Steve Kazmierczak, who killed five at Northern Illinois University last week before killing himself, reportedly spent more than a year in a mental health facility for psychological problems during and after high school. He might also have been discharged from the military for psychological reasons. But he was able to buy several guns in the months prior to the shootings.
Are gun laws still too lax in identifying people with a history of mental illness?
In the wake of the Virginia Tech killings, Congress passed a law tightening mental health screening for guns. But the law only targets people who have been legally committed to a mental institution or program.
A new Illinois gun law that takes effect this summer will require medical personnel to report patients who exhibit “suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior.â€
Some kind of higher standard seems reasonable. Everyone has an interest in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
461 Comments
The NRA endorsed H.R. 2640, and this piece of crap, correctly called “The Veterans Disarmament Act”, effectively eliminates any soldier or police officer who was diagnosed with PTSD or sought treatment for “psychiatric reasons” from ever legally buying a gun. Thanks vets! We support you!
Gun Owners of America is the only real gun-rights advocates, screw the NRA.
Better get yours soon, cause these people aim to crack down on you. Police State, here we come!
This all sounds good on the surface. How such a plan would be implimented is key. You cannot simply restrict the rights of someone just because their doctor said so. A rigorious process would have to be created to stop crusaders and extortionists from abusing the reporting system.
Also, if they deem that someone can’t buy a gun will they raid that person’s home to find the weapons they already own? What about non-firearms? Will they seize all the other weapons or potential weapons as well?
There are a lot of questions on plans such as these. It’s a very dangerous path for government to go down.
Tougher laws? How many thousands are already on the books? Give me a break. You want to crack down on gun violence, then let law abiding citizens protect themselves. These people are shooting up colleges because they KNOW there are no guns on campus. Make it legal to carry, anywhere, anytime!!!
“How such a plan would be implimented is key.”
SO TRUE. As with anything the devil is in the details and the implementation.
Angel, thanks for the logic.
“How such a plan would be implemented is key”…sheesh.
I’m no “gun-nut”, but I am a self-preservation and self-sufficient nut. Someone shoots at me, I’m shooting back.
“A new Illinois gun law that takes effect this summer will require medical personnel to report patients who exhibit “suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior.”
HERE COMES BIG BROTHER!!!
Typical knee jerk response by liberals: Take away everyone’s rights and freedoms because of a few.
Few citizens apply for carry and conceal. Tackle the issue from that perspective. It would be very easy for a government to control the purchase of handguns by ALL Americans, if Kansas passed this requirement. Define crazy. Have it defined yet?
O.K., I will now CHANGE the reporting requirements to include a multitude of “craziness” criteria, to include anyone and everyone else.
Doctors should next report smokers, fat people, moderate drinkers, HIV positives, and homosexuals.
Wanna start with guns?
Where is the hue and cry that medical records should be kept confidential? So anyone who has ever had exhibited suicidal, threatening, or assaultive behavior is to be reported to the authorities? Sounds like a good deal of the population at one time or another in their lives. Oh. Maybe that’s the point.
I think an important question to ask here is if a HISTORY of mental illness should disqualify someone from owning a gun.
Everything I have read so far talks about this young mans past not present.
So, if you were ever in the care of a mental facility that would then disqualify you from owning a gun? Seems a bit much.
Are we going to nationalize everyones health records and then link them to a national database where they can be cross checked for mental illness before a gun can be bought? That seems a bit impractical.
I just wonder how on one day the Eagle editors are crying about the privacy of the medical records of women seeking abortions, yet today the Eagle doesn’t seem to care about the government intruding into medical records for the purchas of a gun?
Just the other day RD posted a link to a study which showed that these shootings are not done by stereotyped individuals. Not all of them have a history of mental problems. There is not any test to weed them out from purchasing a gun.
This will only be treating the symptom, most of the school shootings have been done by perfectly sane, and coherent people by psychiatry standards and don’t have a mental record from stopping them from purchasing a gun. I think we should treat the people that have problems, it seems like most of the shooters are very self centered, with too much pride and a lack of social skills, mix that we zero hope and someone who is easily impressionable and your sure to get a ticking time bomb. You have to start thinking though there might be something wrong with our society, when America has a list of school shootings twice as long as any civilized country. Maybe part of it, is the way the media almost glorifies the shooters by making them famous, this might spur some other hopless saps that have alienated themselves from soceity to go out in a blaze taking as many people with them, knowing darn well they will be on prime time news every day for a couple weeks. Maybe the media should handle school shootings differently, and paint the shooters in a different light, take the shock vaule out of it, because thats what the shooters are going for, maybe paint the shooters in such a light that even the most hardened criminal wouldn’t want to be remembered as one of those douche bags that shot up a school.
I went to the doctor once for a growth dead center between my shoulder blades on back. I couldn’t see it. I was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma. Cancer. Scary stuff. So I got a second opinion.
Turns out I had an infected mole.
But I’m sure physciatrist’s are much more certain in their field when someone can be defined as “too crazy to own a gun”.
“I just wonder how on one day the Eagle editors are crying about the privacy of the medical records of women seeking abortions, yet today the Eagle doesn’t seem to care about the government intruding into medical records for the purchas of a gun?”
Great point Nathan.
BTW, since you are a Marine, did you know that many people think YOU have to be crazy to be a Marine? No guns for you.
I think that everyone should be licensed to carry a gun. If you refuse to get licensed then you have to wear an armband that marks you as an easy target for the criminals. Wouldn’t the world be a different place today if the passengers had of been armed on 9-11. Not to mention the school shootings in the last 20 years. Oh wait that would give to much control to the common people. I really don’t understand why the ACLU and the NRA haven’t jumped on this. Oh wait the NRA because of the backlash that might happen and the ACLU because it might take away some criminals liberty. True if that was to happen there would be some killings that shouldn’t happen. But I think that would only be for awhile. You may think I’m a nut but I also think that drunk drivers should spend a year in jail for the first offense, five years for the second offense. And on the third taken out back of the courthouse and shot. Thats; only if they don’t kill someone on the first two offenses then its out back for them.
APPLAUSE!!!
Nice to see a little reasoned discourse.
Heckler, you must be a “troll”?
heh, no kidding, that shtuff gets old..
Mental Screening? My beehind!
There is a psychiatric / pharmaceutical plan to “suicide screen” every
child in the United States before they graduate from high school.
Evidence exists that shows massive pharmaceutical backing that will
result in even more overdrugging of kids with psychiatric drugs .
Can you take a moment to view this very short video? Click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY
And then sign and forward this petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html to your associates
and everyone you know? It already has almost 25,000 signatures.
Just the other day RD posted a link to a study which showed that these shootings are not done by stereotyped individuals. Not all of them have a history of mental problems. There is not any test to weed them out from purchasing a gun.
Yes, I did, and it shed new light on the subject. It didn’t make me “pro-gun”, but then I wasn’t “anti-gun” to begin with. I’ve mentioned here several times that I don’t like guns. That’s personal opinion. I don’t like seafood either (sorry to all you seafood lovers :) ), but that doesn’t mean I want to outlaw all seafood. I am concerned that the proliferation of guns and carriers of such could mean more guns in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them, but, as I stated before, I don’t have an answer. Guns aren’t something that are constantly on my mind, so only on here and an occasional discussion with friends or family, do “guns” come into my conversation or even into my mind.
Whether correct or not, I’ve always thought one would have to be somewhat insane to take the life of another person. So what IS the definition of insanity?
There should be a waiting period on the purchase of ALL guns.
Anyone who needs a gun RIGHT NOW clearly does not need a gun right now.
Here’s one pro-active step to prevent the enactment of a Liberal solution to this problem:
http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2008/02/19/news/wyoming/c7ccdb722a406c68872573f4000acf9d.txt
Bill to prohibit gun confiscation advances
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CHEYENNE (AP) — The Wyoming House of Representatives on Monday gave preliminary approval to a bill that would specify that the governor and other officials don’t have authority to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens in the event of natural disasters or terrorist attacks.
Rep. Allen Jaggi, R-Lyman, is the main bill sponsor. He said he was inspired to sponsor the bill by the confiscation of guns by New Orleans police in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Jaggi said he believes Wyoming needs the bill because the federal government is trying to register and license gun owners in the country. He says bills prohibiting gun confiscation already have passed in more than 20 other states.
J R
Posted February 19, 2008 at 9:26 am | Permalink
There should be a waiting period on the purchase of ALL guns.
Anyone who needs a gun RIGHT NOW clearly does not need a gun right now.
————————————————–
Wrong – LA Riots, New Orleans.
The 15-day CA waiting period prevented law-abiding people from purchasing firearms when needed to defend themselves IN THEIR OWN HOMES.
New Orleans – Not only could you not buy a gun to defend yourself when needed, the Government came and took your gun away.
Instant Background checks negate the need for any waiting period.
The NIU shooter bought the some of the guns six days before his spree. An additional waiting period would not have helped.
(paraphrased)
A president (Lincoln? Kennedy?) once said that any determined man could kill him if he was willing to trade his life for the president’s.
If a college/school/mall shooter is bound and determined, there probably isn’t much anyone is going to do about it.
If a potential shooter can’t legally buy a gun, the illegality of purchasing one on the street is not going to be a deterrent.
Even allowing CC on campus is highly unlikely to make any difference – the numbers game would make it unlikely that a CCP holder would be in the right place at the right time with the right opportunity.
More guns – not the answer.
Ban guns – not the answer either.
Obama and Clinton are trying SO HARD to stay out of the gun control debate – less their gun-ban agenda be exposed.
You see this? The “illegal guns” cause the crime. The person shooting the gun is not responsible. Implication – Get rid of the guns.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/19/missing_on_gun_control/
Clinton said this year in a Nevada debate, “Illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I am also a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.”
J R,Posted February 19, 2008 at 9:26 am | Permalink
“There should be a waiting period on the purchase of ALL guns.
Anyone who needs a gun RIGHT NOW clearly does not need a gun right now.”
Oh yes they very well might.
To protect themselves from a threat they might receive on this blog, as seems to happen at times….bit of a joke, (explained for those that are slow like JR). Or from an abusive spouse or anyone that has threatened them. There needs to be adequate means of doing immediate background checks, including psychiatric, without unduly intruding on medical records that don’t apply.
Strange how so many are up in arms about the release of medical records and privacy issues when trying to protect viable unborn humans but so ready to demand them for gun purchases, isn’t it.
I know this will come as a shock..but in this case, I actually agree with WS Clark. The idea of more laws doesn’t seem to be the answer–after all, killing someone is against the law and that sure didn’t stop him.
Obama thinks the 2nd Amendment is about “hunting” and “target shooting”.
Again, Clinton and Obama are strangely Silent or Missing, on Gun Control. (Hiding their agenda.)
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/19/missing_on_gun_control/
Missing on gun control
February 19, 2008
BARACK OBAMA offers hope and Hillary Clinton offers solutions, but they offer little of either on gun control.
“As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.”
WSClark, the reason for CCL is not law enforcement or to protect the public. It is to protect one’s own person and immediate family or persons close that are threatened. A CCL holder should have no ‘obligation’ or expectation to play hero or law enforcement officer.
People need to be responsible for themselves as much as is possible.
JR,
By extending that line of thought, you get to the point where anyone who applies for a CC license without a specific need (security work etc.) would be demonstrating mental instability and automatically denied the license. Nice little catch-22! Of course then when a crazy did get ahold of a gun in a crowd, we would only have him to contend with, not the fifty or so other jerks who start blasting away at whatever moves!
Hillary and Barrack are Gun-shy of the gun issue. Funny, they aren’t shy about anything else.
They are afraid of alienating the 100 million gun-owners in America. If their true colors are shown by the mass media, they cannot win the election in November.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4303968
But so far, the Democratic presidential hopefuls have offered no solutions or preventive measures to combat this problem. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., offered his sympathies, but specified no new ideas to enforce gun control in his home state of Illinois. “I’ve said before, and continue to believe, that we need to do a more effective job of enforcing our gun laws,” he said, speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Friday.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., offered similarly vague statements. “We just have to figure out how we are going to get smart about protecting our kids,” she said.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Organization, a grassroots effort to prevent gun violence, says we need leadership from both Clinton and Obama on this issue.
But the candidates are quick to remember what happened to Al Gore in 2000. Gore lost West Virginia, in large part, because of negative ads paid for by the NRA. “I think a lot of candidates and politicians are afraid of getting the gun lobby upset,” said Helmke. “They fear that talking about guns, it’s gonna lose them elections.”
HillaryClinton.com is noticeably gun shy; she lists her views on plenty of issues, but not gun control. However, she’s spoken out about protecting the Second Amendment — the right to bear arms.
“WSClark, the reason for CCL is not law enforcement or to protect the public”
That I completely understand, Box, but some many have used the argument that “if only someone (in the class) had been armed……..”
Like I mentioned, the numbers game makes it unlikely that much of anything could have stopped the NIU shooter.
In case Hank shows up here, there was discussion on another thread concerning who could legally carry in a business that was posted with a ‘NO-GUN’ sign. This is a response I got from talking with the AG’s office on the matter, and I quote from the email I received.
“I believe you phoned in and spoke to one of our investigators yesterday but, I will answer your questions here as well. The general prohibition
against carrying concealed on one’s person has an exception for individual’s to carry concealed essentially while they are at their fixed place of business. There is an AG opinion that has interpreted this to apply to business owners as well as employees of the business should the owner wish to allow. Keep in mind, an AG opinion is not law which a court must follow, but they generally will look to them for guidance. So, based upon that opinion, should you and your employees carry while at your place of business, you would not need a CCH license to do so and the CCH signage will not apply to you or them in that scenario.
As for exempting certain individuals to carry concealed and not others, while generally speaking it will be the business that chooses to report
a violation of signage to the police, what would happen if an officer walks in to your business, sees the sign and sees a licensee (not an
employee) carrying concealed while in the business…I cannot say that that person will not be arrested for a violation of K.S.A. 75-7c11 even
though you have allowed them in your business. The officer may ask you whether you want to press charges…they may not.”
Charles W. Klebe
Assistant Attorney General
Concealed Carry Unit
Jeez, Max, isn’t it folks like you that are always saying that government does not have all the answers?
Well, GOVERNMENT (including Barack and Hillary) don’t have all the answers on this question, because it is UNLIKELY that there IS an answer.
Damn…………………………..
Another gun thread when some nut-job goes on a killing spree.
How about a thread on all the deaths that happen when drivers break the speed limit? If there are 50,000 deaths per year and 30 percent are attributed to excessive speed – where is the outrage about that?
A 3000-6000 pound “car weapon” is much more deadly than a bullet fired from a gun.
Fifteen thousand deaths a year due to excessive speed by drivers and yet the MSM is silent – odd.
More laws aren’t going to help, its the media that needs to report school shootings in a more professinol manner, they report the shootings for shock vaule knowing they will get skyrocketing ratings, this in turn promotes unstable people to look at a school shooting as an accomplishment, or a hey look at me world, look at my revenge.
The media of course dosne’t cause school shootings, but they do a lot to promote it.
Lets say, someone saves 100 homless people, they get a five minute segment on the news for their good will.
Lets say someone shoots up a school they get endless coverage for a couple of weeks.
The news is sending a message to young unstable folks out there, you can get a pat on the back for good will and be forgotten about the next day.
Or you can commit a violent atrocity, and go down in history and be remembered for decades to come.
Well, Regular, it is true that more deaths are caused by motor vehicle accidents than firearms nationally. An automobile is an inherently dangerous instrumentality, as is a firearm IMHO. Society has decided in light of this that in order to own and operate a motor vehicle there must be in place a minimum amount of liability insurance covering the driver and the vehicle.
Given that a firearm is also inherently dangerous, especially in the hands of either a determined shooter or an untrained individual, does it not make sense to require a liability insurance policy to be carried by a CC permit holder as a condition to the permit or renewal thereof?
WSClark
Posted February 19, 2008 at 9:55 am | Permalink
Jeez, Max, isn’t it folks like you that are always saying that government does not have all the answers?
Well, GOVERNMENT (including Barack and Hillary) don’t have all the answers on this question, because it is UNLIKELY that there IS an answer.
————————————————-
Oh, but Barrack and Hillary have had answers in the past, just not now during the Presidential camapaign.
I’ll repost below.
Privacy rights are only important if you are, perhaps, a terrorist or an abortionist.
We hear about HIPAA and Patriot Act “violations of liberties” all the time, by the left.
However, the left does not seem to think gun owners have any privacy rights.
Well, maybe a gun owning abortionist?
What if the abortionists psyschiatric records show that he wants to advance to the “4th Trimester”???
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Hillary-Clinton-2.html
HILLARY CLINTON’S VOTES AGAINST GUN OWNERS
Year Link Senate Bill / Amendment Clinton Stand
2006
SA4615 Prohibition On Confiscation Of Firearms Vote against gun owners.
2005
S.397 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act Vote against gun owners.
S.527 Protect Law Enforcement Armor Act Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.578 Terrorist Apprehension and Record Retention Act of 2005 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.620 Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.645 Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.935 Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
SA1615 Cop Killer Bullet Ban Vote against gun dealers and manufacturers.
SA1617 Five-seveN and Armor Piercing Ammunition Ban Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
SA1618 FN Five-SeveN, APA and Risk of Injury Openings Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
SA1619 S.397 Exemption for Police Cosponsor against gun owners. Failed on a voice vote.
SA1620 S.397 Exemption for Children Cosponsor against gun owners. Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1621 Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapons Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
SA1623 Gross Negligence Amendment Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1626 Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 Vote against gun manufacturers.
2004
S.1805 Gun Manufacturer Lawsuit Protection Vote against gun owners.
S.2498 Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization of 2004 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
SA2619 The ‘Cop Killer Bullet Ban’ Vote against gun owners.
SA2620 Trigger Lock Requirement Vote against gun owners.
SA2623 National Concealed Carry for Police For police.
SA2627 SB1805 Exemption for Victims of DC Snipers Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA2628 SB1805 Exemption for Victims of DC Snipers Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA2629 SB1805 Exemption for Police Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA2630 SB1805 Exemption for Police Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA2631 Gross Negligence Amendment to SB1805 Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA2635 To modify the definition of ‘reasonably foreseeable’. Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA2636 Close ‘Gun Show Loophole’ – restrict private sale of firearms Vote against gun owners.
SA2637 Extend the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Vote against gun owners.
2003
S.22 Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.1034 Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.1431 Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.1774 Terrorist Firearms Detection Act of 2003 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.1807 Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2003 Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
2001
S.16 21st Century Law Enforcement, Crime Prevention, and Victims Assistance Act Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
S.890 McCain / Lieberman Gun Show Loophole Bill Cosponsor against gun owners. No votes taken.
SA1231 Kill a HUD Gun Buyback Program Vote against gun owners.
“Privacy rights are only important if you are, perhaps, a terrorist or an abortionist.”
What a crock – no one has said anything remotely close to that…………………..
The simple fact is no amount of background checks is going to stop this type of situation from developing.
Can’t pass a background check – buy a gun on the street.
If you have the money and inclination, you can BUY anything illegally, guns, drugs, sex, cars, etc. etc..
If your desire is to shoot a bunch of people before you kill yourself, then the illegality certainly is not going to be a deterrent.
And it is not like you’re going to be saving your money for a rainy day.
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html
BARRACK OBAMA’S VOTES AGAINST GUN OWNERS
Lobby Ratings:
Gun Owners of America F
National Rifle Association F (2004)
Voting Record:
Year Link Senate Bill / Amendment Obama Stand
2006
SA4615
Prohibition On Confiscation Of Firearms
Vote for gun owners.
2005 S.397 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act Vote against gun manufacturers twice.
SA1615 Cop Killer Bullet Ban Vote against gun owners.
SA1620 S.397 Exemption for Children Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1623 Gross Negligence Amendment Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1626 Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 Vote against gun owners.
SA1644 Update to SA1620 Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1645 Update to SA1615 Neutral vote.
All this will do is stop a few unstable people with a psychiatric record from buying a gun legally. If someone is intent on shooting up a place, they usually plan it weeks or months ahead of time, all they will do is find a way to obtain a gun illegally, if they are intent on killing people why would they care about breaking a gun law by obtaining a firearm illegaly. More laws = more nonsense.
Here’s what happened in America’s Shooting Gallery yesterday:
N.C.: One dead and two wounded in party shooting
TN: Police in Tennessee are holding two men on attempted murder charges for shooting partygoers at the Chattanooga Theatre Centre near Coolidge Park.
TX: Family feud leads to shooting of man, 15-year-old boy
AR: Fayetteville police are investigating a shooting and suicide to see if they are connected.
NV: Now, Privett is mourning the loss of her 15-year-old son, Christopher, an honor student who was killed Friday in a drive-by shooting near Palo Verde High School.
CO: A woman once married to a Weld County sheriff’s deputy goes on trial Tuesday on charges of fatally shooting her romantic rival.
CA: Police are investigating the fatal shooting of a man at a wedding reception in Fremont.
PA: According to police, William Rushaupt, 36, pulled a rifle on his Saddlers Crossing neighbor because he was angry that his family had been exposed to the neighbor’s puppy, which might have rabies.
AZ: Police are investigating a fatal shooting in southeast Albuquerque.
AR: Yell County Party Ends In Shooting
I think it’s interesting all the regular Con contributors are so opposed to making it more difficult for mentally ill patients to get firearms. Guess this law cuts a little close to the nerve for them.
(sarcasm) I dunno Vaughn, what would liability insurance do for guns except make attorneys scratch the insurance funds for larger settlements. (/sarcasm)
Should there be a screening for drivers who are on psycho active drugs (Prozac etc) or those on medication to treat their flavor of mental illness?
Should “Road Rage” be treated as social behavior or should it be assigned a mental illness category that would prohibit those identified with the problem as ineligible to request a license to drive a motor vehicle.
For the most part, I have to agree with WSCARK, more guns are not the solution. The numbers are probably not there. And, even though a large tragedy when it happens, the number of incidents vs the number of school/mall “days” are very, very small as a percentage. Still, I think I probably would reduce the number of no carry zones, on the chance that it may help. So far, the problems with cch shooting others has not been a problem. The real problem, in my opinion, is the coarsening of the country as a whole. None “cause” this type of behavior, but I think the effect is there, and probably additive. We teach our kids in the early stages with the violence of video games. We teach our kids in the early stages when we declare some “group” the enemy. That includes political parties. WE teach our kids when we get pulled over, and try to lie our way out of a ticket. We teach our kids wehen we go as spectators at ball games, and scream and rant at the other team, the coaches, and the umpires. WE teach our kids when we constantly spout off how victimized we are by others, and by society. We teach out kids by bailing them out of trouble, instead of letting them suffer the consequences. WE teach our kids it;s okay to commit violence against those who we disagree with, whether it is an aboriton clinic, or a lumber company. We teach our kids. They are learning well.
Jeez, Max, that is HORRIBLE!!!
No “cop killer bullets!!!!”
“Trigger locks!!!!”
“Close Gun Show Loopholes!!!!!”
First you complain that Hillary and Barack have no answers then you complain that they have answers, you just don’t like them.
And Max, I failed to see the “Comprehensive Let’s Take Everyone’s Guns Away Act.”
I must have missed that one.
Was that all you could come up with MH? Hell, that sounds like a typical morning report for Philadelphia, D.C., New Orleans or any of a dozen other liberal run cities!
Actually
The killer in the Colorado Church was stopped — by another gun owner.
Ya, he shot himself, in the end, but only after being confronted.
Only confrontation with another gun owner, or the risk of such confrontation, will solve any of these problems.
Regular, the sarcasm aside, I’ve wondered about this. We license drivers, require training to qualify for a license, and impose insurance requirements. I realize that you think I’m looking out for my litigation colleagues, but a part of me wonders why not impose similar requirements as to insurance on CC permit holders. Taking the inherently dangerous instrumentality thought to another level, why not impose strict liability on owners for use of the weapons, if the use is not proper? If the weapon is not properly secured, and is used by someone else, should not there be some liability on the part of the owner who declines to exercise the responsibility to use reasonable care to keep the firearm from others?
As to restrictions on drivers taking certain drugs, why not? I’m serious when I say this. On “Road Rage”, well, I’m not one advocating inclusion of the same in the abstract. I note that those who use their vehicles deliberately to cause harm to others are subject to liability therefor.
Adding on. Just as those who deliberately cause harm to others through the use of firearms without lawful justification are subjected to liability for this.
“Only confrontation with another gun owner, or the risk of such confrontation, will solve any of these problems.”
That is beyond a crock, Rossell, that is just plain delusional.
If the shooter is determine to kill and then die himself, no number of potential gun owners in his target group is going to stop him.
It will just increase the challenge.
Damn, you might see MORE shootout situations when loons accept the challenge of shooting it out when they are going to take return fire.
Aren’t there laws already on the books that make gun owners responsible (Criminal negligence) if they don’t store, handle or otherwise control the gun they are licensed for?
The same with negligent gun owners would apply in Civil litigation would it not?
I mean if Mr. Gun Owner kept his loaded semi-automatic fire arm in an unlocked desk drawer and his kid used it to accidentally kill his friend who was visiting, cannot the gun owner be charged with negligence and sued by the parents of the slain child?
The only thing liability insurance would do is increase the cost of gun ownership. It wouldn’t address the risk matrix of irresponsible gun owners.
McCreepy knows more about the law than lawyers and more about science than scientists.
Interesting.
wonk wonk wonk Heebie…
I wish trigger locks were sold with every gun in America automatically. I also would like a free handout program, to provide locks for free, to those already owning weapons.
Even with all that, there is no legal requirement that gun owners use them.
Sorry off the thread subject. But a post above reminded me of the unnecessary and unintended use of a firearm.
“WSClark” –
On the contrary, I suspect the gun nutsos such as “Econ101,” “Hank Price” and “Nathan,” “American Wa,” “Regular ” et al… speak from first-hand experience as to how a potential spree killer might be thinking. They’ve obviously given the scenarios long and careful thought; almost to the level of obsessive compulsion.
Then again, OCD is a mental health condition which (they’re afraid) might prevent them from firearms ownership should society take steps to making gun more difficult for mental cases to obtain.
There’s nothing philosophical or personal in their arguments for getting guns into the hands of mentally ill people. It’s personal for them.
Actually MonkeyHock, I was thinking in terms of a Safety Expert (my training and degrees.) I’m quite familiar with risk assessment in a wide variety of fields. :)
Kids know reality from fiction, they know a violent movie is for entertainment purposes, but look at the news, if you want to look at the world as a violent scary place flip on the news. Kids watching the news see real violence, they know that this is not fiction, all the violence the news loves to report on affects kids more than violent video games and movies because its reality. I’m not saying the news should stop reporting violence, they should report it differently, all they do is make it a voyeristic reality t.v. show. I’d say the internet is just as bad too, do you want kids watching real people being beheaded by terrorists, its the real violence thats flashed all over the media that damadges kids, not the movies, music, and video games.
Until the media stops whoring itself out for ratings, all they will do is add fuel to the fire.
Dear MH,
Of course we’ve given various scenarios long and careful thought. It would be irresponsible not to.
The NRA and The Brady campaign both supported the NICS improvement bill to add those with documented mental health problems to the NICS Instant Check Database. It needs some time to work.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22333702/
updated 7:41 p.m. CT, Wed., Dec. 19, 2007
WASHINGTON – Congress on Wednesday passed a long-stalled bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings that would more easily flag prospective gun buyers who have documented mental health problems. The measure also would help states with the cost.
Obama’s Gun-Ban Agenda is scary:
1. Obama supports gun bans.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
2. Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill. Obama voted against this Bill, which passed and became law. Obama supports lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3597&can_id=9490
S 397: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that provides liability protection for manufacturers, dealers or importers of firearms or ammunition products, as well as their trade associations, for harm caused by criminal or unlawful misuse.
Black Rhin0
I would make no assumption otherwise. My point is that it makes the culture more coarse, and prone to violence. I do believe that “play violence” that glorifies violence and the bad buys play a part. You are right, in the well adjusted, and even not so well adjusted, the violence is “pretend”. However, those who shoot up malls and schools. I think that the fact that many of them have been steeped in violence, without a corresponding “morality”, play a part in their acceptance of total violence as a solution, or revenge, to their problems. I am also saying it is only part of the picture.
The States Need to submit data to NICS DataBase, in order for it to work effectively.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-18-state-gun-laws_N.htm
States work to close gaps in FBI gun database
Federally licensed gun dealers must consult the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before selling a gun. The database includes felons, fugitives and people found by a court to be mentally ill. Much of the information in NICS comes from state court systems, but federal law cannot order states to submit records.
Mr. Hank Price,
Just wanted make sure you saw my post to you above about carrying in a ‘NO-GUN’ posted business with the owners permission. It’s kind of a yes or no, which if prudent becomes a no.
Link:http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/02/better-gun-screening-for-mentally-ill/#comment-297035
Well I spoke too soon. Reasoned Discourse is down the crapper.
Well shoot, no pun intended the link didn’t work, I try once more.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/02/better-gun-screening-for-mentally-ill/#comment-297035
http://www.bigmedia.org/texts6.html
Sensationalist news violence
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=news+media+violence
Hey Boxlock,
Just went back and read it, thanks. Like I said, even though he allows me in I won’t carry inside for various reasons.
I’m pretty sure I’ve convinced him to scrape his sign off the door.
When people see that sign they have different reactions. My thought is the owner doesn’t trust me with my gun and any crook now knows that there will be no civilian inside able to fire back.
Others might think that because of the ‘no gun’ sign they’re safer inside. Whatever.
I’m not comfortable locking my gun in the car while I eat. I have several ways that I carry concealed, some handier than others. I don’t worry about a police officer or anyone else accidentally seeing that I’m armed. I worry about some nitwit seeing me put my gun in the console or glove compartment before I go into a place of business.
Littlejohn,
Did you forget to add that “We teach our kids” they come from monkeys and that we don’t value life before birth, let alone after, or are those to fundimental to the conversational lesson?
Here’s something I wonder why does being ill get you your rights denied?
How many laws did this latest mad shooter break on his suicide rampage? How about a law forcing people who take psychotropic drugs to not abruptly stop taking them? And if the same individual gets fired from work or his wife or girlfriend quits him, how about a law making someone in the know, tell the police?
Better yet, how about letting honest law abiding citizens protect themselves (and those around them) where ever they are, because the police in a free society cannot be everywhere? Let’s stop listening to idiot politicians and adminisrators who obviously wish us all to be victims at the mercy of madmen!
here’s a quick refresher course, the 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting, sport shooting , or even personal safety. it is a citizen check on the power of the state, to prevent the government from turning to tyranny. The guy who took out the city council in st louis probably exercised his 2nd amendment right to a greater degree and most hunters ever will.
Hank,
I think we both want to do everything we can to live within the law and to respect it, along with the business owners wishes. I do for a multiplicity of reasons, including not giving anyone the excuse or opportunity to try and use my actions to restrict my 2nd. Amendment Rights.
I consider your opinion to be the more correct, at least the safest legally, and that is if one doesn’t own the business, or work there with permission to carry from the owner, then don’t.
I also think very few police officers would feel like a good case could be made for arrest and successful prosecution if the business owner has given permission, but I wouldn’t want to chance it or go through the hassle.
My approach to the law is:
Don’t Ask
Don’t Tell
Then if caught, lie, lie, lie!
There has been a number of vehicle break-ins in this area, probably always have been. Usually people loose some CDs, clothes, or maybe a laptop.
I would hate to see crooks target cars outside a ‘no gun’ business in hopes of getting armed.
WSClark
Posted February 19, 2008 at 10:23 am | Permalink
Jeez, Max, that is HORRIBLE!!!
And Max, I failed to see the “Comprehensive Let’s Take Everyone’s Guns Away Act.”
———————————————–
That would be HR 1022. Sponsored by Democrats.
See also S1237 introduced and sponsored by Democrats.
For more Gun-Ban bills introduced by the Current Congress see:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=215&issue=010
Face it, most Democrats including Obama and Clinton, do NOT support the 2nd Amendment.
Y’all want your Socialist programs and more Government control. Well, if you win, you will get more Government control that is for sure.
Kiss your concealed carry and your guns goodbye!
ProudMan,
Although I agree with you, the same holds true for residence break-ins. Guns and electronics are high on the list. That raises the question of where are guns safe?
Max,
It’s all in the interpretation of the 2nd. We’ve discussed it here before and never came to a concensus, but I’m sure I read that amendment differently than you do. I base that on the placement of the commas.
“Face it, most Democrats including Obama and Clinton, do NOT support the 2nd Amendment.”
Oh, bullshit Max. You have tried this crap before.
Who opposed the petition to the SC regarding the Second Amendment?
The BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Damn……………………..
Check your own nest for turds before you try shitting in someone else’s.
By May or June RD, we should hear an important ruling by the Supreme Court on this.
Vaughn/GMC are the resident experts on law, but I have my doubts about how the court will rule on this.
I would bet they take a very narrow view on this, with a ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but very limited in scope.
Bush ain’t running Clark.
Obama and Clinton are. And both failed to support the 2nd Amendment in the Amicus Brief signed by the majority of Congress a couple of weeks ago.
You know it. And I know it. And anyone who bothers to read the news knows it.
Whether you care or not about the 2nd Amendment is another question. I suspect you are about as concerned about the 2nd Amendment as you are about Budget Deficits. You say one thing, and do another.
Look how Hillary has flopped in order to disguise her gun ban position on the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
Backed off a national licensing registration plan on guns
I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this, and backed off a national licensing registration plan.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000
WS
The fact that the Bush admin. is trying to straddle the fence on this issue does not change the fact that Clinton and Obama have never found an anti-gun bill that they wouldnt vote for. Same goes for all of the leadership of the Democrat party.
Maybe the real answer is to include an IQ test and an MMPI on all CC license applications.
WSClark
Posted February 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
“Face it, most Democrats including Obama and Clinton, do NOT support the 2nd Amendment.”
Oh, bullshit Max. You have tried this crap before.
Damn……………………..
Check your own nest for turds before you try shitting in someone else’s.
———————————–
Another great post Clark.
You trying to get your posts pulled again like they were the other night?
Max, speaking for myself, I don’t try to predict what SCOTUS or any other court might do with reference to a specific case. Were I delusional enough to make a prediction, mine would be a narrow ruling on the DC law in question, with little else answered. At best, SCOTUS might, in dicta, suggest a reasonableness test as GMC and I have discussed at various times as to restrictions, while holding on the major issue of the case that the DC law is violative of the Second Amendment. At worst, SCOTUS will issue a decision, one way or the other, on the DC law, and give no further guidance.
“Obama and Clinton are. And both failed to support the 2nd Amendment in the Amicus Brief signed by the majority of Congress a couple of weeks ago.”
Neither were in Washington at the time – the point is moot.
“The fact that the Bush admin. is trying to straddle the fence on this issue”
The Bush Administration is not STRADDLING the fence – the Bush Justice Dept. is proceeding with the case – no straddling involved.
“Bush ain’t running Clark.”
He is still the head of the REPUBLIC PARTY.
“You trying to get your posts pulled again like they were the other night?”
All of the posts were pulled due to the vicious and unwarranted attacks on Chas.
Fact, dumbass.
“Same goes for all of the leadership of the Democrat party.”
And you know this how?
By the way, gunners wasn’t the name of John McCain on some of those ANTI-GUN bills?
Yep, the REPUBLIC PARTY candidate for president is an anti-GUNNER.
Ha!!!!
“Maybe the real answer is to include an IQ test and an MMPI on all CC license applications.”
I would prefer them on a voter registration form.
WS
“Same goes for all of the leadership of the Democrat party.”
And you know this how?”
Look at their voting records genius.
Hey, Heckler you CONVENIENTLY missed the point that it is YOUR president that is pursuing the case through the Supreme Court and YOUR candidate for the presidency that is a sponsor/co-sponsor of some of the anti-GUN bills.
So, what up with that?
From the record, I would have to conclude that REPUBLICS are anti-gun.
Eh?
I’m a rabid moderate on the gun issue and look forward to the SCOTUS decision. I can live with it either way, provided it is a decision and not a mealy-mouthed document that says nothing of substance. Somehow I doubt the “from my cold dead fingers” crowd won’t be as sanguine should go against their personal agendas.
But it’s significant that this thread, which specifically addresses gun-ownership by MENTALLY-ILL! people gets so much impassioned rhetoric from people who are, quite frankly, a little crazy on the issue.
Poor ol’ “Hank Price” is so afraid of the world he can’t eat a french fry without picking out potential targets for his concealed weapon. His progeny is so worried his PTSD might prevent him access to weapons with which to kill someone who harms his dog. Pathetic “Max” spins all sorts of scenarios where Hillary Clinton will storm his front porch and confiscate his arsenel.
Many, many times I’ve put forth by sincere belief that 2nd Amendment rights — as with all constitution rights — come with a modicum of responsibilities. You can own any damned weapon you want, as far as I am concerned, provided you’re competent, responsible, and sane.
It doesn’t seem to be to expect competence, responsibility, and sanity from those who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. It’s sort of like endorsing 1st Amendment rights but outlawing shouting “fire” in a crowded movie house. (You still can shout “movie” in a crowded fire house, after all.)
If this guy was truly mentally ill, why did he do himself the favor of killing himself to avoid the wrath of society?
Obviously, he KNEW that what he was doing was going have bad consequences. He rationally chose not to endure those consequences, he was not insane.
No law or amount of gun ownership is going to change someone from having a death wish to kill as many people as possible.
The only hope is for more people to recognize that there is a Creator and that all life has value because of the Creator.
“I went to the doctor once for a growth dead center between my shoulder blades on back. I couldn’t see it. I was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma. Cancer. Scary stuff. So I got a second opinion.
Turns out I had an infected mole.”
Bullsh!t.
There’s no doctor alive who would diagnose cancer just by looking at a mole, infected or not.
That’s why we have this subspecialty called pathology.
If he sounds like Regular and lies like Regular, guess what, it’s Regular.
“rfl” –
The guy had been institutionalized and was prescribed medication to control his schizophrenia. When he took his meds, his mental illness was controlled.
For all I know, the people on this thread who advocate arming the mentally ill are people whose diseases are controlled by meds. But if your mental balance is dependent upon 60 milligrams daily of lithium, perhaps that balance should be a consideration before we automatically hand out lethal weapons to those people.
What I’m seeing in the responses to this thread is that a lot of people are really afraid they might be “those people.” And, considering their obsessive-compulisive fanatacism toward the 2nd Amendment, they may be right.
WS
“Hey, Heckler you CONVENIENTLY missed the point that it is YOUR president that is pursuing the case through the Supreme Court and YOUR candidate for the presidency that is a sponsor/co-sponsor of some of the anti-GUN bills.
So, what up with that?
From the record, I would have to conclude that REPUBLICS are anti-gun.
Eh?”
No, I didn’t miss it. I’m well awair of it. They just arent near as bad as most Democrats. The leadership and the 2 Dem candidates for President just happen to be the worst of the bunch. Simple fact based upon voting records.
Monkey
“For all I know, the people on this thread who advocate arming the mentally ill… ”
Hmmm. Havent seen that. I’ve only seen concern over the details of how the system would work. I’ve seen concern of medical privacy issues. Havent noticed anyone advocating arming the mentally ill.
Could you point that out for me dude?
Ah MonkeyHawk,
Me thinks you doth protest too much!
If, as you say, and I quote,
“Many, many times I’ve put forth by sincere belief that 2nd Amendment rights — as with all constitution rights — come with a modicum of responsibilities.”
Why can’t you debate this subject in a rational and sane manner? Why can’t you merely respond to remarks that I’ve made in their context instead of twisting them around to fit your anti-gun agenda?
When I give you examples of how I am responsible you twist them around and call me compulsive. You even emply that I might have a mental disorder.
Often in the middle of one of your irrational tirades you offer this caveat,
“Many, many times I’ve put forth by sincere belief that 2nd Amendment rights — as with all constitution rights — come with a modicum of responsibilities. You can own any damned weapon you want, as far as I am concerned, provided you’re competent, responsible, and sane.”
I would suggest to you that you give me an example of any thing I have ever said or done that would indicate I am not competent with a firearm. I would also ask that you show in anything that I have posted that I am not a responsible gun owner. Or, maybe, you could provide us with any indication that I am not sane.
48 states have CCH in one form or another, you need to learn to live with it. The fears and rhetoric of the anti-gun crowd have not been realized. Many, many Kansans have taken advantage of the new CCH law. For you to emply that any of us are not responsible, competent or sane like you do in many of your rants is deplorable.
You sir, are a lying nitwit.
Monkey
“Many, many times I’ve put forth by sincere belief that 2nd Amendment rights…”
Yeah. Ad nauseum. And then you insult them and demean them because they deign to disagree with you on some detail.
I don’t believe you. I’m starting to believe you pee your pants at the sight of a gun.
What I’m seeing in the responses to this thread is that a lot of people are really afraid they might be “those people”
-Monkey
Do you or do you not oppose wiretapping of enemy combatants by the federal government under the provisions of the patriot act?
By opposing such actions by the feds, is it fair to consider yourself to be an enemy combatant?
How then can you argue the opposite by saying anybody who opposes gun control laws that restrict ownership based on some arbitrary definition of mental illness MUST be in fact mentally ill?
The question is: how is mental illness validated?
Secondly, Who is to be labeled an enemy combatant?
The folks who resist stricter gun laws do so because they do not trust the governments ability to correctly authenticate what is legitimate mental illness as a means to deny gun ownership. The same is true for those folks who opposed the governments ability to label someone enemy combatant and than refuse civil liberties.
On thes two mirrored issues, both liberals and conservatives should be able to see eye to eye.
the big com
Parsons Sun
A Parsons High School freshman who brought a loaded gun to school Monday remains in custody today.
Parsons police detained the 14-year-old boy Monday afternoon in a second-floor classroom after another student reported seeing the gun.
“I’m really proud of the student who did come forward giving us all the information needed to identify the suspect. It was a very quick interview and arrest,” said USD 503 superintendent Deborah Perbeck.
The student who made the report did not know the name of the other student, but gave the teacher a description.
“When the teacher came in to notify the administration, there happened to be a community police officer there just visiting the school,” Perbeck said. “They made some phone calls and officers were at the school almost immediately.” Police and sheriff’s deputies responded.
As soon as the office was notified, the school was locked down around 2:30 p.m., meaning whatever classroom students were in is where they remained. Nearby GuthridgeElementary School went on lockdown, too.
This means that students were locked in a classroom with the gun-carrying suspect, but as school officials didn’t know who the suspect was, there was little choice, Perbeck said. Interim Police Chief John Keele said lockdowns are a way to keep violence contained if it erupts.
“There’s no perfect plan,” Keele said. “You’re going to isolate to make sure there’s as little of a chance of people getting hurt as possible.”
Keele said the school district planned the lockdown procedures a while ago. Police attended meetings then so they would be informed of the procedures.
Keele said the principal used the description to figure out who the student was and what classroom he was in. Three police officers entered the classroom.
“He was apprehended without incident,” Keele said. Police recovered a loaded handgun the student had on him. Police will not release some details – such as the caliber of gun and where exactly it was – because the investigation is ongoing. Neither the student nor police officers drew a gun. Police didn’t enter any other classrooms.
Keele said the student was detained within 20 minutes of the call, which came at about 2:30. He was taken to the Parsons police station, but is no longer there. However, he is still in custody.
Perbeck would not identify the student, but did say there will be a board hearing, whether the student is able to be there or not.
“But any time a student has a weapon in school it is an automatic 186 days expulsion, which is a full year from yesterday,” Perbeck said.
Both students and staff and the police handled the incident extremely well, Perbeck said.
Students and staff remained calm during the lockdown, and the police were quick to respond and apprehend the suspect.
“Everyone was doing what they needed to do,” she said. “The student was apprehended right before the end of the day, so once the student was apprehended and removed from the campus, we did let the students go. We released the students one classroom at a time, single file from the building. It was really orderly. There was no panic whatsoever.”
Keele returned the compliment.
“We do want to commend the school on their quick action and the cooperation of the students on making sure this went well,” Keele said.
Police are continuing their investigation. Keele said he expects the student to be charged as a juvenile with a felony charge of criminal threat and three juvenile misdemeanor charges of carrying a concealed weapon, possessing a firearm on school property and criminal possession of a firearm by a juvenile. LabetteCounty Attorney John Bullard confirmed he expects to file those charges today or Wednesday as soon as he gets the police reports.
Keele and Bullard would not identify the student because he is a juvenile.
After the school had the facts, parents of students at all district schools were notified through School Reach, an automated system that calls parents, of the situation.
“If parents feel they were not notified, they need to call the school office and make sure their contact information is correct,” Perbeck said.
rfl 2:51 – great post!
Who knows who might be considered to be one of “those people”?
A “make sense”, enforceable law to allow non felony, non mentaly ill, certified or licensed, tested, law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons should be seriously considered by our law makers.
mrman, for purposes of your proposal, please define the term “non mentally ill”. TIA.
mrman,
How does what you propose differ from the Kansas CCH law we now have?
Why do i have to take some stupid government run class, to exercise my constitutional right to bear arms?
RD,
Is anything really safe? The good book reminds us to store our treasure in Heaven where thieves and rust do not destroy.
However, the guns are a lot safer in the gun safe at my house than in the trunk of my car. I feel for the CC person who puts their weapon in the car so they can lawfully enter some business. I would be mightily upset if I lost a weapon because I left it in the car to patronize an establishment.
So, Paine, do you feel that anyone and everyone should be able to tote a gun around with them?
Where do YOU want to draw the line?
Everyone gets to carry?
How about cop killer armor piercing bullets – cool with that?
What the Hell, why not just let everyone buy an ICBM with nuke tips and let’s all go at it?
Let the better man win!!!!!
“The NRA endorsed H.R. 2640, and this piece of crap, correctly called “The Veterans Disarmament Act”, effectively eliminates any soldier or police officer who was diagnosed with PTSD or sought treatment for “psychiatric reasons” from ever legally buying a gun. Thanks vets! We support you!
Gun Owners of America is the only real gun-rights advocates, screw the NRA.
Better get yours soon, cause these people aim to crack down on you. Police State, here we come!”
Pleef, when this information first came out I personally went and looked up the bill. It is NOT for life. They will be allowed to have their guns back after they are deemed safe to do so.
Stop putting out wrong information.
I do believe those with mental illness should be watched, we need community programs to allow those who can stay in the community to do so safely, and for those who cannot, longterm, inpatient hospitals.
No wonder CraponAmerica is so nasty, he has an “growth” between his shoulders.
Too bad there wasn’t an action for immediate removal.
(chortles)
The constitution does say everyone has a right to keep and bear arms.
“The constitution does say everyone has a right to keep and bear arms.”
Well, screw it then, let’s just ISSUE guns to everyone.
Bazookas, ICBM’s, machine guns, sawed off shotguns.
Screw it, let’s just go for it.
Name the time and let everyone just begin shooting.
Maybe we just need better care for the mentally ill. An ounce of prevention, and all of that.
How about cop killer armor piercing bullets – cool with that?
————————————-
And where do you get these bullets? What brand is cop-killing vs cop-safe?
Another dramatic emotionally charged meaningless term, used by gun-banners for effect.
All bullets can kill cops, and I know of NONE which are specifically labeled “cop-killer” or “armor piercing”, which are legally available for sale to civilians today.
“he has an “growth” between ”
Actually, it was AmWay that had the growth, but don’t let facts get in the way of a good argument.
“American Way
Posted February 19, 2008 at 8:47 am | Permalink”
“And where do you get these bullets?”
And you are just so full of shit, Max, you know damned well what I am talking about……….
Damn, what a forkin’ maroon.
gun owners need to form their own party
NEWSMAX.COM – Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. “Guns are an abomination,” Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, “Free from fear of gun owners’ retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.”
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of “assault weapons” in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for “sporting purposes.”
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, “prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.” The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. “I support the Brady Bill,” he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, “and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.”
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly “safety” inspections.
Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called “the nation’s strictest gun controls,” a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and “ballistic fingerprinting” of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned “assault weapons,” the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
Where do you want to draw the line, Max?
Nukes?
What if you neighbor had SCUDS, are you okay with that, Max?
You know, the neighbor that hates your guts.
Cool with that?
What if the guy across the street can afford to buy a few cruise missiles?
And he is really, really pissed off at you….
Where do you draw the line, Max?
WSClark
Posted February 19, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
“And where do you get these bullets?”
And you are just so full of shit, Max, you know damned well what I am talking about……….
Damn, what a forkin’ maroon.
—————————————————-
As a matter of fact Clark, I have never seen a “cop killer bullet” or an “armor piercing bullet” and I’ve been to several gun shows, gun shops, review one or two gun magazines and catalogues, and have been shooting guns for 40+ years.
No expert, but I’ve been around the block.
Any bullet can kill. Just about any rifle bullet or shotgun slug will go thru a “bullet-proof” vest.
In 40+ years, I’ve yet to see what you describe.
Please provide a link to where one of these might be ordered.
google, google, google……..
Dear Max,
To get the bullets that are specifically labeled ‘armour peircing cop killers’ you need to exercise your gun show exemption and know the secret hand shake.
Or, you can just do what G Gordon Liddy recommends, go for head shots.
I think there is something mentally different about those compelled to carry a gun all the time.
They are just…different in some paranoid way.
See? I had a friend like that once.
Me and my girlfriend and he and his were fixing to go to Silver Dollar city. My car.
Now my friend was bound and determined he was going to take his gun. Of course I said no. If we were to get pulled over, I did not want to be responsible for having a gun in the car. Besides, like I told him.
We are going to Branson, not Beirut.
Well, he finally relented.
But…
Out on the road, I got a flat. Now my friend was suddenly real eager to put on the spare.
Guess why?
AGAINST my wishes, he had smuggled his damned gun into the trunk of the car! He didn’t want me to find it.
Now is that rational?
Well, we turned around and came home.
I mean the guy was willing to lie to me just so he could have his gun along. To me, that’s just not rational.
Ah, just in time!
Another personal anecdote from J R that fits right into his agenda.
J R had a friend. . .therefore all gun toters are paranoid.
Give me a break!
Paranoid? I missed that.
All I got was he seems to have trouble picking his friends.
JR-
I would agree, your friend exhibits paranoid and irrational behavior. But he is or was your friend, not mine. My friends that have concealed carry permits, and those who have had not so concealed weapons intheir vehicle, would never think of violating my wishes to not have a weapon in my car.
Well the story is true.
I was also a Republican back then. As my politics changed, it was another reason for that childhood friend and I to go separate ways.
I don;t doubt the story. Too bad that you parted wayas with your childhood friend at least partially because of politics. i have a number of friends with whom I disagree. On both sides of the aisle. They are still my friends. We have some lively discussions. THen we agree to disagree, and go on living our own lives, and supporting the positions we choose to support. Sometimes, someone changes their mind. More often, not.
WEll, outta here for the rest of the evening. Tons of stuff to do, and places to be. Ya’all have a good day now, ya hear!
“J R” –
Even as I disagree with some of the right wingnuts on this forum, I approach those disagreements with a faith and belief that they are reasonable people who’ve come up with their opinions due to rational thought processes or propaganda or personal experiences or divine intervention. Or something.
Ah, but when it comes to guns, logic and perspective and proportion is almost always lost.
As when “Nathan,” earlier in this thread, expressed his dread that a war veterans PTSD diagnosis might prevent his right to be prepared to kill anyone who harmed his dogs. Uhm, yeah, “Nathan.” Maybe more guns in your possession isn’t all that good an idea.
Or “Hank Price,” who can’t take his grand-daughter out for a Happy Meal without iron strapped to his leg and carefully scoping out the customers for people he deems most likely to be his primary targets.
That seems to as an abject fear-filled craven way to go through life. I pity anyone who regularly find him/herself so threatened by fear to have to pack a gun with them wherever they go. That’s not living, that’s a basic coyote-instinct *simply surive another day* and that’s hardly being human.
Or, if it is human, it’s probably a mentally ill human.
Well,
I see your still spinning and lying Mr Clark. I would be embarrased if I couldn’t support my arguments without lying.
American Way,
Almost all new firearms are sold with a locking mechanism.
You can go to any gun store or FFL and get a gun lock for free. You can go to any police station and get a gun lock for free.
You can contact the manufacturer of your gun and they will give you a gun lock for free if for some reason yours didn’t have one or you lost it.
I don’t know where you have been, but this has been the case for some time now.
I have gotten a gun lock with every gun purchase I have ever made (free)
MonkeyHawk,
Is trying to impune the character of gun owners the only thing you can do?
I am not paranoid because I have a smoke alarm in my home.
I am not paranoid because I wear my seatbelt in my vehicle.
I am not paranoid because I carry a gun and have a concealed carry permit.
I believe in being able to protect myself, my family, my friends, and others.
I believe in doing practical and responsible things to protect myself and others.
If you honestly think that allowing people to carry concealed isn’t going to make a difference you are only fooling yourself and ignoring the facts.
-In Colorado a woman who was a volunteer security guard used her weapon to stop and armed and voilent man from killing who knows how many people.
-There were also those students who ran to their vehicle to get their guns who confronted and stopped a shooter at the Appalachian School of Law several years ago.
There are more examples where an honest law abiding citizen with a gun stopped someone from killing and hurting more people.
I don’t simply say that More guns is the solution. I am saying that allowing those people who are licensed to carry concealed to do so in these so called “gun free zones” will help.
JM great post upthread!!
Yeah, “Nathan” –
Keep telling yourself you’re not paranoid.
You (or, at least, your father) cannot enjoy a dinner out without plotting out people you’re ready to shoot.
Sorry, but I couldn’t live like that.
If that’s the way you want to live, groovy. All I ask is that you demonstrate competence, responsiblity, and sanity. Then go ahead and insist on carrying your AK-47 to the mailbox.
Pack heat wherever you want for whatever reasons you have. Just demonstrate competence, responsibility, and sanity.
And why would you object to competence, responsibility, and sanity? Could it be you’re not all that sure you can democnstrate competence, responsibility, and sanity? Could that be, “Nathan?” Could that be possible?
Tell us more about that, “Nathan.”
Oh, and the word is “impugn,” not “impune.”
“Hooked on Phonics” is not your friend.
Cop killer bullets was just another buzz word used to describe something people don’t understand….
Almost any high caliber rifle round can penetrate low level body armor.
You have to have thick ceramic plates and bulky armor to be bullet resistant to high caliber rounds.
True armor piercing rounds come from the core material of that round and those types of ammunition are against the law.
The term cop killer came from the newly developed Teflon coated rounds which to this date I believe have never killed one cop.
The Teflon coating was designed to reduce barrel ware and didn’t cause that significant of an increase in armor penetration.
Even now, it is against the law or restricted use to have rounds which exceed a certain FPS.
Take for instance the new FN 5.7×28mm round can achieve very high FPS and those rounds which do so are not legal to be sold and/or restricted to LEO.
The term “Cop-Killer Bullets” somehow seemed to mean something to, ya know, *cops.*
Well, it all makes sense now!
I thought it was just another J R BS anecdote, but. . .
“I was also a Republican back then.”
Now I believe him! When he was a republican he had friends! When he was a republican he actually had a girl friend? Sounds like this was back when he had a job before his ‘principles! made him quit! When he was a republican he actually had a car that could make it past the state line! He could afford to go to Branson for good, wholesome entertainment when he was a republican!
I apologize J R!
How’s this being a democrat working for ya?
MonkeyHawk,
I don’t plot out people I am going to shoot.
I do however observe all entrances and exits, seat myself where I can observe things better, and have in mind what I might do if something were to happen from a fire to a shooting.
I am trained to be observant. I pay attention to many things while I am driving as well. I take different routes.
I have been trained in terrorism awareness by the Marines.
If you want to walk through life oblivious to the fact that someone might want to hurt you or your loved ones that is fine. Don’t mock me because I am ready, willing, and able to defend myself and the ones I love.
What will you do? Cry and beg to be spared?
Practice saying BAA!, I’m a sheep, BAA!
MonkeyHawk,
I posted a serious and very brief review of the actual history of the so called “cop killer” bullets.
Either you have something of substance to add or you don’t.
Looks like you went with the “don’t” option.
Vaughn,
I would be curious to see your underlying stance on gun ownership based on the 2nd Amendment is.
You say that those who carry concealed should be required to carry insurane as well.
Can you cite one example of someone with a concealed carry permit who needed to have this because of some harm he caused?
There is not much physcial damage that can be caused by a bullet or several bullets.
A car is worth several thousands of dollars and the property damage involved in bad driving or an accident warrants needing coverage for drivers. That is why cars are insured, because they cost so much and people who crash them don’t have 10-20 thousand dollars to repay the bank their loan or to fix the other persons car. The banks require insurance to cover their loan as well.
Car insurance doesn’t do much for killing people.
Trying to compare car insurance and the reasons for it to concealed carry is like comparing apples to oranges.
JR,
There is a huge difference between those who carry a gun and those who do not.
It is obvious because the people like you sit there and call the people like me paranoid.
Does it make you feel better about yourself to mock those you don’t understand?
“I see your still spinning and lying Mr Clark.”
And what EXACTLY did I lie about, Price?
I would presume that one of the Prices, father or son, would explain themselves – EXACTLY what did I lie about?
Otherwise, we can only assume that the Prices themselves are LIARS.
Nathan, I have seen now both you and your dad, I believe, post here that you make sure you check out situations you go into, and try to be observant, if something might happen…
I am trying to figure that out… Does that mean when you go into a resturant, you check out the surroundings, to see how you would handle matters in the event you decided to act as a vigilante, and find a need to uncloak your weapon?? If so, I have something to add…
I am still waiting for the Prices to explain where I have LIED.
Still waiting.
This should be an easy question to answer – where did I lie?
Actually, if the Prices cannot show where I lied on this thread, perhaps they should just GO AWAY.
Very far away.
Considering the rash of police abuse, the general incompetence of police generally, and mine own obersavations regarding police abuse regarding friends. I would consider firearms as a useful tool against that abuse, as G Gordon Liddy said in defense of using force against unlawful LEO’s “shoot them in the head and Kill the son a a bitch” In that regard I have no problem with people owing armor piercing rounds, plus it’s not impossible that crimanals wear body armor.
So, Mr. Paine, you are advocating the murder of law enforcement officers?
Just curious – to each his own.
By the way, when they execute you for the murder of a police officer, can I have your car?
“Almost all new firearms are sold with a locking mechanism. I don’t know where you have been, but this has been the case for some time now.”
Thanks Nathan that is reassuring. Is the locking devise like or mean a trigger lock?
I haven’t purchased a new gun in years. Haven’t fired one, well I cannot remember when. I do own guns. My kids grew up and never played with them and they didn’t even know about the hand guns until they saw them as adults.
I am concerned by the politicians trying to smooth over the Constitutions 2nd Amendment and revamp it’s meaning. A meaning which has worked well for America for over two hundred years.
But I cringe everytime I read about the children getting into the guns; sibling accidentally shooting one another, or friends.
Weapons safety unfortunately is not stressed with teh same emphasis as gun ownership rights are.
Not blaming anyone. The gun owner is responsible.
If they have the tools to make their weapons safe from children and true accidental discharge, I wish they would use them.
It would be a shame if people avoided mental health treatment because of laws that would subsequently limit their ability to own a gun. Untreated mentally ill people are much much more likely to be dangerous with or without guns than those that follow their doctor’s orders. Just a thought from a mental health advocate.
Cops someone should have exercised some 2nd amendment rights on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq-lNcCH5gA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNU3FKiIlI
mr clark i guess your cool with police goons beating on cripples, to each his own maybe you dance a little jig every time the police beat shit out a handicapped person. BTW if the police are dumb enough to invade my home in the middle of the night sucks to be them. The sad thing theirs more than one video of cops beating a cripple, then you got them beating women, minorities, elderly, more than can be posted.
another piller of the LEO community http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kgG0s7lVk
how about these assholes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryxlSKW6fls
Most of those who use guns to kill or injure others are not mentally ill.
Bullsh!t.
There’s no doctor alive who would diagnose cancer just by looking at a mole, infected or not.
Capn, shit happens. It happened to me. I guess you know every doctor in the world and are an expert on that as well. (sigh)
Old age must really suck for you.
Mary, you’re right. Even more reason not to pass legislation that would put yet another barrier in the way of people getting the treatment they need.
“Everyone has an interest in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.”
How about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, irresponsible people, and children? Why just focus on the mentally ill? Most of the tragedys caused with guns are not perpetrated by those who are mentally ill.
On the same day of the latest campus shooting spree…how many others were killed in this country by gun violence? More than 6 people I’ll bet.
Hey Chas,
Good question!
When I’m in a restaurant I’m almost always with my wife. My actions are entirely different when my wife or anyone else close to me is involved.
I don’t have a vigilante attitude. If an armed robbery was going down in an establishment that I was in I would act like I was unarmed and try not to attract attention to me or mine.
I would try and draw my weapon and have it ready but if I didn’t think the robber was going to shoot anyone I’d try and make myself real small.
There’s a big difference between being a vigilante and being prepared to protect my wife and myself. If some one was shooting up a place, I’d act. If they were robbing the place and I didn’t feel any one was in danger I’d finish my dessert and try to be a good witness.
Banning mentally ill people from owning guns will not significantly decrease the death in this country caused by the easy access to firearms. Approximately 35,000 people are killed each year in this country due to gun violence…out of that number, how many were shot and killed by someone who was “mentally ill”?
2nd Amm. Daught. says >>>>
“It would be a shame if people avoided mental health treatment because of laws that would subsequently limit their ability to own a gun.”
Sounds like somebory who would do that is already bordering on dangerous, in that they would value gun ownership more highly than their own mental health… Just a thought…
It’s terrible hearing about another campus shooting happening, and it would be great if there were a way to prevent them. I feel helpless and sad for the people who have to grieve loved ones who are gone, or those who become fearful seeing that campus shootings can happen. I hope that schools or someone come up with an effective way to end these attacks quickly when someone comes to class and starts firing. Prevention is an even more complicated approach and one that would be hard to prove it was working because of laws or some other technique- since these attacks are infrequent considering all the schools open every day. But I completely encourage that people are thinking about potential solutions.
Econ 101
Actually
The killer in the Colorado Church was stopped — by another gun owner.
Ya, he shot himself, in the end, but only after being confronted.
Only confrontation with another gun owner, or the risk of such confrontation, will solve any of these problems.
I believe she put it to him, but they can’t allow a story to end like that. The goal is to disarm us and if it looks like an evil gun owner stopped a little chaos, well that just won’t do.
Well Mary,
Since you asked, More than half of the gun deaths each year in the US are as a result of suicide. So I guess, if someone kills themselves, they pretty much died because someone mentally ill killed them!
Banning guns wouldn’t prevent someone from killing themselves. In fact, they’d probably do it is a less messy way.
“I thought it was just another J R BS anecdote, but.”
I don’t do “BS”/
“When he was a republican he had friends! ”
Still do. Only now none of them are crazy or Republican.
“Sounds like this was back when he had a job before his ‘principles! made him quit! ”
I quit mostly because my health was being destroyed and I was told I had to put the job ahead of my kid.
“When he was a republican he actually had a car that could make it past the state line! ”
I still do. Actually it’s a truck. But travel costs money and I am a self employed single parent.
“He could afford to go to Branson for good, wholesome entertainment when he was a republican!”
That was 25 years ago. I was a fast food worker at the time. My dad kicked me outta the house for crossing a picket line at Beech to apply for a job that Summer. He was right to do so.
We later went to Branson. It’s a dump.
Chas, … maybe, but then again it could just be one opinion versus another that gun ownership out to be valued by a person less than one’s own mental health. Whether or not someone is right to believe it, though, they will act on their beliefs and avoid treatment if it’s that important to them.
“Capn, shit happens. It happened to me. I guess you know every doctor in the world and are an expert on that as well. (sigh)”
You have to admit, AmWay, that this sounds to be outside the usual practice standards of most physicians. Most I know, and those who treat me, want to have data before they go tossing around diagnoses like Cancer.
It would be impossible for any of us to say that this did not happen. It does sound, fortunately, if it did happen, to be a rare jumping of the gun so to speak. But then again, Bill Frist, M.D. was sure he saw conscious processes with Terri Schiavo on her videos. Frist was not the doctor, was he?
IN 2004 according to the National Safety Council, there were the following firearms deaths:
649 Death From Accidental Discharge
16,750 Intentional Self Harm Deaths
235 Death from undetermined intent
11,624 Assaults resulting in death
311 Legal intervention, death by firearms
Well J R,
Just admit it, you’re busted.
Twenty five years ago? Let’s see, you were how old then? Had to quit your job because of your kid? The 12 year old boy that now has no health insurance because you quit.
You don’t BS? J R your whole life is BS.
But every cloud has it’s silver lining. When you decided to go democrat you increased the IQ of both parties!
“t is obvious because the people like you sit there and call the people like me paranoid.”
Nathan I did not use that word. Paranoid that is.
But…what would you call it?
It is FAR more likely that I will get wet than that I will get shot when I venture out. But I don’t carry an umbrella everywhere I go.
Maybe it is an anticipation of trouble? And, if such folks HAVE such an anticipation, why?
Are they acting in ways that would cause them to be attacked?
See, I’m really trying to get this. But I say again, it must be something fundamentally different in such folks. And it is overwhelmingly found in Republicans.
So what was the health problem JR?
Chemicals? Physical?
“And it is overwhelmingly found in Republicans.”
Got a link for that?
Just more BS
He had a problem with his vision, Regular.
Just couldn’t see working!
How am I busted Hank?
Shall I have someone independently confirm what I have said?
I could.
Are you worth it?
No.
Have your wife buy you another gun.
heh
Derision from a welfare case and a kept man!
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
The table where statistics came from.
————————————-
Could be Hank. It may not be physical as JR stated he does landscape and lawn work.
If it was chemical, then if anything was proved hazardous to his health and affected him, he would have gotten a settlement.
He has never mentioned he got any type of compensation.
It appears J R, (as Hank said), just stopped working.
You quit your job how long ago? You quit because of your boy? Your boy is now how old?
Confirm what, nitwit? You contradict yourself several times.
BS
I didn’t contradict myself anywhere Hank.
I’m just smart enough not to share too much info on a forum where there are known crazy people like “Regular” and liars like you.
In other words Hank, he made it up.
He found his momma could support him, so he stopped working.
Are those NATIONAL figures Regular??
J R Do not feed the Trolls!! Please??
Yes Chas
Just as a Blog reminder >>>>
“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”
{Wikipedia}
Oh, really, J R!
How old are you now? 42, 43? Twenty five years ago you were on your way to Branson? Why? 25 years ago the only group in Branson was the Baldnobbers and the Presslys! A real swinging place to take your girl friend!
A dump? I know a lot of the Mabe brothers, including Droopy, don’t tell them it was a dump!
Nope J R, just another B S personal anecdote that was a lie from beginning to end.
Come on J R, at least show us enough respect to try and make them believable! Your anecdotes are like a never ending joke with no punch line.
And furthermore J R, I got a lot of money that says you can’t prove you were ever a republican. I think that is just another of your BS lies.
Now, if you were a republican, it’s a matter of record. You can easily prove it. What do you say? I got $100 that says you are a liar!
“How old are you now? 42, 43? ”
You don’t know. And that’s the way I like it.
“25 years ago the only group in Branson was the Baldnobbers and the Presslys!”
Uh no. We went the next year to Silver Dollar city. TOTAL yawn. The water park was ok.
Branson was then a tourist trap of miniature golf courses, helicopter rides, etc. I can’t imagine it has gotten any better.
Oh and Hank? YOU have been busted in lies here.
I never have.
You could ask my Dad. Except that he is dead.
Mom could tell you I voted for Reagan. Dad and Mom didn’t vote then. But my Dad damn near disowned me.
If mom won’t do, I think I still have a button around here somewhere that says “Darth Vader for President”. I do not remember if I was registered.
And why would I lie? You might have a point if I claimed I was a Republican until a few years ago.
The GOP fell into my rear view mirror before 1989 though. I didn’t vote for bush 1.
J R
Posted February 19, 2008 at 8:32 pm | Permalink
We later went to Branson. It’s a dump.
How much later?
J R, the only reason you haven’t been busted is because no one cared enough to challenge your BS personal anecdotes. I think they were all lies.
Pit Bulls attacking your kid in the street. Deranged neighbors threatening you with guns. Friends sneaking guns in your trunk. All lies.
And, unless you lied about your age, I know how old you are. Plus or minus a year, wanna bet?
I got a lot of money says Hank Price is one stupid know it all wannabe, who likes to post lies about people.
It should be easy to prove, by searching the archives of the Blog. Should be real hard to disprove it.
A lot of democrats voted for Reagan, so what.
Why would you lie? For the same reason all liberals lie, the truth is too painful for them!
You got nothing!
“Pit Bulls attacking your kid in the street.”
I said a pit bull charged my kid in the street.
Would my sons word be proof enough?
And I don’t submit personal stories as unquestionable fact. They are just that. And I do not lie.
“You got nothing!”
I”M not the one doing the accusing here.
Can you PROVE me a liar?
Showdown at the O.K. Corral, man… Wish I had someone to quote, argue with and make up personal insults about, I’m feeling left out. This thread was so much more interesting to follow when comments were about the article instead of about other posters.
“A lot of democrats voted for Reagan, so what.”
Would a lot of democrats write “Fritz and tits call it quits” on a university English classroom blackboard the day after the election?
I grew. I evolved past being a Republican.
I know, you don’t believe in evolution.
For the record Hank, I don’t think most of your posts here are lies.
Many, but not most.
They are the honest words of a not very nice, bitter, kept man.
Hell J R,
You contradicted yourself two or three times in the same post! What is there to prove?
Can you prove I’ve ever lied?
You got nothing J R. You’re a cross between Walter Mitty and Don Quioxte with a bad hair cut!
My goodness, Hank, how do you really feel about J R? Your whole deal tonight seems a little over the top, don’t you think. Maybe a couple of deep breaths would help you.
It is hard for me to understand how any of the above could be of much concern to you.
“This thread was so much more interesting to follow when comments were about the article instead of about other posters.”
Well I didn’t start it.
Hank likes to take shots at me.
He’s sorta shallow that way.
hank?
Did you post that “J R has admitted to using illegal drugs”?
Yup you did.
Please find a post where I have ever lied about you or for that matter anything.
I called you out J R! Prove you were a registered republican and I’ll send a $100 bucks to your favorite charity!
According to my research, it is somewhat of an ill conceived notion for an alleged Marine with some degree of rank, to be posting on a public blog with his actual name, and his stated rank. It seems also ill conceived that this alleged Marine would also post repeatedly about his very distubring desires about carrying a concealed weapon. As an alleged Marine Reservist, this individual should be more careful about boasting of his concealed weapons, since he is answerable to his Unit, should his firearm be used when he is out of uniform. (That is my research, not me, speaking.)
This alleged Marine is said to be more highly trained than police officers. That being true, this Marine person should put his alleged talents to good use, and enroll in the Police Academy, or whatever it is called in Kansas. If the alleged is true concerning this Marine, he could easily be or become an arms instructor in the Police Academy.
Until further, I would encourage this alleged Marine to be most careful about wearing his weapon, as well as discussing details of his concealed carry status.
Thank you!
Steven,
Some of the things you have said about my father and I have been beyond over the top. Don’t you think?
Perhaps a couple of deep breaths would help you.
Yes, Nathan, I know your dad can’t answer a couple of simple questions. Thanks for helping him out.
You guys are too much…
I do not know that I can prove I was a registered Republican.
I DID vote a straight GOP ticket in 1984.
And I don’t need any of your wife’s or the governments money.
If you can prove me a liar do so.
I HAVE proved you a liar. And the whole blog remembers it.
Mr. Price, what is the source or cause of your anger and hostility? Did you lose one of your bel;oved firearms, or did your son get re-called to Iraq?
J R
Posted February 19, 2008 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
“And I don’t need any of your wife’s or the governments money.”
Holy crap! Will you finally stop crying about how the government should pay for your health care and a million other things now then???
“I HAVE proved you a liar. And the whole blog remembers it.”
He’s got ya there, Hank/Nathan.
I’ve also proven Nathan a liar.
And I don’t need to go there.
But since he weighed in.
I have advocated for health care for ALL Americans. This puts me with a solid majority in this country.
Next?
Steven,
I guess by the “whole blog” he means a few select liberal posters here?
What lie was proven? I must have missed it.
Well J R, That J R used drugs thing was a mistake. I apologized public and private. You accepted the apology.
My apology was sincere and unconditional. I didn’t apologize for lying. I apologized for making a mistake and you accepted it.
Have you ever lied about me? Yes. You continually call me a kept man. What exactly do you mean by that? What facts do you have to back that assertion?
Any reasonable definition of a ‘kept man’ does not pertain to me. You sir are a liar.
So J R, what was the health problems that caused you to quit your nice Union job?
Then again, JR probably doesn’t even know the meaning of the word lie with the way he uses it.
Neither do several of the other liberals here either.
“Some of the things you have said about my father and I have been beyond over the top. Don’t you think?
Perhaps a couple of deep breaths would help you.”
_______________________
IMHO these statements are almost textbook cases of someone suffering from bi-polar disdorder. This kind of thing happens, when a bi-polar individual says something in response to another, that is nearly identical to what the other individual first said to them.
And this is the poster who wants us to believe that he is fully competent to be carrying firearms concealed all over your fair city?
Hmmm, someone else made the assertion that Nathan should join the police academy…
Now who was that? :)
That is not a true statement about bipolar disorder, ” . “. There is a neurological disorder called echolalia where someone repeats what they hear others saying.
Nathan and Hank,
There was a time when Hank claimed that J R took drugs. We could go back and find those posts, but as I recall, Hank admitted he was wrong. Which he was. So, I am not seeing the point of that.
I think so much of this kind of nonsense is just that, nonsense.
I have made mistakes in my life, and in my posts here. So, what? I try to admit my mistakes and if I have failed in doing that, I apologize.
Please. Just for the sake of common decency, can we leave J R’s son out of this crap that we throw at each other. Please?
Nathan
Posted February 19, 2008 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
Then again, JR probably doesn’t even know the meaning of the word lie with the way he uses it.
Neither do several of the other liberals here either.
For one who purports to be a marine you sure act and comminicate like a 12 year old girl scout
Hey Steven,
Feeling a little left out are we? Feel the need to jump in somewhere where you have no business?
Remember the time you posted, and I paraphrase,
It’s too bad your father never loved you, Nathan.
You you remember words like that Steven? They were a lie.
But you’re right, I’ll stop with J R. It’s bed time and he’s not worth it. He’s not an honorable man.
“I apologized for making a mistake and you accepted it.”
Yes I did.
But how many more times have you “made a mistake” and forced me to correct the record?
I don’t live with my Mom. I almost did when I was helping take care of my Dad.
I don’t “sleep until the late afternoon” as you once posted. I guess the only way I could prove that is if I called you in the early AM. No thanks.
That’s for a start.m I won’t even get into the things Nathan has posted about me.
And I DON’T lie as you have accused me of here.
Do you wish to look worse or would you like to back down now?
_______________________
“IMHO these statements are almost textbook cases of someone suffering from bi-polar disdorder. This kind of thing happens, when a bi-polar individual says something in response to another, that is nearly identical to what the other individual first said to them.”
Sorry, man, you have that all wrong. Nathan is not echolalic. I know that when I see it. But thanks for trying…
Steven,
Our last posts crossed. I apologize.
Chas reminds me of the Puritans in the Salem Witch Hunt.
First step is identifying the “trolls”.
The purpose of which is to stifle any opposing viewpoints on the world.
He is crying in the night, “trolls beware!”
He is a lost cause.
(pretend preacher and all)
“He’s not an honorable man.”
A better one than you. I don’t engage in slander.
Indeed. I have better things to do myself.
I will end with this Steven:
JR uses his son in discussions to call for Health Care. He has used his son to attack the character of my father. He uses his son in his anecdotal stories.
The only time we ever mention his son is in response to the things he posts.
I would suggest, that if you don’t want people talking about your son, that you don’t use him in your arguments.
I don’t believe my father or I have ever said one negative word about JR’s son.
So please don’t act like some great atrocity has been committed when we reply to JR using his son in the discussion.
Chas,
How goes the job hunt? Dillions rejected you.
Anything else coming your way?
Or living off handouts?
Blog note: JR cannot, on his own, as a man, support his son. Therefore, he relies on the goodness of the federal government (and handouts from people who feel sorry for him) to support his son.
Hopefully, all is well for his son. Hopefully, his son is in bed at this time and ready for another school day tomorrow.
He must rise above the lowly platitude of his father. The beggar, JR.
“You you remember words like that Steven? They were a lie.”
That was something that I did not know, that I should not have said. I apologize for that. There is a weird tag-team kind of thing that goes on with you guys. What that may really mean, I don’t know, nor do I care. But, I am impressed that you and your son, focus a lot on that. I have wondered if that was too close for your respective comforts.
I think that “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones…”
And furhter, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
Hank,
You and Nathan can’t be proud of the crap you put on J R, can you? It is time for it to stop. My final words on this subject.
Good night.
Wayward son James.
You are appropriate company for the despicable Price family.
Perhaps they will help find you accomodations outside your sister’s basement?
Wrong again J R,
BTW, what was this health problem that caused you to quit your nice union job?
Chas is upset because he will never ever qualify for gun ownership due to his treatment for a mental disorder.
He is afraid of guns.
JR may have the same delima, but he is focused
on himself and his life on the blog, so he may not even realize it.
Goooo Team!
JR didn’t quit. The union caved in. If you have an injury, the union will defend you to the bitter end.
JR was the “victim” of the union and big management.
The answer has to be in this regards that he could not handle the simply manual labor job he had.
Hence, his vindictiveness against “the man”.
Repost……
WSClark
Posted February 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm |
I am still waiting for the Prices to explain where I have LIED.
Still waiting.
This should be an easy question to answer – where did I lie?
Actually, if the Prices cannot show where I lied on this thread, perhaps they should just GO AWAY.
Very far away.
WSClark, quit your whining. You cry and complain.
Booo-hooo!
Isn’t this a school night for you?
Hey Clark! You whine like a little bitch.
Are you another Chas?
WSClark, that will not happen any time soon.
Apparently, Nathan has a new nickname……..
Blog alert! Blog alert!
DNFTT’s! It is a Full Moon. There is no telling where the lunacy might end tonight. If we all leave, the Sock Puppet Ballet will entertain themselves.
Full Moon has a strange effect on warped minds. It seems to make them more warped.
Attention!!
There will be a caucus of the Blog Trolls at the QT at Broadway & Murdock, at 1 a.m., at the phone banks, under the light of the Full Moon. If you are unable to be there, send one of your other nics. There are only a couple of phones at that location. It shouldnt be that hard to find each other. In case of emergency, there are always plenty of LEO’s hanging out there. They should be able to help you find yourself, and help you distinguish you from your troll nics.
Thank you. You may now return to your previous scamming of Blog space. And have a wonderful evening!
Oh, and Chas? Good night, etc, etc.
And as a parting note?
Nathan says:
“JR uses his son in discussions to call for Health Care.”
That’s true Nathan. I have lived both sides of the issue. I had insurance and a $10 copay for any visit to the doctor.
Now it costs me $125 just to visit the doctor.
I understand from Nathan’s earlier posts that he has at times found himself living in government housing and on food stamps?
I think I remember reading that. If I’m wrong I’ll say so.
Well, having lived both sides, I can’t bring myself to blame those left behind. This doesn’t seem to be a problem for Nathan.
I made the mistake ( I guess) of posting an honest, personal story here. I asked how it is that those who feel the need to be constantly armed are different from other people.
From the response I got, I take that such folk are born defensive and always on the attack. They have “theirs”. Hard won or otherwise. And they are terrible afraid of the consequences. Very judgemental of others, they are ready and armed to exercise summary judgement on the same.
Speaking of Flat Tires:
The Post, Houston, TX, 9/26/84
A pair of would-be rapists, clad only in matching bikini underwear, were put to flight by their intended victim. Lyn Whitney was changing a flat tire when the pair abducted her, taking her to a Houston apartment, where they told her they were going to rape her.
Whitney convinced the criminals to let her use the bathroom, then pulled a .25 automatic from her jeans and opened up on the pair, who were hurriedly disrobing. Police easily captured the pair, who were later sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
For 2005 in the US:
12,352 murders with firearms
18,124 total murders
17,002 suicides with firearms
32,637 total suicides
19,656 deaths from accidental falling
23,618 deaths from accidental poisoning
45,343 motor vehicle deaths
846 US soldiers killed in Iraq
2,448,017 total deaths from all causes
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Number%20of%20Deaths%20113%20Causes%202005.html
Repost……
WSClark
Posted February 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm |
I am still waiting for the Prices to explain where I have LIED.
Still waiting.
This should be an easy question to answer – where did I lie?
Actually, if the Prices cannot show where I lied on this thread, perhaps they should just GO AWAY.
Very far away.
And 789 accidental deaths from firearms in 2005.
plus 12,352 murders with firearms
plus 17,002 suicides with firearms =
30,143 total deaths from firearms in 2005
I think they were wondering about the cop killer and armor piercing bullets you were talking about Clark.
Not sure though.
“I think they were wondering about the cop killer and armor piercing bullets you were talking about Clark.”
I didn’t coin the terms, Max, the proposed legislation used that nomenclature.
My reference was a direct reference to the proposed laws.
I could be wrong, but I believe my father meant to call MonkeyHawk the liar.
His post was just after that.
Amazing how many retreat to the Troll Holes.
Good night; Good luck;
And God bless; whatever you
Conceive God to be!
Blessings all!!
Lord, lead us not
Into Temptation;
But deliver us from
Those who think they’re You!
Chas,
I notice you seem to be out in full force posting your agnostic tripe.
Don’t cry when I start to question your Christianity when you spend more time quoting and talking about everything but Christ.
Well, Price, this is his quote…….
___________________________________________
Hank Price
Posted February 19, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Well,
I see your still spinning and lying Mr Clark. I would be embarrased if I couldn’t support my arguments without lying.
___________________________________________
It’s a bit hard to mistake that one, Price.
So, what up with that? Just more low-priced bullshit?
WS Clark,
I couldn’t tell you anymore than I already have. His post came right after MonkeyHawks which was obviously full of crap.
I would venture a guess that it was him he meant to respond to.
Nathan, what is it you find non christian about these lines???
Lord, lead us not
Into Temptation;
But deliver us from
Those who think they’re You!
Even St. Paul quoted from non-biblical sources, Nathan… Hey, if Paul can do it, why not me??
Say Nathan, you mentioned that FN 5.7 x 28 or something before. You ever shoot one?
My brother has one, but the ammo is so rare and expensive I don’t know that he’s even shot it yet. So I haven’t had a try with it yet either!
I was interested, till I discovered the ammo cost/supply problem plus the muzzle energy is about the same (or maybe even less) then the 38 Special.
Still, nice high velocity, 20 rounds (?), and light weight.
Nathan, you appear to need a good healthy lesson in definitions of terms…. Agnostic is NOT anti-Christian, or even necessarily NON Christian!!
I’m outta here!! Nite All!!
Chas,
I didn’t say those lines couldn’t be Christian nor did I say you couldn’t quote from non-biblical sources.
I simply find it odd, that you spend more time talking about everything but Christ when you claim to be a Christian.
I do think it is not Christian to say:
“God Bless, whatever you conceive of God to be”
You are basically giving a blessing in whatever false God someone believes in. Hardly something a Christian would do.
Max,
I have not shot one before. I would love to own one for the accuracy.
I have read that it is extremely accurate at distances of up to 50 yards and beyond.
They designed it to be the side arm which compliments the RCP90 since they share the same ammo.
“I would venture a guess that it was him he meant to respond to.”
Then why didn’t he? Is he going down the Reagan path of “I don’t recall?”
Or is it that the two of you just ASSUME that anyone that disagrees with you must be ME?
I guess you Price Boys just have a fixation on me.
Get over it.
Nathan, Read about Paul at Mars Hill in Athens!!
You might find it enlightening, since you insist on TRYING telling
WS Clark,
You can waste 50 posts speculating about it all night long.
What will that accomplish?
The only thing we know is that he called you a liar. He has yet to clarify or answer your questions.
Since you keep going on about it, I offered you what I thought happened. Something we have all done at some time or another… respond to the post of someone else but tag the wrong name to it.
On trying to tell mle what I can and cant post as a Christian…. I quite frankly find that most laughable!! YOU telling another blogger what they can and cant post as a Christian!!! ROFL!!! Like you are the resident EXPERT??? And we must all kow tao to YOUR belief system!!! ROFLMAO!!!! I find that hilarious!!!
I dont NEED your permission, or your agreement, or any of your religion at all!!
And YOU sir, should not find it necessary to QUESTION what I post about my religious beliefs!!!
And I will ALWAYS say to people, whatever they conceive God to be… Cause, Nathan, YOUR conception of God sure isnt like a WHOLE LOT of others!! So, YOU TOO, are included in my nightly blessing!!
That FN looks cool, and fits like a glove in my hand.
Feels lighter then a Glock even.
But this discussion is best kept on the gun blog. You know, where we can discuss cop killer armor piercing bullets.
“You can waste 50 posts speculating about it all night long.”
Fifty – that must be Republican math….
“The only thing we know is that he called you a liar.”
Typical right winger – call out someone as a LIAR, but offers nothing to back it up and then runs away when called on it.
Are you related to Rush Limbaugh, Price?
Chas.
Posted February 20, 2008 at 12:20 am | Permalink
And YOU sir, should not find it necessary to QUESTION what I post about my religious beliefs!!!
And I will ALWAYS say to people, whatever they conceive God to be… Cause, Nathan, YOUR conception of God sure isnt like a WHOLE LOT of others!! So, YOU TOO, are included in my nightly blessing!!
————————————————–
1. What’s posted on the blog is then Fair Game for debate, discussion, rebuttal, attack, etc…
2. From what Nathan has written, his Christian beliefs are pretty close to mine, and to those of most Christians I know.
So Chas, if you don’t want your ‘Christian’ beliefs questioned on a blog, then stop posting your ‘Christian’ beliefs on a blog!
On trying to tell mle what I can and cant post as a Christian…. I quite frankly find that most laughable!! YOU telling another blogger what they can and cant post as a Christian!!! ROFL!!! Like you are the resident EXPERT??? And we must all kow tao to YOUR belief system!!! I find that hilarious!!!
I dont NEED your permission, or your agreement, or any of your religion at all!!
And YOU sir, should not find it necessary to QUESTION what I post about my religious beliefs!!!
And I will ALWAYS say to people, whatever they conceive God to be… Cause, Nathan, YOUR conception of God sure isnt like a WHOLE LOT of others!! So, YOU TOO, are included in my nightly blessing!!
SA1615 Cop Killer Bullet Ban
SA1617 Armor Piercing Ammunition Ban
So it’s ok for Chas to tell Nathan what not to post on the blog, but it’s not ok for Nathan to question what Chas posts on the blog.
I see.
“And YOU sir, should not find it necessary to QUESTION what I post about my religious beliefs!!! ” Chas.
Because the mighty and all-powerful Oz has spoken?
“That FN looks cool, and fits like a glove in my hand.”
And makes my Cheney REAL firm.
Chas,
I didn’t say what you could or couldn’t post. I simply said that I don’t think a Christian would say what you do.
What if I conceive of God to be a Golden Calf Chas? Do you still mean to offer me a blessing from a Golden Calf, a flase idol?
AMEN Clark!! I just love it when guys openly Blog about liking illegal ammo, and how neat it feels to shoot such junk!! LOL Absolutely amazing!!
See Nathan, ya just cant read, man….
It isnt ME that is offering a blessing!!
Look, its REAL simple… even cave men can do it… IF somebody believes in God as a Golden Calf, so what?? Then the nightly blessing is for GOD to bless; whatever they conceive GOD to be… If that is a Golden Calf, for one of your phony religions, then so be it!! Let that person be blessed by their God!!
Now, if you are so dense that you cant understand something that simple, and you must be that dense, or you wouldnt continually rant about it, Then maybe a course in world religions, or comparative religions would be in order for you… I think WSU offers such a course… as does Newman… You might want to look into it…
I’m not being fecitious… I’m actually quite serious… check it out!!
See, Nathan, the Golden Calf is only a false idol, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN IT!! To the folks who DO believe in it, it isnt a false anything… IN fact, what YOU believe would be the false God for those people…
My nightly blessing merely seeks to overcome such dogmatic horse hockey!!
Even Jesus told the woman at the well, that there would be a time when such cosmetic differences of worshipping on the mountains, or in Jerusalem would be a moot point… John 4:1ff…. Check it out… I am not nearly as far off base as YOU think I am!!
Once again, time for bed here… nite all!!
Chas,
How can someone be blesses by a god that doesn’t exist and why would you as a Christian offer them a blessing from a false god?
WS Clark,
What was your point in posting those bill titles?
Those bills are political crap and failed.
Seems to me, Nathan, that YOUR God is made of steel and shoots 9mm bullets……………….
The real God will bless the fake God?
Ya, perfect sense.
“What was your point in posting those bill titles?”
To point out that I did not coin the terms “cop killer bullets” or “armor piercing bullets.”
Got a problem with that?
I use terms from Lewis Carroll all the time, when I point out things about the 2nd Amendment.
WS Clark,
Of course you didn’t coin the terms. That doesn’t mean that the terms are not political BS.
I pointed out the history of the term already.
It is nothing more than some term to stir up emotion about things most people don’t understand.
They read cop killer and are immediately given the wrong impression. It is political propaghanda at it’s best.
Max,
When Chas is posting that stuff, doesn’t it make you wonder how he can call himself a Christian???
Chas,
You will have to be a bit more specific on your Bible quoting because I am not seeing where Jesus advocated the worship of false idols or giving people blessings from them…
“Of course you didn’t coin the terms”
So what is your forkin point, Price?
Who the Fork cares?
As I have stated, over and over and over and over again………………
I don’t care!
I don’t care if you can swallow .44 Magnum rounds and fart bullets at a target fifty yards away.
I don’t care!
I don’t care!
Get that through your thick skull. Buy a forkin’ ICBM for all I care. Buy a Bradley for all I care. Damn, buy a destroyer equipped with cruise missiles.
I don’t care!
If it makes you feel good and more protected, god damn, go for it.
Just shut the fork up about it.
Pssssssssssssssssssssssstttttttttttttt…….
(whispers……)
No one wants to take your precious guns away from you, Price, that is just a LIBERAL bogeyman of your imagination – it ain’t what we want and it ain’t gonna happen.
Nathan
Posted February 20, 2008 at 12:53 am | Permalink
Max,
When Chas is posting that stuff, doesn’t it make you wonder how he can call himself a Christian???
————————————————-
Absolutely.
To say that there are other Gods contradicts the Bible I know.
To post repeatedly that Agnostic trash is to at best question the existence of God, and at worst blaspheme His name.
Constantly mocking God would seem to indicate he has not accepted Jesus as his personal savior. I knew a former pastor once who quit preaching because of conflicts within himself. He thought Jesus was a prophet of sorts, but couldn’t accept him as Christ the Lord.
Sad situation.
But, what’s worse, is the potential for harm that is done when someone who supposedly is a Christian leader, misleads his flock.
There are many sheep who might beleive him.
WS Clark,
If no one wants to take my guns away, then what were those two bills you just posted?
They very sepcifically wanted to take a gun away and who knows how much ammunition.
I can post you links to many other laws that the Democrats try to pass which would outlaw many other types of guns, magazines, ammo, and place further restrictions on the process of buying them as well.
I don’t know what world you live in, you might not care, but there are plenty of other anti-gun liberals who do very much want to take my guns away.
Too many pastors are afraid to take a stand anymore. They do whatever it takes to be accepted, to be popular, to keep church members coming and bringing cash on Sundays.
They don’t stand for anything. Their path is where the wind takes them.
Sounds like Hillary Clinton doesn’t it?
Exactly Max. Exactly.
Chas has yet to say what he believes about Christ. Everytime I ask he says it is none of my business or ignores me.
Don’t you also find it odd that a Christian wouldn’t tell people about Christ or what they believe about him? Especially a minister?
I just don’t get it.
The NRA and similar organizations are just political fronts for the Republican Party.
They create bogeymen by saying that the Democrats want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. They create this hysteria that the whole world is against them and trying disarm them, so that they can be forced into socialism and homosexual sex acts.
The NRA and their friends are just fear-mongerers that prey on the unwarranted premise that SOMEONE is coming after them and theirs.
As FDR said, so eloquently, “All we have to fear, is fear it’s self.”
It’s okay, boys and girls, we DON’T want your guns and we don’t give a good god damn about your private arsenal.
If it works for you, makes your sex life better, make you feel like more of a man, makes you feel like John Wayne (Marion Morrison) then just freakin’ go for it.
But, please, shut up about it.
Here’s a link to a few Gun-Ban proposals just from the current Congress:
HR 1022. Sponsored by Democrats.
See also S1237 introduced and sponsored by Democrats.
For more Gun-Ban bills introduced by the Current Congress see:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=215&issue=010
It’s amazing how anyone can make the case that no one in Congress is trying to ban guns.
LIBERAL bogeyman of your imagination must be writing and introducing all of these gun-ban bills!
“I don’t know what world you live in, you might not care, but there are plenty of other anti-gun liberals who do very much want to take my guns away.”
Price, tonight as you go to sleep, cradling your Glock in your hand, stroking it lovingly, waiting for it to go off, just remember……………
NO ONE WANTS YOUR GOD DAMNED GUN!!!!!!
That is just a Right Wing scare tactic.
We don’t want to take your preeeeeeeeeeeeeecious Glock away from you.
Damn, you buy that crap from the NRA types without question. It is just GARBAGE!
Are you truly that stupid that you can’t see the propaganda?
Really? You do not see that you are being played like a dime store fiddle?
Nathan
Posted February 20, 2008 at 1:11 am | Permalink
Exactly Max. Exactly.
Chas has yet to say what he believes about Christ. Everytime I ask he says it is none of my business or ignores me.
Don’t you also find it odd that a Christian wouldn’t tell people about Christ or what they believe about him? Especially a minister?
I just don’t get it.
——————————————-
The only logical conclusion is that he does NOT believe.
And something inside him won’t allow him to even lie about believing – that’s the scary part. Is there some demon inside who cannot touch holy water, or who cannot profess Jesus as his personal savior?
I’ve never known any Christian pastor who hid the light from the world. The light is meant to be seen, and to shine on everyone.
Some enthusiastic Pastors I’ve known, in fact, cannot hold themselves back – they are driven to teach the Word of God.
WS Clark,
Are you kidding me? What exactly is the Milion Mom March, the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign, Americans for Gun Safety…etc…etc…etc…
You just got done posting a bill which attempted to outlaw a gun, the FN 5.7×28mm!
Then you are going to turn around and say it is all just some fear mongering by the NRA?
You are too much.
This congress alone has tried to reimplement the Assualt Weapons ban, the restriction on Magazine capacity and several other measures.
You have to be purposefully ignorant to sit there and say that no one wants to take away our guns.
You might not care, but their are plenty of liberals that do.
Nathan, ignore all those Gun-Ban Bills in Congress that are behind the curtain of deceipt.
The Great and Wonderful Oz means us no harm.
Really, Max, you are being played for a fool. No one is going to take your precious guns away from you. It ain’t gonna happen.
But you will continue to pay your dues to every gun owners organization from now until the end of time.
Liberals do not WANT your guns, Max.
It is just a figment of your imagination, fueled by the NRA and similar organizations.
Keep your guns, Max. Buy even more guns (American made please) if that is what makes you happy.
Keep buying. Buy some more.
No one cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WS Clark,
What about this:
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.620:
These were the Sponsors:
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 3/14/2005 Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] – 3/14/2005
Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] – 3/14/2005 Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] – 3/14/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 3/14/2005 Sen Levin, Carl [MI] – 3/14/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] – 3/14/2005 Sen Reed, Jack [RI] – 3/14/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 3/14/2005 Sen Warner, John [VA] – 3/14/2005
Just a figment of my imagination?
Nathan, you know that was not simply a renewal of the original act.
It banned significantly more firearms then the original, and was much worse.
I guess this was just a figment of my imagination?
Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.935:
Sponsors:
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 6/23/2005 Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] – 5/16/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] – 4/28/2005 Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 4/28/2005
Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] – 5/16/2005 Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 7/27/2005
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] – 5/26/2005 Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] – 6/30/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 9/7/2005
“You just got done posting a bill which attempted to outlaw a gun, the FN 5.7×28mm!”
Jesus H. Freakin’ Christ – they want to BAN the mother forkin’ FN 5.7×28mm????????
So?
Where do you gun nutz want to draw the line? ICBM’s? Nukes? Cruise missiles?
So someone proposed a god damned bill? Did it pass? Did it even make it to a vote?
BFD.
Do you really want me to start yanking out PROPOSED bills offered by Republican?
There are plenty of stupid ones in that batch also. One thing is for certain, stupidity covers both sides of the aisle.
Get over yourselves – NO ONE is coming for your guns.
Damn………………….
And the Titles to the Bills are as onerous as one can dream up. The Titles often don’t relate at all to what is in the bill.
“Cop Killer Bullet” ban for example, if I recall would ban all hollow-point bullets.
WS Clark,
Do you really want me to post all the different laws introduced by liberals bent on restricting firearms and prohibiting them too?
I could go on for some time.
It is not a figment of my imagination.
WS Clark,
So when they passed the Assualt Weapons ban under Clinton, what was that? Just a figment of my imagination too?
It is a large jump from owning a FN and an ICBM. Going a bit overboard there WS Clark…
WS Clark,
We have not even begun to look at State laws like those in California which did authorize the confiscation of firearms, demand turn in of certain types of firearms, restrict the sale and owning of several firearms…etc…etc…etc…
And you are seriously here telling us that no one wants to take away our guns?
In the Book of Proverbs, the Bible says:
Proverbs chapter 30 (NLT)
5 Every word of God proves true. He defends all who come to him for protection. 6 Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you, and you will be found a liar.
It is obvious that the Gun Nutz are not
happy with any bill that EVEN mentions guns.
Damn, if Congress passed a bill requiring the sellers of guns to inform the buyers that they ACTUALLY needed bullets to make the gun effective, the Gun Nutz would object.
So, nothing will please you folks, nothing will convince you that the whole world is NOT out to get you, nothing can calm your fears that no one really wants to take your guns away from you and you are just buying a bill of goods from the gun makers and similar organizations.
So, WTF?
In the Letter of James in the New Testament, the Bible says:
James chapter 3 (NLT)
1 Dear brothers …, not many of you should become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged by God with greater strictness. 2 We all make many mistakes,
Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul wrote to Christians:
Romans chapter 16 (NLT)
17 … Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things that are contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them. 18 Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people.
2 Timothy chapter 3 (GWT)
13 Evil people and phony preachers will go from bad to worse as they mislead people and are themselves misled.
“And you are seriously here telling us that no one wants to take away our guns?”
(in frustration)
No one wants your god damned gun, Nathan.
Get the “F” over yourself – there is a whole world out there that doesn’t give a good god damn about you and your guns.
Damn…………………….
What more do you need?
WS Clark,
The NRA has actually worked with lawmakers on passing common sense laws pertaining to guns and the NICS system.
You are the one being extreme in saying that we would oppose anything that even mentions a gun.
And many will be fooled by Clinton’s lies and Obama’s lies about supporting the 2nd Amendment.
WTF?
WS Clark,
Have you heard of the Violence Policy Center?
The Brady Campaign?
The million mom march?
Americans for Gun Safety?
What about those residents in Washinton DC who can’t own a handgun?
I suppose that is a figment of my imagination?
What about other cities which have outlawed the ownership of handguns like New York, Chicago, and others?
Just figments of my imagination?
You are too much WS Clark.
Clark will disavow any knowledge of those groups Nathan.
Hitting the sack.
Max,
Good verses.
Max,
Good night!
This will probably be the next firearm I purchase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK45
“Americans for Gun Safety?”
Holy shit!!!! There are Americans FOR gun safety?
Damn, forkin’ communists!!!
There are gun nutz that want NO restrictions on gun ownership, ammunition, etc.
There are gun owners that truly believe that they should be allowed to buy any freakin’ weapon they want, up to and including bazookas, stingers, etc.
And that ain’t no bullshit.
If you look at the extremes on BOTH sides, you can find evidence to support any argument you want.
The bottom line is that – NO ONE is going to take your precious guns away from you.
“Just figments of my imagination?”
Just keep stroking your Glock, Price, sooner or later it WILL go off.
Just keep working at it.
Quote Bible verses and advocate more guns and more weaponry…………………
Sumpin’ ain’t quite right?
Praise God and pass the ammo?
WS Clark,
So, no one took away peoples ability to own handguns in Washington DC?
Just a figment of my imagination?
I don’t own a glock either. I own several HK pistols though.
I guess no one took away my ability to buy new 30 round magazine a decade ago either?
Just a figment of my imagination?
WS Clark, you can talk all you want to. The simple fact is that all you have to do is look at states like California, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC to see guns being taken away and more gun laws passed.
You are so full of crap on this issue it is funny.
“You are so full of crap on this issue it is funny.”
Price, if you spent one half the amount of time and energy on useful things like ACTUALLY helping people rather than looking to arm yourself so that you can KILL people, then I might buy your arguments.
But you don’t.
All you are about is YOUR version of Christianity, YOUR version of morality, YOUR version of society and YOUR god damned guns.
Buy into whatever fairy tales that make you feel good, but I really don’t care about your gun obsession.
Really – and most Americans could care less also.
Damn.
This must be tough for you to handle, since your whole movement is based on EVERYONE being against you, but most people really do not give a good god damn about YOU and your guns.
Get over yourself.
Don’t ask me to defend this bill or that statue or this proposal or that provision.
I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN.
I could care less if you capped yourself while cleaning your FN 45×2B 49QUT, if fact I would think that it would be quite appropriate.
It really doesn’t matter to me and it really doesn’t matter to most Americans.
Get the “F” over yourself. You are about as mainstream America as Brittney Spears.
And who the Hell cares about her?
WS Clark,
I see you are reduced to no longer making reasonable arguments and are now focusing on me.
I win.
I would really like to hear a real, true, no fairy tale case where a LEGITIMATE gun owner had his weapon taken away due to a law that was passed by a LIBERAL governmental body.
Really. Name one.
Otherwise, STFU.
Oh, for you perverts that will bring this one up – Koresh and the Branch Davidians were not legitimate gun owners.
Why gunners would worship a child molester, rapist, anti-Christ is beyond me.
“I see you are reduced to no longer making reasonable arguments and are now focusing on me.”
Huh?
I could care less about you, Price, hope 2CU soon on 2B B42 long, dude.
NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOU AND YOUR GUNS, PRICE.
Damn.
WS Clark,
For someone that doesn’t care about me and my guns you sure do spend alot of time arguing with me about them and commenting on me about my guns.
“For someone that doesn’t care about me and my guns you sure do spend alot of time arguing with me about them and commenting on me about my guns.”
Only because you are too thick to understand…
I don’t care, Price.
Actually, I wouldn’t even care if you capped yourself, accidentally or on purpose.
I don’t care.
End of story.
Feel free to cap yourself now.
What an interesting thread this turned out to be. “Max” and “Nathan” sharing gun porn and judging who and what constitutes the “right” kind of Christian. (Isn’t there something about judging not, “lest ye be…” in that book of yours?
Gun confiscation in California
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=3745
More gun confiscation in California?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=3747
Sorry, Price, but World Net Daily doesn’t count – remember – they sell $0.28 pills that “cure” heart disease.
Try a REAL source.
I won’t even visit their website.
And with that, I am outta here……………
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:LuGuBCBco7IJ:ag.ca.gov/include/view_upload_document.php%3Ffid%3D2703+california+sks+illegal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
The California law which required people to turn in their SKS rifles.
Why does anyone need an SKS rifle anyway?
WsClark
” I would really like to hear a real, true, no fairy tale case where a LEGITIMATE gun owner had his weapon taken away due to a law that was passed by a LIBERAL governmental body.
Really. Name one.”
New York City required owners of “assault weapons”to register their guns. They swore up and down it was not about confiscation. Well guess what happened about 3 years later. They banned them and forced all the law abiding people who had trusted them and registered them to turn them in.
Now, “STFU”.
I spoke too quick. It was more like 20 years. ALL guns had to be registered. In 1991 Dinkins rammed a bill through city council banning many of the semi-auto rifles. The registration list was used to force people to turn in their weapons.
“I guess no one took away my ability to buy new 30 round magazine a decade ago either?”
Are you THAT bad a shot?
Or just too lazy to reload?
Tracy serves up parables and thoughts worth pondering at his blog. Here’s one posted yesterday:
“Censure yourself, never another. Do not admonish others needlessly concerning right and wrong.”
Apophis Posted February 20, 2008 at 5:10 am;
“Why does anyone need an SKS rifle anyway?”
Fair question, honest answer.
An SKS is simply a SEMI-auto, not full auto, that was designed in 1945, outdated, and is far from state of the art assault type. It’s relatively inexpensive to purchase.
It fires the 7.62×39 round, a mid velocity, light for caliber bullet (125 gr. usually) and is much less powerful than most hunting rounds. While legal and maybe capable for deer it would be considered marginal if not too weak. It does make a fine ranch rifle for coyotes or other varmints. Without the bayonet it doesn’t even look that much like an assault rifle, with no pistol grip as issued.
It is cheap, people that would not be able to afford a more expensive similar rifle like a Ruger Mini-30 or 14 can easily afford one.
Many want to ban cheap guns but then you take the ability to own out of the hands of the less fortunate financially and that’s discrimination.
Nathan Hank Max Box GMC etc.
Who’s pushing all the ammunition coding bills popping up around the country?
The folks who make the equipment to do it!!
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/02/20/that_explains_it-4/
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=2716
http://www.ammunitionaccountability.org/
Heckler,
I think we can safely assume those folks would be the the very same as have always tried to get guns banned or restricted. Like the NRA continues to warn, those gun banners will never give up. If they can’t ban outright they try a side or back door.
I have always feared they might accomplish their goals by banning, restricting, or legislating controls on ammo that drive the cost of ammo out of reach. Without ammo the firearm is simply an expensive club or rock.
Almost any firearm I purchase I buy the reloading dies, cases, bullets, powder and primers appropriate and set them back even if not reloading for it just in case.
I recently picked up a nice little side by side 20 gauge upland/sporting clays shotgun and though that shotgun is about as non-threatening as one can imagine, and I do not plan to reload for it at this time, I also have at least 650 rounds of shells for it. Not that they will likely go after a strictly hunting/sporting firearm but I don’t trust them at all.
Hank, Nathan, Boxtop, regular — better hurry there’s a gun in a hallway in a school in Louisvile — get on your horses and ride over to get the bad guy ???
Heckler, there is a profit motive for sure.
There was just one microstamping company pushing CA’s latest regulation.
But profit is NOT the primary motive. The ultimate goal for these anti-gun groups is to ban all guns.
Starting with:
1. Licensing gun owners.
2. Registering guns.
3. Confiscation.
Boxlock, good answer on the SKS above. Many people don’t realize that any ole 30-06 deer rifle is just as lethal as the so-called “assault rifles”.
If appearance is what people think makes one gun more dangerous then another, then let’s paint em all pink – and call em Peace Protectors.
You can say many things about Clark, but you can’t say he is stupid.
Therefore, I conclude Clark is intentionally misrepresenting the 2nd Amendment positions of Clinton and Obama in order to deflect away any criticism which may lose them the election in November.
100 Million Gun Owners Be Warned:
Clinton and Obama Have and Will continue to attack your Right to Bear Arms.
“Why does anyone need an SKS rifle anyway?”
Why does anyone “need” any of the rights guaranteed by the constitution?
Rog,
Exactly!
Better answer and more to the point than mine.
Are we still supposed to believe that the murders committed by Steven K can be attributed to a simple case of mental illness????
“Steven Kazmierczak, a former graduate student, removed the hard drive from his laptop computer and a computer chip from his cell phone and did not leave a note that could help explain why he chose a geology class on Valentine’s Day to open fire, police said.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331450,00.html
This guy not only premeditated this act by removing all evidence beforehand, but he took his own life to avoid punishment. A schizo would not be this level headed.
He is a product of a culture that does not value human life, his own or others. Sad but no amount of laws or gun ownership is going to change this.
“Now, “STFU”.”
Heckler, please provide a link for the NYC gun confiscation story.
Not calling you a liar and any such, but I could not Google up the story with the info you gave.
WS Clark,
Just keep your head buried in the sand.
For someone who doesn’t care about our guns, you still spend a bunch of time arguing with us about them.
Did you check my link to the California law requiring the turn in of SKS rifles?
Believe me now or are you still going to deny it?
You have yet to comment on the fact that residents of DC can’t buy handguns either. I guess they are just imagining that they are not allowed to buy a handgun and it was just pretend that the case is being argued in the courts?
All just make believe?
RFL,
A student carrying concealed in that classroom could have very easily changed the outcome to far less students being shot and possibly killed.
How is it so hard to comprehend that if someone is carrying concealed when someone starts going on a shooting spree, they would be there to possibly put a quicker end to that spree.
I am not saying that everytime it would work or that someone would be there carrying concealed.
However, to simply deny and claim that there would be no benefit at all is a flat out mistruth.
If you are referring to your World Net Daily links, I have already told you that I do not find them to be a credible source.
If you or Heckler, with all due respect, provide a link to a credible news source then I will be glad to visit and read the article.
As for DC – apparently the BUSH administration differs with you on the topic – I do not have an informed opinion at the moment.
As I have said before, guns and gun owners are very low on my priority list.
WS Clark,
I am referring to my link directly to a copy of the California law which did confiscate SKS rifles. I posted it just aftet those other links.
As I have said before, sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality doesn’t actually change reality.
Still waiting for your explination of how people can’t buy handguns in DC doesn’t constitute the anti-gun crowd wanting to not only take away our guns but prevent us from buying them too….
How is it so hard to comprehend that if someone is carrying concealed when someone starts going on a shooting spree, they would be there to possibly put a quicker end to that spree
-Nathan
That’s a big IF.
I’m not sure exactly, but I am asuming that the school was a gun free zone.
How likely is it that there was a student in that exact class at NIU who would have taken a gun to class had it not been a gun free zone?
Just allowing guns into the class doesn’t mean that there will automatically be more students that are armed. Remember, these are college students who have other things to spend their money on.
I’m not arguing that IF someone had a concealed in that class, the outcome would have been less severe than it was.
Correction:
Nathan,
I’m not arguing against you that IF someone had a concealed in that class, the outcome would have been less severe than it was. I just think it is a big if and not the big solution that pro-gun people think it is.
rfl,
There is an organization called students for concealed carry on campus.
http://concealedcampus.org/
It is not a pretty big “IF” when you start to also take into account the effect that these zones no longer being called gun free zones would have in being a deterrent to those thinking about using them as a killing zone.
The overall cumulative effect of no longer having a gun free killing zone and also the possibility that someone will be there to stop a shooter will add to descreased shootings while also adding to an increased possibility that there will be someone carrying concealed to stop the shooter.
So simply stating that nothing will change a determined shooter killing people on campus is flat out wrong.
“As I have said before, sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality doesn’t actually change reality.”
With all due respect, Mr. Price, I would have to question the validity of that link – in just the header alone there are five misspellings or typos and there is no date of issue.
I will Google my own information and develop an informed opinion – but that link is obviously bogus.
Gun free zone or not, IL is not a concealed-carry state.
In concealed carry states you see 1 to 2% of the population obtaining permits.
In a class size of 160 students then, perhaps 1 to 3 students would have a carry permit and be carrying – If it was a concealed carry state and not in a gun free zone.
“With all due respect, Mr. Price, I would have to question the validity of that link…”
Nathan– looks like he proved your point for you.
“Nathan– looks like he proved your point for you.”
Huh?
Visit the link, Fleet and tell me if that looks legit.
Article from Newsweek Online:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174
More Guns on Campus?
By Suzanne Smalley | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 15, 2008 | Updated: 6:06 p.m. ET Feb 15, 2008
It was a sickeningly familiar scene. A student-gunman opened fire Thursday during a lecture at Northern Illinois University, killing five and wounding 15 before turning the gun on himself. The deadly spree was the fifth school shooting this week—and a traumatic reminder that for all the efforts to improve campus security nationwide since the massacre at Virginia Tech last year, students and faculty remain disturbingly vulnerable.
A nonprofit organization called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus would like to change that.
The concealedcampus one? Looks fine to me.
When your head is in the sand it is difficult to see clearly.
WS Clark,
Still no comment on Washington DC, New York City, or Chicago?
I guess when you can’t buy a gun or own one there are not any to take away, huh Clark?
WS Clark,
Here you go:
http://search.doj.ca.gov/AGSearch/search/?IW_FIELD_WEB_STYLE=SKS+TURNING&IW_DATABASE=AllAGSitesIndex
That is a link to the California government webpage.
Click on the first link and you will see the order talking about SKS turn in.
No, Fleetwood , you dumbass……….
This one.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:LuGuBCBco7IJ:ag.ca.gov/include/view_
Pay attention next time.
WS Clark,
Did you see the link which goes to the Galifornia government website?
Are you going to question the legitimacy of that one too?
So simply stating that nothing will change a determined shooter killing people on campus is flat out wrong.
-Nathan
I hope I am wrong. I agree that gun free zones contribute nothing to assuring campus safety. Perhaps if and when they are eliminated, mass shootings at such places will cease. We’ll see.
No need to be mean. Sometimes you can be such a clarkhole.
Where is Galifornia and why would I care?
Look at the “memo,” Mr. Price and tell me that it is legit. I do not know where that came from, but even the worst word processing software in the world would do better than that.
In another tab, I am at the CA DOJ site – I will do my own research.
So far, all I have found is a buy back program for SKS’s types equipped with grenade launchers.
But, I will be back.
The ONLY thing that is going to stop a determined shooter is either himself or another determined shooter.
I think it makes perfect sense to allow people to carry concealed on campus to help give themselves and others a fighting chance.
The anti-gun corwd here would rather see them all just continue to line up and die like sheep while they talk about prevention.
I know people want to talk about prevention and that is fine. I am all for prevention. I am also for being able to do something when things are not prevented.
My father pointed out the obvious in the last gun thread.
When your house is burning down are you going to sit there and wonder about how faulty wiring could have caused it while you and your family die from smoke inhalation?
Or are you going to do whatever you need to do to survive, like get out of the home?
When your house is burning down, that is not the time to think about how great it would have been to have a plan, smoke alarms, or an escape ladder for upper floors. It is also not the time to sit around wondering about faulty wiring or something left on.
That is exactly what the anti-gun liberals are doing when they sit here saying we need to look at the underlying problems while kids are still being killed on campus….
My gun left me, in San Francisco……..
http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/articles/51427
In Election Season, Mum´s the Word about Gun Control (Don’t want to display the hidden gun-ban agenda, cause ya won’t get elected!)
By Don B. Kates Jr.
February 05, 2008
Are this year´s U.S. presidential candidates avoiding the gun issue?
Last week, San Francisco´s First District Court of Appeal struck down that city´s two-year-old law that confiscated all handguns and rendered all other guns useless by banning ammunition sales.
And on March 9 of last year, a federal court of appeals invalidated District of Columbia laws that banned handguns and precluded keeping any gun for defense in the home. That case is now in the Supreme Court, which many expect will hold that such laws violate the Constitution´s guarantee that law-abiding, responsible adults may have guns to defend their homes and families.
WS Clark,
Are you really that blind???
I just gave you a link to the California Government web page and you still are denying the truth of that memo.
You are too much.
Still no comment on Washington DC either?
Just keep your head in the sand and keep mumbling that no one cares about my guns. You are full of crap.
“Are you really that blind???”
This is a direct copy and paste from Mr. Price’s link…………. Judge for yourself, does this look like something an official government agency would put out?
‘BiII Lockyer, Attorney General
California Depamnent
ofJustice
DMSION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES
I have neither added nor subtracted anything.
At least FIVE typos or misspelling in just the header alone, including the AG’s name and the name of the Department and the Division.
“Still no comment on Washington DC either?”
I already told you that I had not researched the issue and therefore do not have an informed opinion as yet.
I do have a muthaforker of a case of the flu, so, if you would give me a little leeway until I can research it for myself through credible sources.
Dang, I also said that you and your guns were not very high on my priority list.
Your guns, however, do rank quite a bit higher than you.
From Section 12281 of the California law, 2007 Dangerous Weapons Control Law
(c) Any SKS rifle in the possession of any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is described in subdivision (a) or (b), shall not be subject to seizure by law enforcement for violation of Section 12280 prior to January 1, 2000.
(d) Any person, firm, company, or corporation, convicted under Section 12280 for conduct relating to an SKS rifle, shall be permitted to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or to reopen his or her case and assert the immunities provided in this section, if the court determines that the allowance of the immunity is in the interests of justice. The court shall interpret this section liberally to the benefit of the defendant.
2) Any person who relinquished possession of an SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288 prior to the effective date of the purchase program set forth in paragraph (1) shall be eligible to be reimbursed from the purchase program.
(a) of Section 12276, an “SKS rifle” under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as “SKS Sporter” versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine
In other words, there is a buyback program for SKS rifles sold in California that had an AK 47 magazine.
That hardly sounds like “confiscation” and the law provided an exemption for those purchased prior to January 1, 2000.
WS Clark,
It is a buyback program that if you don’t turn in your SKS rifle into you will become a criminal.
Are you really that stupid Clark?
They told people that they had to turn in their weapons, but you will get paid for them.
It is basically confiscation with reimbursement.
I guess that makes it ok for you?
WS Clark,
What research do you have to do?
It is a commonly known thing that it is illegal to purchase a handgun or have on in Washinton DC.
It is currently being faught in the courts.
How on earth can you come into a discussion telling us that no one cares about our guns when you don’t seem to know anything about all the gun laws in the country and the attempts to further them?!?!?!?
“Are you really that stupid Clark?”
Phuck you, Price.
“How on earth can you come into a discussion telling us that no one cares about our guns when you don’t seem to know anything about all the gun laws in the country and the attempts to further them?!?!?!?”
Get over yourself, Price.
Only a cherry boy would get so worked up over guns and not be “interested” in the other things that keep young men alive.
As I stated yesterday, some gunners think that any law that even mentions gun or related topics is unconstitutional……
“you don’t seem to know anything about all the gun laws in the country and the attempts to further them?!?!?!?”
Unlike you, Price, I do have some OTHER interests besides aggravating gun nuts like you.
I don’t know anything, Price?
Get real – I said that no one is coming to take your (get that, your, you, Nathan Price) guns away from you.
Get the Hell over yourself.
Damn……………………
Oh, and I am kind of wondering if you still think that “memo” from Lockyer is legit?
Typos, misspellings and all.
Nathan,
If Clark is genuine about researching this, I’d give him some time to review.
I’d be interested to hear if he has any rational basis for denying the gun-ban agenda in the face of all the laws that have already passed or bills that have been drafted and are currently pending.
I don’t expect a rational response, but Clark is no dummy so it is possible he might see the light. (Ok, I’m an optimist)
Or my 9:57am post this morning could be validated.
The way Clark is rebutting the linked-info provided so far, reminds me of how Bill Clinton evaded issues by arguing about what the definition of “is” is.
I predict Clark will stick to his political party offical view no matter what facts are presented.
“The way Clark is rebutting the linked-info provided so far, reminds me of how Bill Clinton evaded issues by arguing about what the definition of “is” is.”
Huh? I copied and pasted from the actual California law……………………
How is that EVADING an issue?
I did, however, point out that the “memo” was obviously bogus, since no REAL government agency would put out something so filled with typos and misspellings.
The Constitution of the United States grants you the right to keep and bear arms – it does not specify WHICH arms. It is unreasonable to presume that a representative legislative body does NOT have the ability to define those arms that you may keep and bear.
It is also noteworthy that Mr. Hank Price claims that the constitution grants him the right to “bare arms.” I was not aware that the constitution addressed the issue of tee shirt styles.
But, back to the original question – I have not yet researched the D C question – initially, I would think the D C law to be unconstitutional, but it concerns me that the ban has been in place for so long and it is just now being challenged.
That gives me a “hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?” moment.
If it is so obviously unconstitutional, then why has it taken so long for it to be addressed.
We will see – I am going into this with an open mind.
As for the California law – looking at the timing, etc, I would have to guess that the law “banned” certain weapons and the SKS AK 47 style/type was not fully addressed.
Again, based on the dates in question, it would seem that the law gave immunity and the grandfathered allowance to keep those specific SKS’s that were purchased before 2000 because the law failed to adequately specify which “assault” weapons were to be illegal.
In another section of the official website, it also points out and has photographs of SKS’s equipped with a grenade launcher – obviously a cause for concern.
The minutia behind a law is not always readily apparent, but from the dates, etc, I would guess that the state grandfathered SKS’s purchased before 2000 and agreed to buyback those purchased after that date due to confusion over the legality.
You can argue that the state does not have the right to restrict a TYPE of weapon because you feel it is legitimate, but the fact of the matter is that a representative body DOES have the right to restrict some weaponry, since the constitution is not specific.
Otherwise, you would have to argue that ANY weapon is to be allowed, up to and including nukes and cruise missiles.
When it comes to what weaponry can be allowed and which cannot, I am remind of an old story…..
The old man asks a sweet young thing if she would sleep with him for a million dollars.
She replies, “of course!”
Then he says, “would you sleep with me for ten bucks?”
“No!” she says, indignantly, “what do you think I am?”
The old man replies, “we have already determined what you are, now we are just negotiating.”
Well, the rational gun owners would agree that some restrictions are legitimate, and now we are just negotiating.
The Washington D C Handgun Ban.
Interesting……………….
This is from a period in time when the Republicans controlled Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36860-2004Sep20.html
“President Bush has said he supports the ban”
And the ban extends to handguns and semi-automatic weapons, not to rifles and shotguns.
Given that, I would venture to say that the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling that overturned the ban, and I would agree that it is a correct ruling.
(Horrors!!!!!)
I find it interesting that Bush, himself, SUPPORTS the ban.
But regardless, it would be my view that banning handguns would be unconstitutional, after doing a bit of research.
I believe, however, that it is going to be a close call in the SCOTUS, 5 – 4 most likely, with Kennedy being the swing vote.
There are good arguments on BOTH sides, but it will come down to the courts view of the Second Amendment.
I predict that they will vote in favor of overturning the ban.
San Francisco also banned handguns and ammunition sales.
http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/articles/51427
Last week, San Francisco´s First District Court of Appeal struck down that city´s two-year-old law that confiscated all handguns and rendered all other guns useless by banning ammunition sales.
“Huh? I copied and pasted from the actual California law……………………
How is that EVADING an issue?”
>>>By saying this:
“In other words, there is a buyback program for SKS rifles sold in California that had an AK 47 magazine.
That hardly sounds like “confiscation” and the law provided an exemption for those purchased prior to January 1, 2000.”
>>>A MANDATORY buyback program doesn’t sound like confiscation to you?
“I did, however, point out that the “memo” was obviously bogus, since no REAL government agency would put out something so filled with typos and misspellings.”
Of course the perfect all-powerful Government could not write a memo with typos.
This highlights the difference between someone who completely trusts Government implicitly, and someone who does not trust Government with too much power – because people in Government DO make mistakes and people who are given too much power become corrupt and oppress the people they are supposed to serve.
I did, however, point out that the “memo” was obviously bogus, since no REAL government agency would put out something so filled with typos and misspellings.
That should make the D C law in question before the SCOTUS even more interesting, Max.
My question is, why has it taken thirteen years to challenge the D C ban – given the nature of the ban, you would think that it would have immediately been challenged, before it even went into effect.
Given that it is a Congressional ban, and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for at least eleven of those years, why didn’t they simply repeal the ban?
Something just doesn’t pass the smell test.
“But, back to the original question – I have not yet researched the D C question – initially, I would think the D C law to be unconstitutional, but it concerns me that the ban has been in place for so long and it is just now being challenged.
That gives me a “hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?” moment.
If it is so obviously unconstitutional, then why has it taken so long for it to be addressed.” Clark
>>>How fast do you think the wheels of justice turn?
Those Legislative errors are made so quickly, but our Court system is very slow at correcting errors made at Legislative level. Having a big all-powerful Government is not such a good thing for the People.
“This highlights the difference between someone who completely trusts Government implicitly.”
I do not trust ANYONE implicitly, nonetheless government.
“Of course the perfect all-powerful Government could not write a memo with typos.”
Typos? It wasn’t even on letterhead, they misspelled department and division and used two “I’s” instead of “L’s” in the AG’s name.
Do you really think the AG sent out a memo with his NAME misspelled?
“A MANDATORY buyback program doesn’t sound like confiscation to you?”
You obviously misread or ignored the time line issue, Max. If the BUYBACK was mandatory, then why were the SKS’s purchased BEFORE 2000 grandfathered with no buyback or confiscation?
Obviously, although not stated in the law, there was confusion regarding the legality vis a vis the assault weapon ban of 1989 – hence grandfathered acceptance, immunity and overturning convictions, even those where the defendant pleaded guilty.
By the way, Max, do you think that the buyers of the SKS’s with grenade launchers should have been able to keep them?
“How fast do you think the wheels of justice turn?”
How long would it take a Republican dominated Congress and a Republican president to overturn the law if they felt it was unconstitutional?
Why does Bush continue to SUPPORT the ban – is he a secret gun banner?
And obviously, they don’t turn THAT slowly, since the SF case has already reached the First Appellate level.
I never saw an SKS with a grenade launcher. (I’ve seen several SKS rifles and shot one that my friend has.)
Grenade launchers without grenades might be useful for throwing rocks, but wouldn’t do much harm at that.
Bayonet bans were ridiculous. Do you feel less safe when a gun is pointed at you with a bayonet vs when a gun is pointed at you without a bayonet?
Knives are everywhere and it would be as pointless to ban knives as it is to ban guns, YET areas in the US have banned guns.
On the surface Clark, some of us may seem paranoid, but believe me, it took 35 years before I was able to learn about the numerous gun ban laws passed and proposed and realize there is a huge gun-ban effort underway.
I too thought the 2nd Amendment would not allow such bans to occur. But like any law, unless the law is enforced, it’s not effective.
Sometime I’ll post a little more on why I’m passionate about the 2nd Amendment and why it means more then just the Right to Bear Arms. Like you, I’ve been ill for several days (head and chest cold) and I’m beat and hitting the sack.
WS Clark,
You are changing the subject.
You clearly stated that no one cares about our guns, no one wants to take them away, and you asked for a specific example of such.
I have given you both specific examples of where guns were confiscated in California and how people were banned from owning handguns in Washington DC.
Now you are arguing about the constitutionality of the DC ban and questioning spelling errors on a government website.
That memo is on the DOJ webpage of California.
I don’t know why it has spelling errors and typos, but it is on THE DOJ OF CALIFORNIA WEB PAGE.
You can’t keep playing your silly game of denial as if it is not legit.
What next? Do you have to personally own an SKS rifle and have it taken away from you in California before you will acknowledge you are wrong?
I never saw an SKS with a grenade launcher. (I’ve seen several SKS rifles and shot one that my friend has.)
Not questioning your credibility, Max, but…..
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/zastava.php
“I too thought the 2nd Amendment would not allow such bans to occur. But like any law, unless the law is enforced, it’s not effective.”
I believe that it is a matter of interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that probably should have been addressed long ago, but only now is really being scrutinized.
The question really is going to be where can a legislative body draw the line……….
This should be interesting to say the least – hundreds of laws potentially overturned or hundreds of new laws enacted by cities and counties.
I believe it was a Democratic Congress at the time in the late 70’s when the DC gun ban law was passed. Not that it matters to the people which party takes their rights of freedom away.
One, I have no idea how any government body could think to pass such unconstitutional laws. Two, I have no idea why it takes government so long to act to protect the freedom and rights of the people, but it does.
And there’s no defense for Bush’s positions and inconsistency on protecting the 2nd Amendment. No excuse for it at all.
That Newsweek article I posted way above somewhere was very interesting for two reasons. One, Newsweek to me is fairly left of center and
Two, the article mostly supports the 2nd Amendment and seems to highlight frustration by the People with a Government that continues to pass more and more restrictive gun laws, which do nothing to solve problems of crime. People want the right to defend themselves because they finally see that Government is not capable of doing so much of the time. Finally, it seems there is a trend to put more trust and power back to the People.
WS Clark,
First, the ban on Hand Guns was passed in 1975 by the Distric of Columbia city council not Congress.
WS Clark,
Yes, it upsets me that the Bush DOJ is filing a brief in favor of keeping the ban on handguns.
It really upsets me.
My argument has never been that ONLY liberals want to take away guns, there are plenty of other stupid people who don’t understand things and want to as well.
I was upset when Bush favored keeping the Assualt Weapons ban.
Fortunately, the Republican controlled congress let it expire.
It is easily said that more Republicans support gun ownership than don’t and more liberals and Democrats don’t support gun ownership than do.
“I don’t know why it has spelling errors and typos, but it is on THE DOJ OF CALIFORNIA WEB PAGE.”
I don’t know how it got there, but it obvious is not legit – the name of the AG is SPELLED wrong, along with the department and the division and it is not on letterhead.
“Now you are arguing about the constitutionality of the DC ban”
I stated that I believe the ban will be found UNconstitutional, nitwit.
And obvivously, there is a question as to it’s constitutionality, it’s before the god damned SCOTUS.
And why does YOUR president support the ban – is he in denial?
“You clearly stated that no one cares about our guns, no one wants to take them away, and you asked for a specific example of such.”
The laws in both D C and San Francisco banned handguns – not all guns.
As stated so eloquently by me up thread, now we are just negotiating – where can a legislative body draw the line.
And by the way, Price, why didn’t YOUR Republican Party just repeal the D C ban when Bush took office?
Eh?
And, I was discussing the issues with Max – he is a lot more mature about the subject than you are.
WS Clark,
Figuring that explosive ammo is restricted and mostly against the law, how would having a grenade launcher hurt?
You can’t buy any grenades for the things anyway!
Clark, I check your link, and I have never seen suck a rifle. I’ve been to over a dozen gun shows, several guns shops, have friends who have all kinds of shotguns, rifles, and handguns, but I’ve never seen anything with a grenade launcher.
Doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I’ve never seen one. Again, useless without a grenade.
Nathan, I think Clark has researched and verified now that gun bans have been passed in several parts of the US.
I agree the question is where you draw the line. Before any more lines are drawn though, I’d like to see improved enforcement of existing laws, including the one described by the topic of this long thread:
Complete the NICS database by getting data from all 50 states detailing those who have been judged to be mentally ill.
WS Clark,
The Congress has nothing to do with the DC gun ban.
Man I’m getting tired. Can’t tipe werth a darn!
WS Clark,
Read the 2007 Dangerous Weapons Control Law on the state of Californias webpage
http://search.doj.ca.gov/AGSearch/search
This is what it says:
(f)(1) Any person, firm, company, or
corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do
one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:
(A) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department
of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).
(B) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law
enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.
(C) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by
Section 12285.
If that is not confiscation, then what is?
Max,
This is like arguing with someone about what color the sky is when we are staring at it.
I am posting links to the California webpage and now to the actual law.
Lets see WS Clark obfuscate and deny that!
“The Congress has nothing to do with the DC gun ban.”
Reposted from above…………..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36860-2004Sep20.html
In case you need to be reminded, Price, the Congress of the United States effectively governs Washington D C.
WS Clark,
Please review how many times you have called me names, swore at me, and said mean comments compared to the one time I asked if you were stupid.
Then sit there and tell me who is the more mature one in this disucssion.
I am not wrapped up in hate and contempt for you like you are towards me.
Reposted again, since Price can’t seem to read….
WSClark
Posted February 20, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
From Section 12281 of the California law, 2007 Dangerous Weapons Control Law
(c) Any SKS rifle in the possession of any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is described in subdivision (a) or (b), shall not be subject to seizure by law enforcement for violation of Section 12280 prior to January 1, 2000.
(d) Any person, firm, company, or corporation, convicted under Section 12280 for conduct relating to an SKS rifle, shall be permitted to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or to reopen his or her case and assert the immunities provided in this section, if the court determines that the allowance of the immunity is in the interests of justice. The court shall interpret this section liberally to the benefit of the defendant.
2) Any person who relinquished possession of an SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288 prior to the effective date of the purchase program set forth in paragraph (1) shall be eligible to be reimbursed from the purchase program.
(a) of Section 12276, an “SKS rifle” under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as “SKS Sporter” versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine
In other words, there is a buyback program for SKS rifles sold in California that had an AK 47 magazine.
That hardly sounds like “confiscation” and the law provided an exemption for those purchased prior to January 1, 2000.
Notice particularly section “C” from the actual law.
Nathan, I think Clark’s realized there are gun ban laws on the books.
I was 35 years old before I figured that out. Hard to beleive, but it’s happened and it took me way too long to figure it out.
It’s a huge step to get more and more people to realize the gun ban agenda exists.
It’s another even bigger step to convince people the gun bans must stop – and be reversed.
“Please review how many times you have called me names, swore at me, and said mean comments compared to the one time I asked if you were stupid.”
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Price, ’tis not nice to lie.
ONE time you asked if I were stupid? Nonsense.
And how many times did you question my ability to read or to comprehend, etc?
How many times did you make that idiotic statement about me hiding from AIDS, trying to imply that I was gay?
That is just for starters.
You do this to everyone that disagrees with you, Price and you do it all the time – ignorant, stupid, non-Christian, nitwit, etc – that is the stuff in all your posts – and that is why you are almost universally hated on this blog.
“I am not wrapped up in hate and contempt for you like you are towards me.”
I am not WRAPPED up in hate and contempt for you, Price – it only occurs to me when I am debating a point with you.
Don’t flatter yourself – when I am not directly debating a point with you, I never even THINK about you – you’re just small potatoes.
Say Clark, I read that law differently, and thought it was described somewhere in one of the links posted above.
(c) Any SKS rifle in the possession of any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is described in subdivision (a) or (b), shall not be subject to seizure by law enforcement for violation of Section 12280 prior to January 1, 2000.
SKS owners were given a year to turn in their guns. At the end of a year (or so) confiscations could begin on January 1, 2000.
I didn’t see a grandfather clause, I saw a one-year time period to comply with the law before confiscations would begin.
Exactly Max, exactly.
Not to interject, Max………….
“It’s a huge step to get more and more people to realize the gun ban agenda exists.”
I know we have enough “help” from the government, but first we need to have the SCOTUS clarify once and for all what the limits are – on both sides of the equation.
Then all existing laws need to be brought in line with that ruling.
Beyond that, CCP needs to be nationwide, not limited by state and the various state laws needs to be uniform under some sort of Federal guideline.
But the first step is for the SCOTUS to rule.
WS Clark,
We could seriously count the mean, rude, and vile things said by you and I and yours would outnumber mine in severity and number.
I am no where near universally hated on this blog either.
I can name the people who “hate” me on one hand.
It would be the few, very far left, liberals on this blog.
So what?
You are by far, more mean, more vulgar, more disrptive, and more vile towards me than I have ever been towards you.
“I didn’t see a grandfather clause, I saw a one-year time period to comply with the law before confiscations would begin.”
The law was written in 2007 – why would it allow confiscations to begin in January 2000?
2007 Dangerous Weapons Control Laws
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/index.php
WS Clark,
The law was written in 2007, but is a summary of all existing laws as well.
I mean seriously, are you sitting there trying to say that no one had to turn in their weapons???
“I can name the people who “hate” me on one hand.”
Really? How many freakin’ fingers do you have, Price, ‘cuz I know a boatload of people that find you disgusting.
“more vulgar”
On that point you are correct, I grew up in Detroit and there you learn quickly to defend yourself verbally and physically.
If you can’t play “the Dozens” then you’re likely to get your ass kicked.
WS Clark,
Really? Who are these boatloads of people that find me disgusting?
Lets hear who they are.
If you are on one hand going to sit here and defend your being far more vulgar towards me than I am to you, then you don’t also get to call me the immature one.
“I mean seriously, are you sitting there trying to say that no one had to turn in their weapons???”
Ah, do I have to go through this explanation again – why can’t you just look up thread and READ?
In a nutshell – trying to recreate the minutia behind the law – the original Assault Weapon Ban of 1989 apparently was not sufficiently clear, hence a period of time when there was a question as to the legality of the particular model of SKS equipped to handle a AK 47 magazine.
During the years between 1992 and 2000, some people were arrested for possession of SKS’s – the legilature realized the confusing and sought to remedy the situation by………………
Grandfathering ownership of SKS’s prior to 2000.
Overturning any criminal convictions.
Those who had purchased a SKS after 2000 had the weapon BOUGHT back from them.
That is it in a nutshell.
Now if you want to argue about the Assault Weapon Ban – wait a few month until the SCOTUS rules on the Second Amendment.
Until then the point is moot – the Supremes will decide where and when a legislative body can draw the line.
“If you are on one hand going to sit here and defend your being far more vulgar towards me than I am to you, then you don’t also get to call me the immature one.”
Really, vulgarities are part of the vocabulary where I come from, Price, it is no reflection on maturity.
As for maturity – when (and if) you have children, then you will learn what REAL maturity is.
WS Clark,
Our discussion was not orignally about what “the line” is or was or even about who could draw one.
The original point was that you claimed no one cares about our guns and that no ones guns were confiscated.
I have given you several examples of cities which have indeed prphibited handgun ownership.
That was the point, that was the discussion.
The point is that there are plenty of people who don’t want people to own guns and there are cities and states which have enacted bans and large restrictions on gun ownership.
So, contrary to you saying no one cares, there are plenty who seem to care quite a bit and are still trying to ban many types of guns and restrict them even further.
“Really? Who are these boatloads of people that find me disgusting?”
I know that this will come as a shock to you, Price, but some of the mean, evil liberals actually e-mail one another…………..
I’ll tell you, you are not a real popular fellow.
Neither am I, Price, but I don’t pretend to be, either.
I can dish it out with the best of them, and I do.
WS Clark,
If maturity means being a mean, vulgar, and vile person like you, then I wan’t no part of it.
I have yet to come close to the level of name calling and being mean towards you that you have towards me.
So enough with you somehow thinking you are so much better than I am in communications on this blog.
We can look at this topic alone and see how much more hostile you have been towards me than I have you.
WS Clark,
The problem with most of you liberals is that you can’t tell the difference between disagreement on a subject and hating the person.
That is your loss, not mine.
I can have an argument with some really good friends about very personal subjects and we can still sit down and watch a UFC fight together.
There are several of you who somehow make me out to be some hated person simply because I disagree with you.
Once again, that is your loss, not mine.
WS Clark,
Even now, I would have no problem going to a meet up where any of you were at it.
You on the other hand seem to have such a huge hatred for me that you would refuse to even meet me.
That is not rational at all.
Hell, I could run into JR on Thursday and shake his hand, ask how he is doing, and not think one mean thing about him.
“I have given you several examples of cities which have indeed prphibited handgun ownership.”
Handguns.
Rifles.
Shotguns.
Assault (type) weapons.
Grenade launchers.
Nukes.
Cruise missiles.
Somewhere on that admittedly short list, a line will be drawn by the SCOTUS and legislative bodies, city, county, state and country will no what the limits are for banning specific types of weaponry or placing limitations on gun ownership.
Perhaps you didn’t read it, but up thread I said that the Second Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms – it does not say WHAT arms.
But you do agree that some restrictions are required, for example, no personal supplies of nuclear weapons.
So the only issue is where to draw the line.
I have said this many times, this is a blog where we come to argue about politics and debate about issues and other things.
That is it.
I don’t hate anyone here. I don’t harbor any ill feelings towards anyone here.
Why it is so hard for some of you to get that, is beyond me.
So much of this blog thing has become personal. That is dumb. Period.
Love you all any way. Good night.
“The problem with most of you liberals is that you can’t tell the difference between disagreement on a subject and hating the person.”
Ah, as I stated before, and I won’t waste my time with another pissing contest, but it’s not the disagreement, Price, it is your judgmental, holier than thou attitude while disagreeing.
For all my faults, real and imagined by folks like you, being judgmental and holier than thou is not among them.
What you don’t seem to realize, and therefore the reason I question your maturity, is it is those two character traits that really set people’s teeth on edge.
It really isn’t very becoming.
Well I was going to hit the sack….
Clark from your link above, and continuing on where you left off on 12281, check out (f) in particular. The notification to the public was to commence by 1/1/1999, with guns turned in or destroyed by 1/1/2000:
(d) Any person, firm, company, or corporation, convicted under Section 12280 for conduct relating to an SKS rifle, shall be permitted to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or to reopen his or her case and assert the immunities provided in this section, if the court determines that the allowance of the immunity is in the interests of justice. The court shall interpret this section liberally to the benefit of the defendant.
(e) The Department of Justice shall notify all district attorneys on or before January 31, 1999, of the provisions of this section. The department shall identify all criminal prosecutions in the state for conduct related to SKS rifles within 90 days of the effective date of this section. In all cases so identified by the Attorney General, the district attorneys shall inform defense counsel, or the defendant if the defendant is in propria persona, in writing, of the provisions of this section within 120 days of the effective date of this section.
(f)(1) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:
(A) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).
(B) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.
(C) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.
(2) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest or intestate succession shall be required to comply with subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of this subdivision unless he or she otherwise complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 12285.
(3) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this subdivision shall be in a manner prescribed by the department.
(4) The department shall conduct a public education and notification program as described in Section 12289, commencing no later than January 1, 1999.
“You on the other hand seem to have such a huge hatred for me that you would refuse to even meet me.
That is not rational at all.”
That is QUITE rational, Price. I don’t like you. I choose to spend my time with people I like. Since I don’t like you, I choose not to spend my time with or around you.
‘Nuff said – you will never meet me in person, Nathan, and I like it that way.
And that is the end of this part of the discussion.
WS Clark,
When have I ever just interjected my faith and religion here just to do it or where have I just come out and said someone was wrong just because???
The only times I bring up religion, faith, or those types of things is when it is part of the subject matter.
When Chas interjected himself as an authority on the subject of Christianity, then it is fair game to be challenged.
When Chas does and says things that I don’t think are representative of a Christian then I will challenge them.
You and he do the same thing when you do it to me.
You are just as judgemental of my faith as I am yours and you don’t even see it.
I don’t think I am holier than thou. I think I am right, that is why this is a debate. I wouldn’t be arguing for something or sharing my opinions if I didn’t think I was right. What sense would that make to do otherwise?
Of course it sets peoples teeth on edge.
That is why they say you shouldn’t discuss religion or politics with people.
Yet again, this is a blog. What did you expect? If you come to a public blog and want to debate religion and politics, then don’t you think you should have the stomach to have what you say questioned???
Well not much my fight.
Except and AGAIN where I have been dragged into it.
“Hell, I could run into JR on Thursday and shake his hand, ask how he is doing, and not think one mean thing about him”
And then go right on back to posting as to me as usual Nathan.
I’m not as inept as your President bush with the fool me once proverb Nathan.
I’ll not be shaking yours or your dad’s hand again. I’ve learned my lesson.
Carry on with your argument. But do not invoke me to support it. I don’t like being alternatively cited and flamed.
WS Clark,
How do you even have enough information about me to say you don’t like “me?”
You don’t even know me. You have no idea about me.
The only thing you know is that we disagree, a bunch, on politics and religion.
Yet you are the one being judgemental saying you don’t like me.
LOL
Once again, you don’t even see how you are just as judgemental as you claim I am.
I have been in larger arguments and yelling with someone before and yet that person and I still get along great.
Believe it or not, people can get together outside of debating politics and eat a hamburger and have a good time.
I have been nice and polite at every meet up I have been to. I have been to everyone of the early meetups and a couple after that.
You might not agree with me, but to say you refuse to meet me based on disagreement on a public blog where people come to disagree is simply not rational.
If all these other people really hate me, they sure didn’t show it at any of the meet ups where we enjoyed food, music, and a good time together.
Unless they were being two faced about it.
I wasn’t.
I am not sure how a 2007 Act could apply to action in 2000, Max and I didn’t quite read it as you did – I am not a lawyer so I’ll have to go to another source for clarification. Where would we be without the Googles.
I am sicker than a dead dog, so I am just about to call it quits for tonight, I’ll try again to clarify tomorrow.
JR,
If I saw you on Thursday in dillons, I would be polite, say hi and be friendly.
Would you not do the same if you seen me?
When have my father and I ever treated you badly?
Somehow, on this blog, over the past 2 years things have gotten to some point where you feel wronged.
I am not sure what it is, but my father and I have offered the olive branch many a time and still do.
I don’t have enough time in my life to hate people.
Sheesh, not worth the energy.
I know some don’t like the NRA sites, but this is the most concise 1-page summary of a very complicated law, that I could quickly find.
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.shtml
This is my last comment on the issue, Price.
I don’t like you – you don’t like me – never the twain shall meet.
End of story.
Here’s a California web site that says essentially the same as the NRA link.
http://www.sen.ca.gov/htbin/testbin/newshtml?INET_FTP:%5Bsen.committee.standing.publicsafety.bills%5D98bills.htm (Then search for AB 48)
Existing law, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, generally prohibits the sale, manufacture, distribution, transport, import, possession, or lending of assault weapons in California. (Penal Code Sections 12280 and 12276)
This bill does the following:
Provides that any person–and firm, company, or corporation–who transferred an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992 and December 19, 1997 shall be immune from criminal liability under the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.
Provides that any person who possessed, loaned, or transferred an SKS rifle between January 1, 1992 and December 19, 1997, is immune from liability under the Act and that the weapon may not be seized under the Act, prior to January 1, 2000.
Provides that such persons have until January 1, 2000, to relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to a “buy-back” program created by this act; or to relinquish the SKS rifle to any law enforcement agency; or to dispose of the SKS rifle by selling it to a licensed dealer or remove it from the state.
I’ll review it tomorrow Max – my head is about to explode as it is (secondary infection from the flu virus) so I’ll pass on trying to digest it tonight.
I will, however, read and respond on this thread tomorrow.
WS Clark,
Have a good night. I hope you get to feeling better.
This explains the odd date ranges in the law. The particular guns were only sold in CA during this time period and WERE considered legal at the time:
Between 1992 and late 1997, Chinese type rifles originally manufactured to accept detachable AK-47 style magazines were sold in California. These rifles do not have a bayonet and lack any apparatus on the barrel to mount a bayonet. There were two basic stock designs – a standard Sporter style with a small pistol grip and a thumbhole style. The barrel or receiver may be marked ‘SKS Sporter.’ Due to the new ruling, these firearms are now considered “assault weapons” under the AWCA.
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.shtml
I t seems that some posts here have been removed.
It was just last night your father called me a man with no honor.
I would not have to look far to find similar and far more vile attacks from you on me Nathan.
I do not think we will meet again. It is my preference that we do not.
Yeah, I have headache from reading just the CA gun control laws. Hard to believe how complicated these gun laws are.
G’nite.
JR,
Do you seriously enjoy this?
Sorry you have so much hate in your heart. I don’t in mine.
What will it take to move on JR?
Ask your Father and ask yourself Nathan.
I’m not a person of priveledge, I don’t aspire to be.
How is it that in my humble station I inspire such hatred in you?
Again, why does anyone NEED an SKS or for that matter any other type of ASSAULT rifle.
The only reason I’ve seen given here is to “shoot coyotes and other varmints”. Give me a break!
Nathan, Hank and their ilk want ASSAULT rifles to make them feel like big men. What would Freud say about this?
Next, why not make it legal to conceal/carry an RPG? You never know when you might encounter a terrorist in a lightly armoured assault vehicle!
Apophis
OK genius. Define “assault rifle”. An SKS does not fit MY definition of assaut rifle. What’s yours?
Apophis
“What would Freud say about this?”
“Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons.”
“Assault Rifle” is strictly a relative term, other that designating a intermediate power cartridge/rifle meant for assault type conflict relative to the date of conflict.
The 1863 Springfield, muzzleloader of the civil war could be considered an ‘assault rifle’ at the time.
The SKS is strictly a SEMI-auto, not considered even close to current technically, and is simply a semi-auto sporting rifle today.
It’s just another excuse for the gun banners to jump up and down over.
Apophis posted;
“Nathan, Hank and their ilk want ASSAULT rifles to make them feel like big men. What would Freud say about this?”
Hey Apophis, ya working with a real short ‘barrel’ there yourself. Your comments sure sound like a transference of your own feelings of inadequacy.
I’ve seen some ads in the back of cheap magazines while in waiting rooms that claim they can help that. I don’t believe in it myself and think those products are only for fools but, maybe you should check it out. Maybe a placebo effect could help make you feel better about your problem.
J R, Posted February 21, 2008 at 12:18 am |
“Ask your Father and ask yourself Nathan.
I’m not a person of priveledge, I don’t aspire to be.
How is it that in my humble station I inspire such hatred in you?”
For truth sake JR, you should know the answer to that. There is no real shame in or hatred for someone ‘not being a person of privilege’. What there is or should be shame in is wanting to get what you desire from others through the confiscation of same by the government through the redistribution of wealth and through though others labors.
No one should have an obligation to support you or anybody else unless you are truly and totally incapable, then private charitable organizations can do that infinitely more efficiently.
Why does anyone need the 1st Amendment?
That was written over 200 years ago, and we really don’t need it today.
Guess it depends on how you define “speech”.
You know the WE Blog didn’t exist in the 1700’s, so I’m not sure blogging is considered to be “speech”.
What do we need blogs for?
Email didn’t exist in the 1700’s, so I’m not sure email is considered to be “speech”.
What do we need email for?
Telephones didn’t exist in the 1700’s, so I’m not sure a telephone is considered to be “speech”.
What do we need telephones for?
Certainly we don’t need cell phones too? Why do we need so many phones and cell phones, and blackberries?
Some of these phones can be used to make multiple calls, conferencing in several people at the same time. It’s almost automatic. And they are dangerous to use when driving. Cell phones cause many deaths every year, even killing innocent children.
I don’t know why we need so much free speech today.
Knock that sand out of your meat curtains, JR. You are consistently the biggest whiner on this blog, that isn’t flaming, it’s just a fact.
I find it somewhat amusing that J R wears his ‘I’m-not-a-person-of-priveledge,-I-don’t-aspire-to-be.’ as some kind of badge of honor.
I wonder what he considers a ‘person of priveledge’ to be. I am positive that I am one! I was born and live in the greatest country in the world! I live in a country that you can pretty much be what ever you want to be. Unless of course you decide that it’s someone elses fault you are not more sucessful than you are.
Nathan is a perfect example! We have not paid a dime toward his education. Not a penny. We have not given him any spending money since his 16th birthday. We have not bought his clothes, put gas in his car, bought his ammo or paid for his computer games or movies.
We made him get a job at the local cafe as a bus boy when he was 16. It taught him about money and people. He has worked and paid for his coledge education. He has used his GI bill and scholarships but in truth, he earned them in one way or another.
J R thinks I’m rich and calls me a kept man. J R knows deep down inside that this is a lie. He knows that I work for my wife and I guess in his little twisted world that means that I’m a ‘kept man’. In reality, it’s a lie and he knows it.
What he doesn’t know that being a doctor doesn’t make you rich. It just allows you to work a lot harder than most people to make a living. J R has no idea how hard it is to start out as a doctor when you have $100,000.00 in student loans to pay back. An amount of money that would be doubled if you hadn’t worked your way through school.
He has no idea how hard it is to start your own clinic when you just recovered from cancer and you don’t qualify for an SBA loan because you can’t get the required life insurance. He thinks that I’m on the government dole because of my Navy retirement pay, but try and live on $1,500.00 a month for a year or two while every thing the clinic makes goes back into the clinic.
So, now because I am married to a doctor and I work for her as her office manager I am a ‘kept man’ and a ‘person of priveledge’. My wife and I work 50 to 60 hours a week. We earn every thing we have. Before we bought the house we have now we lived out in a converted garage near Rose Hill. Before we bought the house we have now we saved for a down payment for three years while living in a two bedroom, 12X60 mobile home in a park off MacArther Rd.
The house we live in now we bought as a bank repo. It needed a roof. It is now worth three times what we paid for it because of the work and money we have put into it. The house we bought with the bad roof and the water damaged walls and floors is not the house we live in now, because of mostly hard work and sacrifice.
Person of priveledge? You bet! I live in America! Person of priveledge? You bet! I have a wife that loves me and doesn’t focus on all the bad traits and habits that most men bring to a relationship! Person of priveledge? You bet! I have a boy that any father could be proud of! My boy is a better man than I have ever been or ever will be! Person of priveledge? You bet! I live in a country that allows me to practice my religion and worship the true and loving God!
Now, all this being said, the next time J R calls me a ‘kept man’ and a ‘person of priveledge’ you’ll know the truth. I am truly a ‘person of priveledge’. Just not in the shallow, jealous, ignorant way J R means. I am truly a ‘kept man’! Kept in that I try very, very hard to justify the fact that the smartest, prettiest, most loving woman that I know ‘keeps’ me around!
The next time he calls Nathan a ‘person of priveledge’ you’ll know the truth. Nathan has worked very hard for everything he has in life since his 16th birthday. He has had the priveledge to live in, work in and defend as a Marine, the best country the world has ever seen.
Everyone on this BLOG is just as priveledged. What are you doing with the priveledge?
Max, regarding Californian SKS’s……….
After reading through the California DOJ website and a number of gun owners websites, I have come to the following conclusions.
1. The CA DOJ and CA legislators would like us all to go blind and mad by forcing us to read through pages documents that are contradictory, unclear, without timeline or coherency and are just a documented circle jerk.
2. The CA Lege apparently was not clear regarding the SKS and the AG of CA compounded the error by stating that the SKS was legal.
3. The CA Government was unaware that SKS’s could be converted from a fixed magazine to a detachable magazine.
4. The conversion from fixed to detachable was usually a bad idea, since the conversion kits pretty much sucked.
5. Additional confusion surrounded the SKS since there were several versions marketed, Russian, Chinese and Yugoslavian, all with somewhat different characteristics.
6. SKS’s without bayonet lugs, thumbhole stocks, detachable magazines and grenade launchers are being openly sold in CA today.
7. Due to the AG’s error and the lack of clarity under the CA law, SKS’s were bought back by the state after December 31, 1999.
Further conclusions that I have come to……..
A. The situation in CA regarding the SKS’s was a matter of miscommunication, misrepresentation and a good faith effort by the CA Government to remedy their mistake.
B. The term “confiscation” is a distortion and pejorative. The state made an error in declaring the weapon legal, not realizing the full range of variations, and sought to remedy the situation by overturning convictions and buying back weapons.
C. The SKS situation in California is somewhat unique and does not represent a wholesale program of confiscation by state governments.
In conclusion…………………………
1. The various governmental legislative bodies do have a right to determine which weapons are to be legal.
2. The SCOTUS will determine shortly to what extent governing bodies can limit gun ownership under the Second Amendment, keeping in mind that the Second Amendment does grant the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn’t specify which arms are to be legal.
3. I was wrong in my original interpretation of the CA statue – some weapons were in fact declared illegal and were bought back by the state.
4. The missing link is why SKS’s are now being openly sold in CA, abet without the detachable magazines, etc.
5. The issue is not anyone’s specific definitions of assault weapon, etc, but what the SCOTUS will or not allow regarding local and state governments right to restrict said.
It’s so hard and such a sacrifice to be an MD in Kansas, boo hoo hoo . . .
I’m betting that some out-of-work computer programmers or aviation sheet metal workers would love to trade lives with you, Hank.
As for “I live in a country that you can pretty much be what ever you want to be,” really.
How about an American president if you’re a Muslim? Or an engineer if you grow up downwind from a coal plant spewing out mercury?
Or as you say yourself, insured when you have cancer?
Hank
As would be expected that one went right over Capn’s head. Probably JR’s as well.
Hank Price, Posted February 21, 2008 at 12:52 pm |
“I wonder what he considers a ‘person of priveledge’ to be. I am positive that I am one!”
In other words….he’s a man!
Thanks Clark for taking the time to look at the CA SKS issue.
I agree with most of your points especially this one:
“1. The CA DOJ and CA legislators would like us all to go blind and mad by forcing us to read through pages documents that are contradictory, unclear, without timeline or coherency and are just a documented circle jerk.”
And this is just one example of government regulation. Can you imagine how complicated it would be to review all of the gun laws in all of the cities and states across America? How do people comply with all of em? How can all of them be enforced?
I know you don’t like the NRA, but here’s a link I’ve found to be a valuable reference when trying to sort thru gun laws in all the states:
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=74
There are many supporting gun-bans in America, and I encourage anyone who is concerned about protecting the 2nd Amendment and Freedom in America to review the positions of the candidates when voting this November. Remember to look at all of the candidates at state, local, and national level.
As for the SCOTUS decision, I’ve heard many predict the ruling will be narrow in scope and may not have a big impact nationwide. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Great post above Hank.
And your rags to riches story is not unique in America. Not that it is easy to achieve, but that there are many people who do work hard to take advantage of the opportunities that are in America.
While many would love to trade places with you TODAY Hank, not all would be willing to trade places with you 30 YEARS AGO – and then do the work you did in order to be successful in achieving the American dream.
Good post, Hank. We truly are priveleged to live in a country where hard work can get a person just about anywhere they want to go.
If you have a good mind, a healthy body, and the tenacity to work hard..you CAN succeed.
7 Trackbacks
child custody lawyers…
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog….
kiana tom com…
…
Hot Garden Fountain Freak…
I love that to, but my hubby doesnt want it, that is really to bad….
Helicopter Training Video…
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject….
brenda songs…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
Physical Cause Of Panic Attacks…
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info….
Pee Female Pee Pee Hole…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…