “it is not my (or my groups) fault, he did it” many people take in a debate.
What next? Sanity, for a change…
I would guess there is more thanone gun owner who gets my meaning. Are you opposed even to the thought of gun owners vetting who gets guns?
“Are you telling me that the kid that used to run over my dog and shoot my kid with his BB gun couldn’t come up with three references?”
If that reference carried some legal responsibility with it, no, I do not think that kid could get three legitimate references.
Also, as for that kid, we weren’t talking about “three references” at that point, we were talking about a knowlegable group of experienced gun owners that vets gun ownership, and that someone could go to them if they thought someone who was dangerous was trying to buy a gun.
The “three references” was an earlier post…
Dear JEP,
Yep.
Hank
Maybe I am dense. I didn;t and don;t understand your reference to “claymoes” If questioning people’s sense is your thing, go ahead. My point was this. If it is not a constitutional right, then by all means, your proposition may have merit. If it is a constitutional right, then it does not. By giving someone else say over your constitutional rights, it is no longer a valid constitutinal right. Much like freedom of the press, or the big boogeyboo, abortion. Perhaps you should have 3 references to get an abortion, or publish?
If it is a constitutional right, it is a constitutional right.
If it is not, then you can make any regulations that you can get passed. THe point is, I shouldn;t need a refernce to excericse a constitutional right.
Littlejohn,
It already takes a second opinion to get an abortion after the 22nd week. Required by law, and paid for by the woman, of course.
(Sorry, just had to throw that in there).
Did you get the email I sent you last week?
Oh, I’m sorry.
So three references is now out. Now we need a committee of folks to decide which Constitutional rights that I qualify for. Even more amazing!
What next? A special election? If you had your way it would be more complicated to get a gun than open a casino!
Hank
LJ If you want to hold a parade downtown, and exercise your right to free speech, you firt have to get a parade permit… If you want to do it legally… Is that an infringement on your Rights??
For a parade you do have to get a permit, but it is not to approve the subject.
They cannot refuse a permit just because you are a skin-head.
Tom-
First, the right to abortion is not specifically stated in the constituion. Second, the reason after the 22nd week is because of another right, the right to “life” I won;t argue the veracity of that, it just starts a whole new discusison, one without end.
And I have heard over andover again, that noone, not even the father, has a right to disagree with the woman carrying a “fetus”But I do understand your argument.
Chas-
NO.Not in my opinion, because it is a mattter of logistics. If they allow one, but not another, then it could be, but simply requiring a permit so that streets, law enforcement, etc can be prepared is not a violation. Only when they allow one, and not the other. Same as gun ownership. REgistering is fine with me, allowing others to judge upon my fitness to excercise a constituiona right, isnt.
Still haven’t heard an answer from JEB on my question.
How you going to “CONTROL” the millions of guns in the hands of criminals?
Your proposal will only affect law abidding citizens.
Is the government going to start a registery of who these “legitimate” references are? Who will decide who qualifies as “legitimate”. Which American citizens will be placed on this list. Someone has to check the signatures, right? Who is going to do that? How long will that take? Will they access to on line registery of “legitimate” American citizens?
I did see your post on your family geneology and patriotic history talking about yourself.
But I still don’t think this plan is workable.
The constitution, on the other hand, seems to be working fine.
it just starts a whole new discusison, one without end.
Posted by: littlejohn | August 06, 2007 at 03:20 PM
Awww, you’re no fun. I so enjoy “All Abortion, All The Time” blogging.
Don’t we all?
Bad analogy Chas, sorry. Supreme court has already ruled that parades do not equal free speech.
All of the rights in the Bill of Rights can be exercised without trampling on someone elses rights. Free speech doesn’t mean that I have to listen. The right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean that you can be taxed to buy me a gun.
You, however, seem to believe that the first ammendment allows you to have a parade and tie up traffic.
Hank
A bit of Texas History!!
SCENE: MARCH 6, 1836.
On that fateful day, Davy Crockett woke up and walked from his bunk onthe floor of the Alamo up to the observation post on the west wall. Col.William B. Travis and Jim Bowie were already there.
As the three gazed at the hordes of Mexicans moving steadily towards them, Davy turned to Bowie with a puzzled look on his face and asked,
“Jim, are we landscaping today?”
Awww, you’re no fun. I so enjoy “All Abortion, All The Time” blogging.
Don’t we all?
Posted by: Tom | August 06, 2007 at 03:26 PM
No. It so tiresome, and gets so hateful, and accomplishes nothing.
Oh, and I checked emnail last night, and saw it. I will try and reply tonight. I have too many irons in the fire at the moment.
Hank, you got some link as to when and where SCOTUS said parades are not Free Speech?? Seems to me that in Skokie, some court said exactly the opposite!!
Everyone that knows and understands Texas history will tell you that if the Alamo had a back door Mexico would own Texas today.
Hank
Your wrong Chas,
If Skokie didn’t allow parades at all then the skin heads could have been denied. But they couldn’t be denied because of their politics.
Parades weren’t the issue, just the catylist.
Hank
Hank, see
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12699/Hurley-v-Irish-American-Gay-Group-Boston.html
I think Hank that was the “fighting words” exception to free speech.
For instance, someone can get up and speak to a crowd and saying “fighting words” and be within their free speech rights.
One gives up free speech rights whenthey direct the “fighting words” at an individual.
I believe this is what the skinheads did at Skokie. They were taunting individual which is interpreted as disorderly conduct.
Maybe one of the Blog attorneys can weigh in on this.
So, Hank you got a SCOTUS link for what you are claiming, or not??
“The Supreme Court’s decision broadened constitutionally protected symbolic speech by accepting a less focused message than in previous cases.”SCOTUS
According to SCOTUS, my analogy of a parade permit is good after all… I thought it was…
Thanks for the link LJ, however, parades are considered speech only where parades are allowed.
The link makes my point.
Hank
“Supreme court has already ruled that parades do not equal free speech”
Where is the link?
All my guns are registered. All of them. I have no problem with that. Posted by: littlejohn | August 06, 2007 at 02:25 PM
Littlejohn, registered with who and why? Does your state require gun registration?
I believe that my point was that you need to have a parade permit to have a parade… And that a parade is in/of itself Free Speech… You said it isnt…
What link can you post to prove your point??
Since you need a parade permit, is that not a “registration” of sorts to exercise your Free Speech??
i have purchased all my guns through transactions with ffl dealers. That transaction must be registeredSee
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html
also (inclhttp://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htmuded in the above)
Chas,
Parade permits are nice. They mean you get police protection and escort for your parade, and you “own” the route for the duration of the parade. It’s more restrictive of the observer’s rights than it is of the participants, in one sense: No one else can use the street (not counting sidewalks), and no one can “crash” your parade without risking arrest.
Chas;
Since you need a parade permit, is that not a “registration” of sorts to exercise your Free Speech??
Posted by: Chas. | August 06, 2007 at 04:13 PM
No. Don;t reach for straws. It is not
It isnt straws, LJ… It is paying a fee in order to exercise your free speech using a parade…Nobody has to listen, or even show up… But you have to pay a FEE in order to do it… for whatever reasons you want to list… police, streets, etc. But, if you dont pay that FEE, you are in violation… And that does interfere with your free speech right…
I guess I just dont see any problem with registering a gun when you buy it… What possible harm can come from that?? What are you gun owners afraid of?? It must be some fear embedded in there somewhere… And if you are afraid of something, why not just come right out and SAY what you are afraid of by registering your guns…
Chas,
You don’t need a permit to march down the sidewalk, carrying signs, dressing in funny clown costumes, whatever. What the permit does is ENHANCE your free-speech rights, by turning over, for the duration of the parade, an entire street, PLUS police protection. Parade permits are the exact opposite of a restriction on speech.
Tom I understand that… I am just saying that paying for a parade permit isnt that much different than registering a gun… It might be a slight infringement, but then maybe not… So, maybe gun registration isnt any infringement either then???
Chas,
I’m not going to try to compare getting a parade permit with registering a gun. They aren’t the same at all.
And again, registering for a parade permit isn’t an infringement of rights, it’s an _enhancement._ In Wichita, a parade permit is $15 bucks. For $15, you get exclusive use of the route, you get to drive non-street-legal vehicles on the street, you get to walk/run/drive right through all the traffic signals, and people who hate you can only watch from the sidelines.
IMO, you’re wrong to try to characterize it as an infringement.
I guess every city has a different means of doing parades… Just seems to me that if you need to pay for a permit, to do a free speech thing/parade… it isnt much different than registering a gun… I am not sure if either one is in violation of Rights…
And perhaps that IS my point here… WHY should gun registration be seen as an infringement on the right to bear arms??
And can anybody comment rationally about the connection of the first clause of the 2nd amendment, to the second clause??
Tom, what about the groups the state won’t give a permit to? Does that happen often?
Chas,
I think you skipped over one of my points upthread: You can have a NON-permit parade, as long as you stay on the sidewalks, stay off private property, don’t interfere with traffic or other pedestrians, and obey all crosswalks and traffic signals and signs. There’s no restriction on that – none, none, none. It’s only if you want to shut down traffic and walk down the middle of the street (hence taking away other citizens privilege to *use* that street) that you have to get a permit.
You just can’t conflate gun registration with parade permits. They aren’t the same. You and I are usually on the same page, but I’m afraid on this one, you’ve got it wrong.
Anonymous,
I think every time that’s happened, the issuing authority has lost in court. If you give permits to one group, you have to give permits to all. “Due process” and all that, you know.
OK I see your point… I am just trying to find out why some of these folks see it as an infringement on their Rights to have to register a gun??
i once lived in a State where it was required that you PAY the State for a license to perform weddings — When enough clergy complained that it was an infringement on what the Church has already ordained us to do, the State quite suddenly dropped their annual Fee requirement… No court case or anything
Chas,
Remember the early days of the HIV/AIDS pandemic? Remember how there was _serious_ talk about requiring sexually active gay men to register with health authorities, and to have their HIV status public? Remember that there were also some in public office or positions of influence who thought HIV-positive people should be put in forced quarantine? The gay community fought like hell to stop registration and reporting from happening, specifically because we knew it could be used against us. I see the same principle in mandatory gun registration – any government interested in wholesale denial of civil rights will have their pickup list already on file.
Yes, I remember the HIV/AIDS debacle… I spoke out loudly against such actions… Even though there were some nationally prominent TV preachers who were calling for the quarantine…
Now, I am the one having a hard time connecting that to the gun registration… If nobody has a record of serial numbers on the guns, then how can they be traced in criminal investigations??
If I own a gun, that is stolen from me, and used in a crime, the first person they will come looking for is ME… unless I have filed a stolen property claim, and listed the seriam number as stolen…
Seems to me that some kind of registration would be one good way of making that system work better than it may or may not work now…
I had an uncle once who was so afraid that his guns would be stolen and used in a crime, that he kept them locked in a Vault under the floor in his garage… all except for his .45 that he kept in his night stand, of course… But the man lived in constant fear of that happening…
Of course, it never happened…
Believe I read earlier somewhere that Iran was training shiites who were responsible for 70% of bombings against troops. But it appears the actual statement was:”A U.S. military spokesman said on Monday Iran had trained some of the Shi’ite militants who were behind more than 70 percent of attacks on U.S. troops in Baghdad last month.”
The article I read left out the “some of the”, must have been a RW article earlier.
You might be right on the RW article, Phantom… I heard Hannity quoting that earlier, without using the “some of the” in his quote… LOL
Chas,
If people want to voluntarily register their guns, that’s their problem. ;) But honestly, I don’t think gun registration, mandatory or voluntary, will stop the single commission of a single gun-related crime.
Honestly, Tom, I tend to agree with you on that… I guess having a drivers license doesnt stop a lot of DUI accidents either…
“I heard Hannity…”
AAAAAAAHHHHH!!! Bleeding ears, bleeding ears!!! How can you STAND listening to that whiny, high-pitched moron for even half a second?
Well, I figure somebody needs to know what the wing nuts are saying on the air waves… it is damaging to the ears, but somebody needs to do it… LOL
High pitched… Whiny… monotone sound…
See, thats why I have a sneaky suspicion that some of their listeners are being brainwashed with hering that same voice, and tone, and whining about the same basic subjects day after day after day…
After a while they come to believe it… My wife says she thinks Hannity actually believes what he says…
She isnt so sure about Limbaugh… she thinks he will say whatever it takes to make $$$
Chas,
Ever notice how the troll’s posts echo Limbaugh’s points _and_ tactics? Limbaugh may not believe half the crap he spews, but it’s obvious some here in Wichita do. Ugh.
Yea, I have noticed that very definitely… Also, have you ever listened to Drudge on Sunday nites??? Seems that pretty near ALL of Talk Radio, takes Drudge’s talking points on Sunday nites, as their program outlines for the week….
Too bad there isnt some way to follow the $$$$
OK Chas,
I’m afraid that if I and everyone else have to register all of my firearms the government will then have the ability to confiscate them at some future time.
I have guns that were not bought through a FFL source. Also, buying a gun through a FFl source is not regiering the fire arm, it is merely documenting the transaction.
I bought a gun last month at the Goddard Gunnery. Instant background check. Transaction recorded. The gun is not registered, it was a gift to my wife.
I also have a CCW permit in the State of Kansas. Don’t even have to own a gun to get one. Do I consider these checks and permits an infringement on my rights? You betcha. Does that make me a gun nut? I don’t think so, I follow the rules.
I don’t think that felons should be allowed to buy and carry guns. I don’t think people with documented mental problems should be allowed to carry guns.
I don’t think that LJ’s guns are ‘registered’ in the sense that the flaming liberal democrats in congres mean.
All that being said I’m always amazed that just because I don’t want the government to restrict my rights people can only come up with rediculous arguments comparing the ownership of guns to my manhood.
Everyone knows that you can tell a real man by the size of his cowboy hat and the horsepower of his pickup.
Quiting time, going home.
Hank
BTW, I know where Rush is from, and I know a few of his relatives… I think my wife is wrong, judging from what some of his relatives have told me in the past… He believes most everything he says… mostly because he gets a lot of it from his Dear Old Dad… a real right winger from WAY back…
Some folks even mentioned Rush’s Dad, and white sheets in the same breath… of course, I dont know if thats totally true or not, but given that part of MO, it would not surprise me…
Chas,
I never listen to Drudge. Sunday evenings, I’m usually home having quiet family time. Limbaugh & other wingers I sometimes catch when I’m on the road; it’s about the only time I put the radio on. At home, it’s CDs.
Little John, are you referring to form 4473 kept by the FFL who sells the gun as being the “registration” document?
That does “register” the transaction with the FFL, but that does not (legally anyway) get compiled into a national database listing all guns owned by all individuals – which is “gun registration”, required by a few states.
The gay community fought like hell to stop registration and reporting from happening, specifically because we knew it could be used against us. I see the same principle in mandatory gun registration – any government interested in wholesale denial of civil rights will have their pickup list already on file.
Posted by: Tom | August 06, 2007 at 04:48 PM
Wow, for once Tom, I agree with you.
Bottom Line: Gun registration will not lead to the reduction of a single case of crime. Gun registration will lead to confiscation of guns from those who so foolishly agreed to register their guns.
And Hank Price said it all with his 5:17 post – right on the money Hank!
Chas spent all day trying to equate parade registration/1st Amendment rights with gun registration/2nd Amendment rights.
What convuluted means will the gun banners come up with next?
Max,
I guess when you get past the “gay=flaming anti-gun liberal” stereotype, and read what I’m writing, that’s what happens. :)
Didn’t know you were gay Tom, and doesn’t matter to me either way. None of my business.
It was nice to see we agreed once!
Hotdog–
The man said his investments were “in various stocks”–I can’t check it past that.
Gun nuts–
We all have to register our cars. Do you live in constant fear that the government is going to confiscate your car?
The gov’t keeps track of who buys prescription drugs. Are you worried that the gov’t will confiscate your prescriptions?
Tom–
Frankly, I think that the gay lobby made a big mistake and still are making a mistake by keeping HIV status so private.
AIDS is a public health issue, like TB or syphilis.
Patients of doctors and dentists need not reveal if they are HIV positive. Keeping medical care workers in the dark like that of negatively impacts the patients’ treatment as well as puts the medical care-giver at increased risk.
I wonder how many people needlessly contracted AIDS because a perceived right-to-privacy was more important than information that could save someone’s life.
Someone who does not understand the connection between guns and freedom, cannot understand the problem with gun registration.
Max–
Guilty, as charged.
I don’t see a big connection between guns and freedom.
I lived in Japan for two years. I did not perceive that people were less free there because guns were essentially outlawed.
The Japanese are much less individualistic, so in that respect they may seem less free compared to us, but it has nothing to do with guns.
The average American would be much less free if their cars were confiscated than if their guns were confiscated.
If the American government makes war on its people, it’ll come at us with nuclear missiles. It’s civil society that protects our freedom, not guns.
What keeps society civil?
Cases in point are failed states like Somalia, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
Everybody seems to have a gun.
Paradise, right?
Democracy, the rule of law, and the basic decency of people.
What keeps us democratic?
How do we enforce the law?
How do we keep people decent?
We point guns at their feet like in a old western and tell them to “dance!” BAM! BAM! “dance!”
No. We teach people up the way they should go. It’s culture and our culture’s values.
“Everyone that knows and understands Texas history will tell you that if the Alamo had a back door Mexico would own Texas today.”
Hank
Sincere question here, you don’t think they own it now, or will in the not too distant future? I am not an immigrant hater by any means, but I have to wonder if we aren’t functionally ceding the entire southwest back to Mexico.
Capn,
Have you forgotten the anti-gay hysteria of the early 80s? The lock-em-up-before-they-give-me-AIDS mentality? The stigma that _still_ attaches, 25 years later, to anyone who is publicly HIV+ ?
The mandatory testing and reporting that was proposed back then, had it been enacted, would have been a grave threat to the civil liberties of every American. I don’t think the danger of that kind of precedent can be overstated.
Cases in point are failed states like Somalia, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.Everybody seems to have a gun.Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 06, 2007 at 07:42 PM
Then there are places like Rwanda, Sudan, or Bosnia, where only half the people had guns. Which they then promptly used on the half that _didn’t_.
Capn, the National Guard was called in to quash the ‘educated’ at Kent State in Ohio.
Is that how we keep democracy, enforce the law, educate people, and keep people decent?
Yes, Tom, I remember, and you make a good point.
People pressured Magic Johnson to quit playing b-ball. Kids were forced out of schools. People fired from their jobs.
But now that we have treatment and the hysteria has calmed down, I’d like to see AIDS treated like any other public health threat.
Slowing the spread of the disease is also a worthy goal, I think.
Or was Kent State part of our ‘decent’ culture?
Yes, I remember Kent State well, Max.
I don’t get it.
You’re saying if the students had guns, they wouldn’t have been shot?
Then, it would have been a real bloodbath . . .
In the future, what is to stop the National Guard from coming in to stop more “Kent State” type of peaceful protests?
Or maybe we should defend ourselves if attacked by our own National Guard.
Just surrendor. And bow down to our government.
shouldn’t defend
4 Dead in Ohio wasn’t a blood bath?
What is?
What’s to stop it?
The president. And the voters who vote for him or her.
The same thing that stops it in England, in France, in Germany, in Japan, in Switzerland, in Italy, in Canada . . .
Indeed, it was a blood bath.
But had the students been armed and firing, it would have 40 dead or 400 . . .
Didn’t our wonderful President Nixon order the action at Kent State?
What’s to stop a future President from doing the same or worse?
What stopped it in Germany in the 1930’s?
The student radicals did burn down the ROTC building.
It’s not like they didn’t expect any kind of repercussions . . . They were instigating a conflict.
They burned down a building so you kill them for that?
Guess the LAPD did the right thing with Rodney King too.
And the LAPD should have killed all the rioters who burned LA after the King verdict.
And how in a civil society would we have educated college kids instigate a conflict?
Nothing stopped it in Germany in the 1930’s.
Because their civil society was a near failure. High unemployment, rampant inflation, no effective government, massive punitive debts laid on by the Allies after WWI.
A bunch of people with guns weren’t going to stop the Nazi movement. Hell, a bunch of people with guns WERE the Nazi movement.
See the Storm Troopers, Hitler’s macho amateur army. Of course, he had to destroy them once he got control of the real army. But these useful idiots played their part . . .
I see Capn running now, getting fainter by the moment…. . . .
No, Max, of course they shouldn’t have been killed for burning down a building.
They should have been arrested and tried.
I’m a liberal, remember? I was anti-war then, like they were. I’m anti-war now.
But having guns to “defend themselves” would have made the situation much worse.
Only the Nazi’s were ALLOWED to have guns.
Ok, so the Kent State students shouldn’t have been killed.
What’s to stop that from happenin again?
Your belief in guns = freedom is quasi-religious. It’s not based on empiricism, it’s based on faith.
It’s like your belief in the “free market.”
Max–
Study history.
There was a long period after WWI in which the Nazis were but one of many political parties battling for dominance.
Their characteristic was the violent repression of those who disagreed with them.
They never once, contrary to popular belief, won a national majority before they took power — they were never elected to power.
Gotta go for now.
So how did the Nazi’s get their power if they were never elected to it?
BTW, taking a BLT break. Gotta enjoy the T while I can get it!
I’m back….didn’t get shot today, thank God.Hank, what proof do you have the out of 5,000 kids that die each year, all but 300 are dopers and gang bangers? What about kids who commit suicide..I’ve known a few of those. What about kids that are murdered by their parents, seems the news is a little too full of that nowadays, too.
I think you and other gun “enthusiasts” tend to REALLY downplay the negative effects of having such easy acess to guns in our society.As far as saying if we ban guns, then we should ban swimming pools, cars, and other things that kill people routinely, let me say this: what is the purpose of a swimming pool, a car, or a book of matches? Now, what is the purpose of a gun? What else can you do with it besides destroy or kill something or someone?We need cars for transportation and we make them as safe as possible for people to drive..how would we be inconvenienced if we limited our access to guns? Would it be so harmful if we made harder to own one than it is? Why should it be easier to get a gun than it is to get a phone or a driver’s license? I swear, it as though is some sort of sacred thing to some of you, like a freakin’ religion or something…I just don’t get it.
Let’s compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
Sorry for the typo’s…it’s been a long day.
I don’t know of a black market dealing in swimming pools is a good example for starters.Limit law abiding citizens access and only the criminals shall have them.
That’s an old tired argument, also. Maybe we should up the penalties for criminals who are found with guns, slapping them on the hand hasn’t been very effective. In countries that have strict gun control, the criminals aren’t running around heavily armed, terrorizing the law abiding citizens. Saying that “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” is so stupid. Then why have any laws at all? Afterall, because people just break them.
National Guard troops wouldn’t fear a swimming pool much.
BTW, the BLT was HEAVEN!
Capn, good discussion. Enjoyed it, though I don’t think we reached any conclusion to agree or disagree, but that’s ok. Maybe another day.
NEWARK, N.J. – In a city where gun violence has become an all too common part of daily life, these shootings were enough to chill even the most hardened residents: Four young friends shot execution-style in a schoolyard just days before they were to head to college.
Three were killed after being forced to kneel against a wall and then shot in the head at close range Saturday night, police said. A girl was found slumped near some bleachers 30 feet away, a gunshot wound to the head but still alive.
The four Newark residents were to attend Delaware State University this fall. No arrests had been made by Monday and authorities had not identified suspects.
The shootings ratcheted up anger in New Jersey’s largest city, where the murder rate has risen 50 percent since 1998. The high number of killings have prompted billboards in the downtown area that scream, “HELP WANTED: Stop the Killings in Newark Now!”
“Anyone who has children in the city is in panic mode,” said Donna Jackson, president of Take Back Our Streets, a community-based organization. “It takes something like this for people to open up their eyes and understand that not every person killed in Newark is a drug dealer.”
‘Not a time to play politics’The killings bring Newark’s murder total for the year to 60, and put pressure on Mayor Cory A. Booker, who campaigned last year on a promise of reducing crime.
Jackson said Booker “doesn’t deserve another day, another second, while our children are at stake.”
Booker said Monday that it was “not a time to play politics and divide our city.” A $50,000 reward was being offered for information leading to the arrest of those involved, he said.
A month ago, Booker and Police Director Garry McCarthy announced that crime in the city had fallen by 20 percent in the first six months of 2007 compared to a year ago. Yet despite decreases in the number of rapes, aggravated assaults and robberies, the murders have continued.
Natasha Aeriel, 19, was listed in fair condition at Newark’s University Hospital. Police identified her slain companions as her brother, Terrance Aeriel, 18, Iofemi Hightower, 20, and Dashon Harvey, 20.
Authorities believe the shootings were a random robbery committed by several assailants and that some of the victims may have tried to resist their attackers. They were piecing together details of the attack from interviews with Natasha Aeriel.
Hightower and the Aeriels had been friends since elementary school and played in the marching band at West Side High School. Terrance Aeriel, known as T.J., took Hightower to the school prom in 2006, chauffeured by his sister.
‘She told me she loved me’At Delaware State they met Harvey, another musician, and struck up a friendship. Friends and family members said the four were not involved in drinking, drugs or gangs. They liked to congregate at the school, which sits in a middle-class neighborhood less than a mile from the campus of Seton Hall University, to hang out and listen to music.
Harvey’s father, James, said Monday the parents of the assailants were to blame.
“If you raised your kids better, this would not happen,” he said.
Hightower worked two jobs and recently enrolled at the school. One of her jobs was at Brighton Gardens, an assisted living center in nearby West Orange, where her mother also worked.
On the afternoon of the killings, she told her mother she planned to spend the night at Natasha Aeriel’s house near the Mount Vernon School.
“The last time I heard her voice was Saturday night,” Hightower said between sobs. “She called me from work to let me know Natasha was going to pick her up and she was going to spend the night. She told me she loved me.”
The Aerials’ mother, Renee Tucker, said the last time she saw them was around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, when they told her they were going around the corner to get something to eat.
“They said they were going to come right back to the house,” Tucker said.
Mary, the cat is out of the bag in the U.S. Way too many guns in circulation already. If strict gun control were instituted here, law abiding citizens wouldn’t have the means to defend themselves against criminals, who would ignore gun control laws.
And please don’t say that’s the police’s job. The police, God bless them, can’t protect us. They just go out and arrest the guy that did the killing. But the victim is still dead.
Hey Steven,
No, I don’t think that they own Texas. . . yet!
I guess, that in the grand scheme of things I don’t really care a lot about Texas, or for California for that matter.
In my neighborhood the value of our houses is going up, partly because of the Mexican invasion. People are leaving California. the price of supporting the have nots in that state is becoming too big a burden on the haves.
When people retire out there now they can sell their houses for enough money to retire in Kansas in a lot nicer house with money in the bank. This trend will not last much longer, the people and jobs in California are leaving at a rate that soon there won’t be enough money to keep their over inflated housing market afloat.
Have you been to LA lately? What a mess! If the people of California and Texas don’t have enough moxie to keep their states American then as far as I’m concerned the Mexicans can have ‘em.
Seriously,
Hank
Have to recheck crime stats (or I could just make shit up like Mary does), but last I looked, only 50% of murders in the US are actually solved.
Criminals have a 50-50 chance of killing someone and getting away with the perfect crime.
Old tired argument?
Well it is reality. Your own story out of Newark proves it. Do you think any of those doing the killings would have been prevented by a ban on guns? Gun crimes become more and more frequent, why should we take them for law abiding citizens?How can you defend yourself against an armed assailiant? You can’t.People drive drunk. Should we stop selling cars? Or just alcohol?Or how about gas? Then the cars won’t work for the drunk drivers.Personally I think to own a gun without a safe or locks on them at all times in the home is extremely reckless.
Interesting Mary,
In many places it’s a lot harder to buy a gun than it is to get a driver’s license. Look at the cities where that is true: NYC, Washington, DC, Boston. How’s that working for them?
What’s amazing is the irrational arguments that anti-gun nuts come up with. Unable to argue on the merits they characterize anyone that believes in the right of citizens to keep and bare arms as red neck phallic symbol worshiping idiots that don’t care about anything but their guns.
Of course I used some ridiculous examples in my response to you. It was merely to point out the futility in trying to engage someone with an irrational viewpoint when it comes to guns. When you base much of your argument on the fact that there has been a personal tragety in your life because of careless gun ownership then There’s no talking to you.
If you want to hang your hat on that argument then we have to take a serious look at the many, many times that people with guns have saved their lives and property from harm because they were armed.
Do you want to go there? Because the facts support my right to carry in that regard too.
Hank
Mary’s post shows how the NJ police are incapable of stopping every crime.
Mary, please provide some more details on each of the gruesome crimes, so that we can determine how the victims were so helpless, they were unarmed and unable to defend themselves from attackers that were physically superior to the victims.
Saying that “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” is so stupid. Then why have any laws at all? Afterall, because people just break them. Posted by: Mary Caruso | August 06, 2007 at 08:54 PM
That’s right Mary, not everyone obeys the law. That’s one reason why law-abiding people need to be able to defend themselves – with guns. -echo- -echo- -echo-
“I swear, it as though is some sort of sacred thing to some of you, like a freakin’ religion or something…I just don’t get it.” – Mary Caruso
I’ve avoided this discussion; I’ve said before all I needed to say, and I’ve been very busy. But this simply needed to be said.
It’s called the U.S. Constitution, Mary.
Arms are a check on the power of the state, an equalizer for the weak, a deterrent for those who would prey on others.
It is the difference between being a citizen and a subject. It is the recognition that I as an individual am worthy of the trust my society places in me to be a citizen, part of the body politic, a member of an orderly and responsible society.
The Founders understood that well. To a man, even when they differed, the Founders were united in believing that a free people are entitled to the means to defend themselves. The same brilliance which brought us the 1st amendment, the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, the 6th, and the rest brought us the 2nd amendment. And the right protected there belongs to “the people,” not to government to dispense or restrict as it sees fit.
Like any right, it is not absolute; and one may lose that right (after due process, of course). While we may disagree on the boundaries of that right, it’s fundamental core is not subject to debate. Read Parker v. DC.
Further, as a practical matter, your position is irrelevent, Mary. Even if you desired to ban guns, it’s not possible. You’d simply create an enormous black market and make criminals out of millions who are often this society’s most stalwart citizens and defenders. And worse, you’d make no difference to the criminal; he’ll not obey the law anyway. In other words, your proposal has enormous cost with little if any gain, other than to make some “feel” better. The real shame is that “gun control” is a sham substitute for real crime control, leaving the politicians the ability to crow that they’ve “accomplished” something, when in fact there is NO evidence that any gun control measures adopted in this nation have ever worked. And we would do to remember why gun control was originally passed: to keep arms out of the hands of those deemed “undesirable;” primarily African-Americans.
The U.S. Constitution, Mary. In a sense, it is sacred; if one part is so easily disposable, it all is at risk. But no part of the Bill of Rights is negotiable. And this one, ultimately, is the only guarantor of the others.
YES GMC70! AMEN!
The fight for freedom is never won. It continues every day, for there are always those who would take it from us, to benefit themselves.
“In Vietnam , Kennedy and other policymakers believed in the “domino theory”: If South Vietnam fell, other U.S. allies in the region— Thailand , Malaysia , Singapore , the Philippines , Indonesia — also would fall to the communists.”
“In Iraq , Bush and the neoconservative policymakers in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had a democracy theory: Implanting democracy in Iraq would be easy, and from there it would spread to Syria , Egypt , Saudi Arabia and beyond. The fact that the most democratic nation in the region, by most standards, is Iran and that Islamists dominate some of the region’s most popular political parties, including Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon , seems not to have made much of an impression.
One of the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq , however, is the same: Some wars can’t be won by the U.S. military alone. They can be won only by local populations.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070806/wl_mcclatchy/20070806bcusiraqgeneral_attn_national_oped_editors_ytop
According to the FBI, 64% murder crimes are solved.
A little higher than 50%, but not much.
Criminals still have a 1 in 3 chance of getting away with murder.
Law enforcement can never be perfect, but in the US, law enforcement has not been given nearly the attention or the resources needed to do it’s job.
Much more attention is given to simply passing laws.
The politicians think that passing more laws makes people happy and will buy votes to get re-elected. When in fact, passing laws that cannot be enforced – does nothing.
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct03/ucr102703.htm
GW not-
If the US forces in Vietnam had been called on – South Vietnam would not have fallen to the Communists.
(You want to see the impact of Communism, go to a former communist country and see for yourself. Been there, done that. Very sad picture of inhumanity.)
The politicians simply cut and run, abandoned the South Vietnamese people, and made the sacrifices made by the American troops who were there – all for nothing.
That’s what happens when you don’t finish the job.
And 2 million death in Cambodia, followed the fall of South Vietnam.
Could the US have stopped that had we stayed?
We’ll never know for sure now.
the real reason why the neo-con/Zionists who crafted the US war policy completely ignored the months of careful planning by miltary commanders – actually had several of them removed who raised objections to the woefully low number of troops they were sending to secure Iraq & Afghanistan – this was by design – not to win these wars but to sustain them …
“not to win these wars but to sustain them …”
=====================
According to those who say we are going to be in the Middle East for a LONG time, this would appear to be true!!
Our Government needs a complete housecleaning.
GMC,
I agree with most of your 9:35pm post, except the notion that the 2nd Amendment acts as the guarantor of all the others.
If it was the availability of guns that determined the level of freedom in nations, the Third World would be crawling with democratic republics.
On the other hand, the most free among nations are those with the greatest degree of freedom of expression and religion. You can only control a person’s body with a gun – you can _never_ control a mind with one.
Our 1st Amendment, and our willingness to uphold it even when we disagree with the speaker, is one of the greatest achievements in all of human history. It’s become an example to all societies that value freedom, and nations that adopt similar principles are those that are the most successful.
Our Government needs a complete housecleaning.
Posted by: Ed Friedemann | August 06, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Here’s a broom Ed, get started. :)
“The fight for freedom is never won. It continues every day, for there are always those who would take it from us, to benefit themselves.”
I see your 2nd Amendment and raise you habeas corpus…
I’ve alread said I believe the 2nd Amendment is valid, would you folks who are defending it also be as willing to defend habeas corpus?
That, too, is guaranteed in the Constitution. But not as an ammendment, as an actual article of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was written into the law AFTER habeas corpus.
But none of you even mentions it. One of he entire post upstairs is defending gun ownership as a sacred right granted by the constitution, with little or no knowlege of the constitution
Apparently you consider the amendments sacred, but not the constitution they were written to protect.
Like I said, I’m not arguing with your right to have guns. But, this will be hard for some of you to understand, but your right to bear arms is meant so you can protect your right to habeas corpus.
You see, Habeas corpus is actually in the articles of the constitution, and your right to own a weapon was added (an amendment) to give you lethal power to protect those legal rights.
But no one seems to regard the fact that one of the actual articles of the constitution has been forsaken, and considering that is one of the main reasons you have your guns, at least according to the constitution, it seems to me you are protecting your guns more than the constitution that they were intended to protect.
You got it all backwarrds, because I don;t care how much firepower you thing you have, you won’t keep a modern military from taking you away, if your habeas corpus no longer exists and they have any reason to haul you off. legal or not.
SO before you go protecting an amendment to the constitution, why not try defending the constitution that amendment was intended to protect?
Seriously, if the constitution is so sacred to yu (it is to me, too) then protect all of it, like the law was intended, not just the part that lets you own a gun.
Seriously, I wish this blog was as concerned about habeas corpus as they are about protecting their right to own a gun.
Passion for the constitution sure seems selective in this crowd of conservatives, their only passion seems to be the 2nd Amendment.
I got to looking back, and
the libs here seem to be the ones who want to protect the whole constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment.
Here’s a good one… do you think any American who is a member of The Nation of Islam, with no criminal record, should be able to buy a gun?
I want someone to show me ONE time, just ONE that a gun PICKED ITSELF off a table, out of a drawer, from under a car seat or any where else it was lying and shot someone.
Guns do not shoot people, people shoot people. Now I know a lot of you are all for the extermination of people (we’ve already killed several generations). After all without people the earth can return to it’s pristine glory and that’s all we really want, right. Gives a new meaning to the idea, if the earth is ecologically perfect and no ones there to see it , what does it matter?
Following implementation of the British government’s plan to dish out plenty of the ineffective Plan B abortifacient pills to promiscuous teenage girls, an epidemic of teen abortions is sweeping the country. 18,619 British girls under 18 contracted the killing of their children last year. One girl under 18 committed 6 abortions. Abortions increased markedly amongst adult women, too.Predictably, Britain’s strategy of stemming the increase in abortions by promoting easy access to contraceptives and abortifacients has failed completely.
Here’s a good question, for all the Constitutional experts we seem to have here.
In the “rule of Law,” founded by our Constitution, is it habeas corpus, or your right to bear arms, that protects you from illegal imprisonment?
Get it? We are anation of laws, not royal rulers. That is why we HAVE a Constitution instead of a King or a dictator, so there are actually laws, not guns, protecting our rights.
Your right to bear arms is meant to protect your right to habeas corpus, which IS the Rule of Law.
What you all don’t seem to understand is, The Constitution wasn’t written to protect your right to bear arms, nearly as much as your right to bear arms was meant to protect the Constitution.
Your defense itself has become your priority, rather than the rights you want to defend.
Well, sure, Sean, guns don’t jump up and shoot people.
But since guns are after all made to KILL THINGS, in fact they have no other purpose except for that, it’s a lot easier to do major damage with a gun than just about anything else one might have handy.
Last time I checked, no one was killed execution-style with a rake. And that Korean kid that went ape at Virginia Tech? It wouldn’t have been 16 dead if he had been wielding a tire iron.
Considering how easy it is to drop a gun and have it discharge, to accidentally leave a gun loaded when you think it’s unloaded (especially with a clip that leaves one in the chamber), and all kinds of other easy-to-make mistakes, it’s a wonder more people aren’t killed by guns in this country.
I read in the paper about a hunter who threw his shotgun in the bed of his truck and his hyperactive DOG accidentally triggered the thing. Shot him dead.
Saying that guns don’t kill people is like saying that “nerve gas doesn’t kill people, it’s just people that use nerve gas that kill people.”
Yeah, that’s the problem, isn’t it.
“It’s called the U.S. Constitution, Mary.
“Arms are a check on the power of the state, an equalizer for the weak, a deterrent for those who would prey on others.
“It is the difference between being a citizen and a subject. It is the recognition that I as an individual am worthy of the trust my society places in me to be a citizen, part of the body politic, a member of an orderly and responsible society.”
Sorry GMC, it is called deluded nonsense. NRA pay you much to post this kind of crap?
Also, guns are one of the few products that have NO SAFETY STANDARDS.
You electric vacuum cleaner has more oversight on its manufacture than a pistol or a rifle.
And why is that?
The 2nd amendment literalists who see any restriction on guns as a violation of the Constitution . . .
Exactly, Steven.
“Because I carry a gun, I am a MAN!”
I don’t think so . . .
Good point, JEP. Gun ownership was to protect the rights of the Constitution, not the other way around.
I’ll have to remember that one.
Solid.
As for the claymores, littlejohn, if you ever read this, when the English invaded Scotland under Edward Longshanks, they confiscated all the Scottish weapons, particuarly our Claymores, those might two-handed swords like Rob Roy used to slice that effete little Royal bastard in half in the movie.
Which is why we fought with kabers and stones.
When my ancestors who founded this nation settled here, they were mostly Scottish, (one of them was even exiled to America by the English,) and they remembered that Claymore thing when they started writing the Constitution.
THAT was the foundation of the 2nd Amendment.
Arms had evolved from Claymores to black powder muskets by then, and thus the right to own a gun was then inherent in the right to keep and bear arms, by the time they wrote the Constitution.
That is the essence of the 2nd Amendment.
And I repeat, I have always respected that right,
But, as I have tried to relate here, if you don’t protect the actual Articles of the Constitution that amendment was written for, then you have already given up much more basic rights than owning a gun.
I knew some old (long dead) former military, hig ranking NRA guys, from my early guide service days, They weren’t very happy with their organization at the time, because it was being hijacked by the gun manufacturers from the sportsmen who had relly built it up and made it into a very respectable, august body of devoted sporting enthusiasts, hunters all.
That split in the NRA has morphed into one of the most powerful, pernicious corporate lobbies in Washington, and it has spent more money defending the rights of gun manufacturers than gun owners.
If the NRA was once again run by sporttsmen and not the gun lobby, I’d join in a heartbeat.
But joining them now would be sheer hypocrisy, because they represent everything I distrust in corporate influence.
The NRA is npo longer a gunowner’s club, protecting gun rights and hunting rights, it is a gun manufacturing puppet, protecting their profits.
And isn’t it interesting, a 5 year old boy accidentally shot by police in Oklahoma while they were trying to shoot a snake, died from that stray bullet…and the grandfather wants the officers arrested for murder.
Tragic accidents happen. Even in the most experienced hands. I wonder if that grandfather is a NRA member.
“Your electric vacuum cleaner has more oversight on its manufacture than a pistol or a rifle.
And why is that?
The 2nd amendment literalists who see any restriction on guns as a violation of the Constitution . . .”
I don’t agree totally, …that is the other side of the coin I just tossed out about the Constitution.Actually, you can’t blame our resident gun owners for being duped.
Those folks you mention above are just misguided by the gun manufacturing lobby, most “2nd Amendment literalists” are really patriots at heart, they just don’t know they are being played by the gunmakers.
Iowa has some interesting gun laws, mostly to protect farm animals and farmers from high-powered rifles.
Maybe it has changed, but when I was growing up, you could only hunt deer in Iowa with a shotgun.
And I always thought a Browning auto-5 was about as much firepower as anyone could ever need.
Why do you guys think they outlawed the BAR in the first place?
Maybe the nation realized that personal firepower had advanced beyond the original constitutional expectations?
Like I said, if you can’t defend your home with an Auto 5, then what gun do you need?
JEP,
We’ve had some rather long debates about habeas corpus, usually whenever the WEBlog editors post an Alberto Gonzales-related topic. I think it’s a little, hmmm, “unfair” isn’t the right word but I’ll use it, to judge the 2nd Amendment argument v. habeas corpus after only having been posting here for a handful of days.
“The Constitution wasn’t written to protect your right to bear arms, nearly as much as your right to bear arms was meant to protect the Constitution.” – JEP
Exactly. Now you have to mean it.
Pmom,
That tragic act of negligence in Oklahoma has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment rights. Even if private ownership of guns was 100% banned, and 100% enforced, that child would still be dead.
And I hope that cop goes to jail for a long, long time.
Sounded a little like a cop out of control, trying to shoot a snake out of a tree… hope he wasnt hoisting a few at the local saloon before that happened…
“The NRA is npo longer a gunowner’s club, protecting gun rights and hunting rights, it is a gun manufacturing puppet, protecting their profits.” – JEP
You’ve mastered the appropriate talking points, I’ll give you that. Recite the right buzzwords; keep saying it long enough and it . . . well, no, it still won’t be true.
The 2nd Am. isn’t about hunting, or “sporting” firearms. It never was. Certainly nothing wrong with sporting arms, and for most people, that is why they own firearms. But that is not the focus of the 2nd Am. You know that, of course, you just ignore it.
“Your electric vacuum cleaner has more oversight on its manufacture than a pistol or a rifle.”
B***S***. Wanna back that up with any evidence? In fact, modern firearms are VERY safe; they do exactly what they are designed to do, and do it with outstanding reliability and longevity. Absent a handling error or unsafe practice on the part of the owner, it is quite impossible for a modern firearm to “go off” by itself.
Further, a quality firearm bought today can be expected to be handed down to my sons, and their sons. It is not uncommon at all for firearms 50, 60, even 100 years old to function perfectly; I have my grandfather’s guns, and they shoot perfectly. They will in turn go to my sons.
Try that with your electric vacuum cleaner.
Here’s a good one… do you think any American who is a member of The Nation of Islam, with no criminal record, should be able to buy a gun?
Posted by: JEP | August 06, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Yes.
As for the claymores, littlejohn, if you ever read this, when the English invaded Scotland under Edward Longshanks, they confiscated all the Scottish weapons, particuarly our Claymores, those might two-handed swords like Rob Roy used to slice that effete little Royal bastard in half in the movie.
Jep-Thanks for the clarification
“Your right to bear arms is meant to protect your right to habeas corpus, which IS the Rule of Law.
What you all don’t seem to understand is, The Constitution wasn’t written to protect your right to bear arms, nearly as much as your right to bear arms was meant to protect the Constitution.”
Exactly. Which is why you can not diminish the one (2nd amendment) without diminishing the other (the COnstitution)
“I agree with most of your 9:35pm post, except the notion that the 2nd Amendment acts as the guarantor of all the others.
If it was the availability of guns that determined the level of freedom in nations, the Third World would be crawling with democratic republics.”
Tom – I don’t disagree with you there. This post series of posts is about the 2nd amendment, true enough, but that heritage is only part of a nation’s cultural history and traditions. It is part and parcel of our common law traditions and republican ideals (small R). In isolation, in a society without those traditions and norms, yes, firearms by themselves are of little value. In those nations, of course, the greatest violators of human rights, the greatest murderers, are often their own governments, governments without any checks at all.
At the same time, however, I’m certain you are not naive enough to rely for your freedoms entirely on the good intentions of the State. 100 million + armed citizens are a powerful deterrent, I don’t care how good your army is. It’s always amazed me that liberals, who (rightly) spend so much focus on the rights of individuals, so often surrender the ultimate deterrant to defend those rights: an armed populace.
Hey JEP,
Do you ever get involved or go to the McPherson Highland games? I’ve thought of maybe going up there and doing a herding demo if they still have them.
Hank
“I’m certain you are not naive enough to rely for your freedoms entirely on the good intentions of the State”
Heh. No!
Check out http://www.pinkpistols.org
“I’m certain you are not naive enough to rely for your freedoms entirely on the good intentions of the State”
Heh. No!
Check out http://www.pinkpistols.org
Posted by: Tom | August 07, 2007 at 09:54 AM
**********
A wise man, indeed. Good for you.
Hank:
My wife and I have gone a couple of times, and are planning in going again this fall. They do herding demonstrations (I’ve got a border collie mix; perhaps she can learn a thing or two . . .)
This year the Master’s World Highland Athletics competition is at this festival. And there’ll be some very big men (not boys; master’s class is 40+) throwing telephone poles around.
Come on up; just bring your kilt!!
No, I don’t make it up…the statistics I quote are accurate. I don’t depend on the NRA and it’s propaganda to tell me what to believe. And the last thing I’ll beleive is that guns actually save lives, if that were true than America would have the lowest gun murder rate insead of the highest. You guys who will fight to the death to defend your right to carry weapons are the irrational ones, not me. I refuse to live in the world and be so damned paranoid. What a pathetic way to go through life.
Hey GM
This September at Wolfstock John Mannenbach and I will be doing herding instinct testing. We’ll have two round pens and I think we’ll charge $25. Procedes to the Humane Society.
Bring your mongrel out, we’ll see if his BC blood is working!
Hank
Hey Mary!
It ain’t paranoia if the bastards are really out to get you!
I had a buddy that was paranoid. Two days after he was cured the bastards got him!
Hank
Sweet, folks are still fussing with ‘trolls”. Cowards are still calling for banning and censorship and some hysterical gun grabbers have crawled out from under their rocks. Same old, same old, I guess. :)
81 people a day die from firearms in this country…how many died from the bridge collapse? Yet, the call goes out far and wide to inspect and repair all the bridges NOW!How many people die in car accidents? No one is opposed to making cars safer, putting kids in proper car seats, booster seats, and buckling their seat belts.How many people die from communicable disease? No one opposes vaccinations and preventative medicines.How many people die in fires? No one opposes fire safety standards in private homes or public buldings.Approximately 30,000 Americans die each year from firearms..and ANY attempt to regulate guns in anyway is considered a Nazi tactic, hell bent on taking away people’s “God given” rights.
What the hell is wrong with this picture? Where is the common sense? And I’m told that I’m irrational because I think guns shouldn’t be so accessable?
Dearest Mary,
First thing this thread you rail against ‘assault weapons’. Now the only difference between an ‘assault weapon’ and many other weapons are that they look scarier. Irrational. You made no mention of making guns safer nor did you make any recommendations for making them safer.
I’m all for making guns safer, in a rational way. I like the semi automatic weapons that are hammerless. Do you know why a Glock 19 or 17 is safer than a 1911? Do you know why a semi automatic with a de-cocker is safer than a 1911? Do you know what a de-cocker is?
Can you even have an intelligent discussion on hand gun safety?
I don’t know anyone that is a staunch second amendment advocate that isn’t concerned with gun safety. When I was stationed in Idaho I was a hunter safety instructor for several years. I’ve been a member of the NRA for as long as I remember and I’ve been a staunch supporter of their Eddie Eagle program.
My boy who is taunted by the panty wetting liberals on this BLOG as a gun nut is one of the most knowledgeable men I know when it comes to small arms. He has been a hunter safety instructor since he got out of the Marine Corps in 2001. He job description in the Marines is armorer. He repairs and maintains small arms. He is a marksmanship instructor in the Marine Corps.
There is not one liberal in ten that can actually debate intelligently on gun safety on this BLOG. I don’t know even one of the liberals on this BLOG that has even attempted to do half the things my boy or I have done to make hunting and other shooting sports safer.
Your arguments are uninformed and irrational.
Hank
Hank -
I’d argue that the 1911 is the safest of all, carried correctly; that is, cocked and locked, condition 1.
But that’s for another time . . .
GMC argues that gun safety standards are unnecessary:
Here’s what the Brady Campaign site says:
The gun industry manufactures and markets the only widely available consumer products designed to kill. Unfortunately, thanks to the power of the gun lobby, the gun industry also manufactures and markets the only widely available product for which there are no consumer product safety standards. In fact, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was created by Congress in 1972 to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products, guns were specifically exempted from the CPSC’s jurisdiction. The CPSC monitors safety standards for all manner of consumer goods – from clothing to toys to lawn mowers – but not guns.
Nor does this responsibility belong to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The ATF has jurisdiction over the commerce of guns, such as licensing of dealers, standards for purchasers, and regulating sales and transfers, but it does not and cannot set manufacturing safety standards for firearms.
As a result, there are more safety standards governing the manufacture of a toy gun or for a teddy bear than there are for a real gun. The only standards a gun manufacturer has to comply with are ones the manufacturer sets for itself. And unfortunately, there are far too many gun makers who don’t care if their products are poorly made, lack basic safety features, or pose an unreasonable risk to the public. The industry does not care because it doesn’t have to: there are no laws which require it to make sure its products are not unnecessarily dangerous.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=gunreform
As for the statement, “absent a handling error or unsafe practice on the part of the owner,” yes, that’s the whole crux of the issue.
Why are guns manufactured so that easily made “errors” can result in death?
For instance, Ford Pintos were manufactured with the gas tanks practically under the rear bumper. Everything was fine as long as you didn’t allow yourself to get rear ended.
That would be “user error” in gun parlance.
Let’s take safeties. Some guns you flip a lever. Others you push a button. Others you cock the hammer back. I’ve used expensive skeet-trap guns that had NO SAFETY AT ALL.
Standardizing this important feature would make guns safer.
As for the claim that guns are “made safe,” how to explain the notorious JAMMING of the M16 in combat in Vietnam? I heard vets say that the M16 killed more Americans than the VC.
“User error” again?
Good morning Captain!
I would argue that using the Brady Campaign as a source for anything concerning guns would be like asking the people on death row what they think of the justice system.
You quote:
“And unfortunately, there are far too many gun makers who don’t care if their products are poorly made, lack basic safety features, or pose an unreasonable risk to the public.”
Really? Do you believe this nonsense? People buy guns for many reasons, but even if they are looking for an economical solution to their fire arm needs they still want a gun that is well made.
Your quote is full of unprovable and hysterical crap. Name one manufacturer that they refer to. Name one gun that you can buy over the counter at any store in town that is poorly made or lacks “basic safety features”.
With all of the food recalls and toy recalls and automobile recalls lately I would sure feel a lot safer if there was a government agency harassing the gun manufacturers!
I actually considered you someone that could intelligently discuss firearms then you go and reference the Brady Campaign!
Hank
Hey GM,
I agree that the 1911 is very safe. It is my overall weapon of choice, probably because I’ve pretty much owned one my entire adult life.
However, there are advantages to having a semi auto sans hammer. Especially if you want to carry concealed. I also think that the Glocks are more dependable over the long run, therefor safer in situations that you really need a dependable gun.
Hank
Capn:
“Brady Campaign” Please. If the Brady bunch said the sun rose in the east, I’d double check myself.
The Brady bunch speaking with any authority about firearms is like a 3 year old trying to explain quantum physics – they just don’t know what in h*** they’re talking about. That is, when they’re not lieing through their teeth.
Yeesh.
Heck, Capn, I’ve drove cars. Some had the high beem switch on the floor; some on the column. Some have shifters on the floor, some on the column. Some have windshield wiper switches on the column stick, some on the dash, and – egad – some have no wiper delay at all?
Which one is unsafe?
Is there a distinction there that matters? Yeesh!
Heck, Capn, I’ve got a handgun with – gasp – NO SAFETY AT ALL! DAO, designed for carry. Works perfectly; over 1000 rounds through it without a single hiccup. I’ll even let you shoot it. And ya know what? Unless you do something stupid, it won’t jump up and shoot you by yourself.
If I thought the Brady bunch cared about safeties on guns, I’d give them more credence. They don’t; they care about banning them.
Yup.
I have the same opinion of anything from the NRA.
So, where’s that leave us?
http://www.handgunreview.com/make.asp?make=Phoenix%20Arms
Make: Phoenix Arms Model: hp22 Action: Single Action Caliber: .22
Rating: one star out of five
Review: This hand gun would do more damage if you throw it. On the 45th round the trigger exploded and shot past my face. Now i have a stainless steel paper weight. This is a dangerous gun. Buy at your own risk.
The next post describes SERIOUS DANGEROUS defects in THREE pistols (thanks to the guarantee the company kept sending him new ones). Here’s a snip:
This one worked for several hundred rounds and then the firing pin had a nasty problem of coming out the rear plate of the slide. I was afraid it might come flying back and possibly injure me so I sent it back to them for the third time. Another thing I want to mention was the secondary safety located on the slide had a problem with rotating downward into the safe position after each successful fire. It was very annoying, as it would be inadvertently put into the safe mode thus making it a single shot repeater instead of a semi-automatic pistol. When I get my gun back it will be the fourth (4th!) pistol from Phoenix Arms.
One of the cases that could be affected by this legislation, though this would ultimately be decided by a judge, is that of Brandon Maxfield, a 7-year-old from my State, Oakland, CA.
On April 6, 1994 , Brandon was shot in the chin by his babysitter. The shooting left him a quadriplegic and he will never be able to walk again.
The babysitter, a friend of the family, was simply trying to remove a bullet from the chamber of a weapon that was found in the house, a .38 caliber Saturday night special, when the gun accidentally fired.
Here is the key: The weapon was clearly designed in an inherently dangerous way. It can only be unloaded when the safety is in the off position and can therefore fire.
Now common sense might say when you want to unload a gun you would first put the safety on. It defies common sense, on the other hand, to design a firearm so it can only be unloaded in the firing position. After all, one might expect the gun to accidentally fire as someone like Brandon ’s babysitter struggles to unload it.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Releases/gunliabilstmnt.html
Capn
The NRA isn’t afraid to source the data they give.
Challenge- show me something that the NRA has put out that is false.
As to your comments on the M-16’s early problems in Vietnam…long story made very short- McNamara wanted the gun. Army arsenal(large entrenched bureaucracy) didnt want it. NcNamara demanded it. Arsenal sabotaged it. Sent the weapon out with NO cleaning kits, instructed soldiers it didnt need cleaning. They also spec’d the wrong powder to be used in the ammo. The Army arsenal is responsible for any deaths associated with the M-16 initial failures. That’s govt at it’s best right?
The case of Cincinnati v. Beretta is one example of a legitimate and successful case filed against the gun industry. In this case, officials from the city of Cincinnati , OH, contended that the gun industry’s reckless marketing and distribution of guns enabled them to wind up in the hands of criminals and children leading to murders, shootings, and suicides that imperil public safety. The city also argued that gun manufacturers were negligent in failing to design safer weapons and owed the city compensation for the cost of emergency responses to acts of gun violence.
The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed and ruled the issue deserved exploration at trial. The court found that under generally applicable principles of law, it is the duty of gun manufacturers to use reasonable care in their design and sales of guns, and they may be liable for damages arising from their negligent conduct and failure to equip their guns with practical safety features.
This is no different an analysis than would be used against the manufacturer of any product used by a consumer — whether a child’s crib, a toothbrush, a chainsaw, or an automobile.
From the same source . . .
In another case, Hurst v. Glock, the New Jersey Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of the plaintiff. This products liability case centers on an incident in which a teenage boy, Tyrone Hurst, was seriously injured when his friend picked up a gun she thought was unloaded and fired at Tyrone. The Hurst family argued that the shooting could have been prevented had the gun manufacturer included a safety feature known as a magazine disconnect safety.
Again, the Court agreed and found that the gun manufacturer could be liable for injuries caused by the failure to include a safety feature on the firearm. Wiped out.
In 1994, Griffin and Lyn Dix from Berkeley , CA , lost their youngest son Kenzo after he was accidentally shot to death at the age of 15 by his best friend, Michael. Michael was showing his father’s gun to Kenzo and, believing the gun to be unloaded, pointed it at his friend and fired. Michael did not realize there was a bullet hidden in the chamber of the gun.
Mildred Denise Muhammad filed three restraining orders against her husband, John Allen Muhammad, one of the convicted snipers. Those restraining orders should have prohibited John Allen Muhammad from owning a gun. However, nothing stopped him from obtaining the handgun he allegedly used to commit murder in Alabama, nor the Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle used in the sniper attacks, in all likelihood because the dealer that had the Bushmaster assault rifle was either negligent or willful in allowing it to fall into Muhammad’s hands.
The assault rifle used in the sniper attacks was one of 238 guns that have been reported missing from the Bull’s Eye Shooters Supply store in Tacoma , WA . We learned about this dealer’s dangerous inability to keep track of his guns not from the store itself but, rather, from audits performed by the ATF. The store had no record of purchase for the assault rifle used in the attacks and failed to report it stolen until after the ATF recovered the weapon from the snipers and traced it back to the store. Here is a store that has 238 guns that are missing and does not report them.
Even after this blatant display of negligent conduct, the rifles manufacturer announced that the gun store remained a ‘good customer’ and it would continue to sell guns to the store. The manufacturers showed clear disregard for the victims, their families, and public safety.
Capn
As for safety, the only one that counts is in the operators brain.
It’s well illustrated by a video that circulated the internet a couple years ago. Two uniformed cops had just captured a suspect. The larger, obviously more experienced officer had the suspect face down on the ground cuffing him. The second officer, obviously a rookie , was covering the action with a weapon. The weapon was a Berreta 92 variant. There is no “safer” handgun. Safety/decocker lever, long double action trigger pull, as “safe” as it gets. Said officer had the weapon at low ready position with finger on trigger(first mistake, should have had finger off trigger at this point). Officer experienced what is called “trigger creap”. Under pressure you don’t realize that you are slowly moving the trigger. Weapon discharges into the pavement a couple inches from perps shoulder bouncing into perps shoulder. Officer looks very sheepish, perp gets big cash payout from city.
ALL the safety features in the world cant compensate for lack of knowledge and procedures in handling.
This guy describes his Winchester Model 70 discharging in his house when he claims he did nothing more than flip the safety off.
“I know for a fact that my fingers were noware near the trigger. Where that latch is, it’s practically fissiklee impossibile to have yer finger on the trigger and have yer thumb flip that latch at the same time.”
http://board.jokeroo.com/archive/index.php/t-20511.html
It blew a silver dollar sized hole through his roof.
Yup.
It’s always comes down to “user error” for the NRA-types.
There are no bad guns. Only bad users of guns.
Nevermind if the gun’s design is completely counter-intuitive and inherently dangerous. It all boils down to “personal responsibility,” ignoring the obvious fact that with more guns than people in this country, not everyone who gets access to a gun is going to have the requisite training to handle it safely.
This is what the NRA is fighting to the death to prevent: lawsuits based on the following:
Design Flaw – Like most consumer products, a gun is considered defective if it does not work the way it was designed to work. This is a design flaw, which can result in a number of defects like the gun not firing, or a gun that fires when accidentally dropped. Gun manufacturers can be held responsible if a gun was used in the way an “ordinary consumer” would use it, but someone was injured as a result of a defect.
Defective Safety Features – A number of consumer safety groups have begun filing lawsuits that claim guns are defective if the manufacturers have not added reasonable and relatively cheap safety features to keep them from being used by people who should not have access to guns, like criminals and children. Not all these lawsuits have been successful because courts have held that consumers should realize how dangerous a gun is when they buy it.
Negligence in Distribution or Manufacturing – Gun manufacturers may be responsible for how they market and distribute guns under consumer safety laws. Negligence in distribution or manufacturing refers to a company’s failure to exercise reasonable caution when making of selling its product. With respect to guns, some courts have held gun manufacturers responsible for allowing guns to fall into the hands of certain people, like persons with a criminal history.
Capn
Guns are like airplanes when it comes to safe construction. If you make a product that does not work as designed you will quickly be out of business.
Guns do wear, they do break, accidents happen. But a manufacturer has nothing to gain and everything to lose by making junk, just as it is with airplanes.
So why do we have a special regulatory agency to oversee airplane manufacture, design, and practices and absolutely nothing for guns?
Capn
So you want to hold a manufacturer responsible for a criminal with a record from getting his hands on something that it is illegal for him to have?
Next you’ll want to sue car manufacturers for the actions of drunk drivers. How quaint.
Capn -
Your cites are simply unsafe handling of firearms. Let’s take a quiz!! Can you find the user stupidity here?
Capn related:
“Michael was showing his father’s gun to Kenzo and, believing the gun to be unloaded, POINTED IT AT HIS FRIEND AND FIRED. Michael did not realize there was a bullet hidden in the chamber of the gun.”
Well, first, bullets (actually, a cartridge) don’t “hide” in a chamber; it’s exactly where it’s supposed to be. Talk about misleading and loaded (pun intended) language. Worse – well DUH!!!! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER point a weapon at anything you don’t intend to kill. Period. EVER.
So who’s responsible here? Michael! The gun did exactly what it was designed to do.
There’s more. Capn writes:
“This products liability case centers on an incident in which a teenage boy, Tyrone Hurst, was seriously injured when his friend picked up a gun she thought was unloaded and fired at Tyrone.”
Need I say more?? Who’s resonsible here? The idiot pointing the gun!!
As to the our favorite redneck and his “defective” Winchester Model 70: Bullsh**. I HAVE a model 70. It’s DESIGNED to be able to flip the safety off with your finger on the trigger. It’s a hunting rifle; it’s that way so that a hunter can wait until the last minute, with quarry in his sights, to flip off the safety and fire. Frankly, many safeties are designed that way, for similar reasons; i.e. a thumb safety on a 1911.
Oh, and check out that link. This moron (yes, Capn exactly copied this idiot’s own spelling) is using the rifle to intimidate his grand daughter’s boyfriend. Studid act # 2. Any bet that beer is involved? Stupid act # 3.
You really had to dig to find that one, didn’t you, Capn?
Try again.
Do some manufacturer make crappy guns? Yep, I’d never own a Phoenix (or a Bryco, or a Jennings, or any of several cheap crappy guns). Solution: don’t buy their guns. Buy a quality firearm. When they fail, yes, they can be dangerous. I frankly have no problem with suits in those cases, under common product liability theories. That’s not what the NRA is fighting to stop, however, and you know it.
What Brady and Bloomberg seek to do is sue the manufacturers when a gun is used by a criminal; the equivalent of sueing GM if a car buyer causes a death by driving drunk. Or, to make it more personal, sueing YOU if the hammer you sell at a garage sale is used by the buyer to beat his wife. Who’s responsible there?
The problem, Capn, is that those who are pushing these suits (Bloomberg, Brady) aren’t in the least concerned with the manufacture of quality, well designed firearms. The Brady people are routinely incredibly ignorant of the firearms they rail about. No, their goal is to drive firearm manufacturers out of business. It’s an attempted end run on the 2nd amendment. And it’s by design.
Okay, GMC, I’ll grant you that Brady et al. may be using the laws as a oblique way of restricting gun ownership and inflicting pain on gun manufacturers.
I don’t support that.
But I think we’re on the same page when you say: “I frankly have no problem with suits in those cases [of cheaply poorly designed guns], under common product liability theories. That’s not what the NRA is fighting to stop, however, and you know it.”
Wait a minute. I DON’T know it. From what I can see, the NRA is trying to limit any and all legal liability for gun manufacturers, even the ones that deserve it.
And that does bother me.
Also, would it be that hard to mandate that clip fed rifles made from now on will not fire without the clip? It’s logical to assume that not everyone who handles guns will have extensive training in handling them safely.
Secondly, the babysitter who shot the child was charged with manslaughter. Why weren’t the parents charged with having an effing LOADED gun lying around their house?
Because there are no laws against having an unattended and unlocked loaded gun in your house. Why?
The NRA.
Asprin comes in child-proof bottles but a homeowner can store a loaded gun anywhere he wants.
Not smart. Not consistent.
It’s entirely consistent.
Most guns now routinely come, at purchase, with trigger locks of some kind, much like the child-proof bottle top on the asprin. But it’s not a crime to put the asprin in any bottle you like. It’s also not a crime to store your firearm as you choose (though, depending your home and who’s in it, it may be mighty stupid, in both cases).
If mom leaves pills around the house in unsafe bottles, are the pill manufacturers responsible?
And basic safe handling (you don’t have to be a genius to know this, of course) says you don’t point the weapon, magazine or not. Some guns won’t fire without a magazine inserted, some will. Personal preference to me. Not a big issue.
Many states now require some sort of integral key operated trigger lock safety; a couple of my guns have them. I don’t have a problem with them, I just leave the safety off and I’m good to go (but I have no small children, just young men who are gun trained). But I know some otherwise reasonable folks who rail against such a design feature. I don’t know why; it does not interfere with the operation of the gun at unless its engaged, and that’s what it’s supposed to do.
Just always remember that those who seek to regulate firearms often aren’t interested in regulation, but elimination. Regulation is just cover, a subterfuge.
BTW – one of my pet peeves:
It’s not a clip, it’s a magazine. A “clip” is a stripper clip, such as commonly seen on some military weapons (SKS, for example). Just as what was in the chamber is not a “bullet,” but a “cartridge.” I guess I’m just picky that way.
I seem to recall Capn writing about some of his own gun accidents in the past. Never learned safe gun handling I guess, and now wants Big Brother government to take care of everybody.
GMC, I don’t beleive you commented on the Glock case, where Glock apparently lost the case because the gun is designed to fire even without a magazine.
That’s one ’safety’ feature I do NOT want. If using your gun in self-defense and you must reload and change magazines, I WANT to be able to fire the last round that is still in the chamber if I need to, and have not had sufficient time to snap the loaded clip into the gun.
Can’t beleive Glock lost that case. Disabling a gun that doesn’t have a magazine is NOT a safety feature for those who know how to handle a gun. It is a legal liability feature only.
The newer Glocks do have a loaded chamber indicator, to tell you when a round is still in the chamber. I don’t trust it though. Nothing compares to pulling back the slide and eye balling the chamber, while the gun is pointed in a safe direction, of course. Glocks still fire without a magazine though, and that’s a good thing.
I’ll not comment on Capn’s handling skills; I’m sure he does just fine. I may disagree with Capn, a lot, but he’s not a fool. And I still looking forward to his joining us for the lib/con shootoff. You’d be welcome too, Max.
(Listening, Hank??!!)
I can understand your opinion on the Glock thing, and I can see it both ways. I’ve known officers who want to be able to drop the mag and disable the weapon. Don’t know the details, the jury make-up, etc. in that case. In some cities, just the mention of the word gun gets jurors all jittery, and even responsible gun practices get toasted.
And I’m with you on checking the chamber; that’s one of the practices drilled into my boys: ALWAYS personally check the chamber, even if you’ve seen someone else unload and clear the weapon right in front of you. Check it yourself, every time.
Thanks GMC. If y’all ever put together I shootout, it would be fun to attend. Busy schedule for all though.
Yea, I’m listening. Overwhelmed lately at work. Much to busy to goof off on the BLOG.
September is filling up. I’m committed every weekend so far. I’ve taken on another dog to train for the Nationals the 1st of October in Pennsylvania and I’m having way too much fun!
The boy brought his new HK 2000SK by work today ad I’m now officially jealous.
I agree about the good Captain, of course I disagree with him on regular basis but he doesn’t make it easy, he brings his research. I’m just afraid he’ll come to the shootout and whip me! I’ll have to find a new BLOG to annoy.
Hank
Years ago I wanted an H&K USP 45, then saw the price, and held one. Didn’t like the narly grip.
How’s the HK2000 better than the Glock 23? Only 9 rounds vs 13 and twice the price?
Ok, maybe more accurate. But for a defense gun up to 25 yards, is there a big difference?
“Happiness is a warm gun..”
I don’t care to know anything about guns…I just know the facts about the damage the ones who possess them cause. If that makes me ignorant and unable to have a “rational” discussion about guns…then so be it.
My identity and ego certainly aren’t tied to any inanimate phalic symbol.
Interesting how no one even responds to the facts or statistics I bring up, except to tell me I’m making it all up…I guess it’s because you really don’t have an argument, gentle Sir.”There are none so blind as he who will not see”
Mary, we all know about your irrational uneducated views about guns. Calling them phalic symbols says more about you then I care to know.
This is an Open Thread and I asked a very simple question in reply to Hank.
If you don’t want to know the techncial details, don’t read this thread, unless you have some strange phalic attraction.
And you are the blind one because you cannot see the value of personal protection and you refuse to read the studies regarding the crimes prevented and lives saved from the defensive use of firearms.
You would rather put your life into the hands of the government, while I choose the self-reliant approach.
Have a nice evening.
Dear Mary,
Give me your favorite fact and I’ll take the time to honestly respond.
Hank
Hey Max,
The HK 2000 is the boy’s choice, I personally like the Glock 23 a little better.
First, it fits my hand a little better (I can get my little finger on the grip) and just ‘feels’ better.
The Glock is also sans hammer, which I like a little better for concealed carry.
The Glock is a little bigger than the HK, its barrel is a little longer which is good and bad.
Both of them only come .40 which is a little small for me.
I am leaning toward a Sig Sauer P220 SAS, if I can find one!
http://www.sigarms.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=6&productid=145
It’s comparable in weight, (2lbs loaded) you can get a 10 round magazine, (I’d probably stick with an 8 round for concealed carry) it has been smoothed up a little for concealed carry, it comes in .45ACP (my cartridge of choice) and most important of all; it’s a pretty nice looking phallic symbol!
I guess I’m jealous of the boy merely because he has a new gun!
Hank
So Hank, tell me about that H & K. Comparable to Glock 23 or 27 or no comparison?
“I seem to recall Capn writing about some of his own gun accidents in the past. Never learned safe gun handling I guess, and now wants Big Brother government to take care of everybody.”
Really, Max?
What name were you posting under then?
Because that was a long time ago that I mentioned it, and I don’t remember you.
Anyway, I’ve handled guns all my life and nobody–nobody but YOU so far–has ever complained about me being unsafe before.
Lastly, I don’t want Big Brother to take care of everybody, whatever that means. But I do think some common sense laws would make gun ownership a lot safer.
For instance, a law requiring guns to be stored UNLOADED or locked when unattended would be a damn good idea.
The last trap shooting range I went to, they wouldn’t let me put more than ONE SHELL in my gun at a time. And that was at a firing range.
Since I was using a pump 12 gauge at the time, it was kind of a hassle and got me totally out of rhythm.
We’ve got laws requiring us to use seat belts in our cars. Having a law requiring gun owners to show care about storing unattended guns would be something we all could live with.
Sorry Hank, saw we posted about the same time!
Can’t go wrong with a Sig.
Nice thing about going to the gun range is you meet some great people (never felt safer then being around a bunch of well armed friends!), and always people want to show off theirs (and you yours) and so you get to shoot many different guns that way.
40 vs 45 though, ballistics show they are very close, but the concealability edge must go to the 40. My Glock 23 carriers nicely, though in summer months especially, I’d like to have the slightly smaller companion Glock 27 for even easier concealability.
Didn’t like the big Glock 21 (45 acp), but have seen the Glock 21SF (small frame) and almost bought it. Went back to the dealer the next day and it was gone!
Now I’m told by a few dealers how hard to find they are! Oh well, would have been in trouble at home, bringing another gun home you know.
Oh well.
Clinton wins in 2008? If so, will be a rush on sales then for sure.
Well Capn, I wasn’t around this blog then, but I wanted to see what you really thought about gun issues, since you don’t equate the 2nd Amendment to Freedom at all. Found this link:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/12/respect_busines.html#comment-27121021
Not much to brag about, irresponsible handling of firearms, but since you want to revisit the details of history…
And yes your posts are clear that you want Big Brother to make some sort of supersafe gun. Not gonna happen, unless you sacrifice usability – and that costs time – which you may not have when you need the gun the most.
Many states already have gun laws as you mentioned, keeping locks on guns or keeping loaded guns inaccessible to kids (say in a finger touch Gun Vault or Gun Safe). That’s legislating common sense, though it’s not enforceable until it’s too late.
As for your trap range, one shell at a time seems ridiculous. I know trap/skeet ranges I’ve been to allow 2 shells for doubles.
Don’t know how else you’d shoot a double at either trap or skeet if you have to try to reload a 2nd shell. You sure about those rules?
Capn you disappear on me again?
That’s 2 times this week you ran away from me!
No problem.
I need to hit the sack and go to work in the AM – again.
Max–
Take a breath. I was 12 years old when we accidentally fired the rifle in my parents’ basement.
Actually, it was my brother who pulled the trigger, and he was 10 at the time.
In a sense, it was the adequate (not great perhaps) training we had that kept that incident from becoming a tragedy. We knew not to point guns at people, ever, at any time, period.
Anyway, I can’t believe that you have as much experience with guns as you act like you have, or you’d know how inherently dangerous they are.
As for the trap range, I just listened to what they told me. Fortunately, I do most of my shooting on my brother-in-law’s farm and we only have one rule: hit the target.
Next–if some states have these laws, why don’t all the states have them? And what states do have them?
Lastly–why do you insist on telling me what my position is? I don’t want a “super safe” gun that doesn’t exist. I just want the same kind of consumer protections for gun buyers that we have for every other product.
Also, Max, what kind of a search engine plucked that post out from two years ago?
Google always seems pretty hit or miss when I try to find old posts on this WEBlog.
I get tired of arguing with those who want more laws, want more regulations, as if you can legislate a solution to every problem in life. Laws are only effective if you can enforce them, and we already have a problem enforcing the thousands of existing laws.
What additional laws and regulations do you want? I’ve previously stated my objection to disabling the firing mechanism when the magazine is dropped, and reasons why that is not a good idea. Can you not sue a gun manufacturer for defects in materials or workmanship now?
Search engine? Google.
“Your “right” wasn’t worth my nephews life.Posted by: Mary Caruso | August 06, 2007 at 11:01 AM ”
It is sad and unfortunate that you Mary lost her nephew. I would be heartbroken if I lost one of mine.
However, Mary’s comment really bothers me.
We cannot sacrifice our freedoms for the sake of safety. Millions of American men and women have died for our Constitutional rights, both in and out of military combat.
Freely chosing to give up any of our rights for any reason whether safety, security, or other, is like pissing on the graves of those that created the Constitution and those that have fought to protect it.
Capn, you referring to consumer protection like this:
http://www.kansas.com/news/nation_world/story/142801.html
FDA food-import screening has holes
If the system cannot stop known risks, Nielsen said, how can it protect against hidden dangers, such as the ingredients from China that made toothpaste potentially poisonous and killed dozens of pets earlier this year?
I don’t see how restricting access to firearms, instituting safety laws, and holding gun owners, manufacturers, dealers, and criminals more accountable has anything to do with Americans “losing” our freedom. I’ve lost my freedom by not being aboe to walk outside without fear of being shot. Apparantly you all agree with me on that one, seeing your need to carry weapons to “protect yourself”.
As far as preserving our Constitutional rights, it’s a joke right now anyway, the present administration consistantly violates the constituional rights of Americans at whim.
That’s it…I’m not playing with you guys anymore..I’m taking my ball and going home. Hank, you’re still my friend even if you refuse to see the light I’m trying to shed before you, gentle Sir.
“I’ve lost my freedom by not being aboe [sic] to walk outside without fear of being shot. Apparantly you all agree with me on that one, seeing your need to carry weapons to “protect yourself”.”
I agree, Mary. And I know you say you’re stepping away from this, but even you recognize that law enforcement, no matter how dedicated and responsive, cannot be everywhere all the time. Ultimately, I have to be responsible for me. That MAY include carrying a firearm, if that is right for me. It’s not right for all, and I don’t argue that everyone should carry. But my carrying (assuming for the sake of argument that I do so – I’ll not say either way) does not diminish your rights in the least.
So why do you apparantly fear the legal CCW holder and not the criminal, whom you acknowledge imfringes on your freedoms as you are not able to “walk outside without fear of being shot.” ?
“I’ve lost my freedom by not being aboe to walk outside without fear of being shot. Apparantly you all agree with me on that one, seeing your need to carry weapons to “protect yourself”.
Posted by: Mary Caruso | August 09, 2007 at 12:09 PM ”
For the record, I do not agree with you Mary. You still have every right to walk outside without being afraid of being shot. Millions of people do it every day; if you are not able to, it is your choice.
I do not feel afraid to walk outside without carrying a weapon, but I recognize that the Constitution allows others to do so if they choose.
By wanting to take way guns, you are taking that choice from individuals, thus limiting their freedoms. No one is limiting yours, you are choosing to yourself.
Max–
I didn’t say government oversight was perfect.
It’s just better than nothing, which is what we have now.
Carrying and owning a gun for “protection” is an illusion. The safest societies in the world–Japan, Singapore, the Bahamas are the countries which have a virtual ban on all guns not used for hunting.
Meanwhile, the most dangerous countries in the world are the ones in which guns are most freely available: Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
I’m not arguing we should ban guns, far from it. I’m just saying the idea that guns protect people from harm is not a logical conclusion to draw from the evidence.
Capn:
I think you’ll recognize that those societies you allege are the safest are 1) quite different from this one, culturally, and 2) often quite repressive. As are the other extremes.
We have the society we have. Wishing it were otherwise is a useless gesture; the “gun culture,” whether you believe that to be a good or bad thing, is here, and it will not go away. Americans have a deep and abiding suspicion of government as an institution; and that’s a good thing. The “gun culture” is part and parcel of that. The harder the left fights it, the more resistant that culture will become.
And the real shame is that many of those gun owners, on many other issues, could be allies with those who spend so much misguided time, effort, and political capital on attempting to disarm Americans.
And the real shame is that many of those gun owners, on many other issues, could be allies with those who spend so much misguided time, effort, and political capital on attempting to disarm Americans.
Posted by: GMC70 | August 09, 2007 at 01:49 PM
Nice dream GMC, but I don’t think either side will change its view. We’ll always have as many advocating more government control as we will those advocating less. Don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Anyway, I can’t believe that you have as much experience with guns as you act like you have, or you’d know how inherently dangerous they are.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 09, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Capn, can’t beleive you question MY expertise!
**I’ve been hunting and seen a guy hit a wounded squirrel with the butt of his shotgun, the gun discharged and SINGED THE HAIR ON THE SIDE OF THEIR HEAD.
Capn – assuming you were dumb enough to hit a squirrel with the but of a shotgun (and not skilled enough to kill the squirrel with the proper end), if you were practicing safe gun use, the safety would have been on safe, the finger would have been off the trigger, and there would not have been an accidental shot fired.
**I myself one time accidentally brushed the barrel of my shotgun up against an electric fence–the resulting shock caused me to involuntary drop the gun, which fortunately did not go off and shoot my buddy.
Good, maybe the safety was on safe, you did not have your finger on the trigger, and the drop test of the gun passed.
**My brother and I were “playing army” with my dad’s M-1 carbine one day. We thought the gun was unloaded because the clip was detached from the rifle. Unfortunately what we forgot was that there was still one in the chamber–KA BLAM! A shot lodged in the cedar panelling of our basement.
Duh, you don’t have the gun safety on safe(if it has one), you don’t keep your finger off the trigger, you don’t check the chamber for a round, and after 3 mistakes, THREE MISTAKES, the gun still fires as you “play with it”, and since you followed ONE rule – pointing the gun in a safe direction, no one was killed or injured.
How much product safety can a gun manufacturer build into a firearm, when stupid untrained people “play with guns” without being properly trained?
None of these incidents was the fault of the gun manufacturer Capn.
You and your companions were just being very stupid and negligent in your use of a firearm.
Similar accidents happen with negligent users of:
CarsNail gunsHammersStaplersetc….
You cannot legislate away stupidity, no matter how hard you try!
When I taught my kids how to shoot clay targets, one shell was loaded at a time.
Until I could trust them.
Capn, you think the Trap range you were at required YOU to just load one shell at a time had a reason for doing that?
Even when you were shooting doubles!
Ha Ha Ha Ha! Probably a good reason for that.
rgoqytvf ohwg hbofm uymnswqvp ubjo dbqjk khws