The debate about whether gun ownership really is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution was finally settled today. The Supreme Court overturned a 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and in doing so judged that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns that isn’t tied to “a well-regulated militia.
“The decision is big, though how far-reaching is still unclear. The National Rifle Association plans to challenge gun control laws in other cities. Some people are concerned that the ruling could lead to the removal of other gun restrictions, though Justice Antonin Scalia said the ruling shouldn’t “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”
124 Comments
Damn well about time.
Though that won’t stop the Eagle, and the Brownlee/Scholfield axis, from continuing to blather on that the sky is falling every time Bloomburg (spit) pulls their chain.
Ignorance, or outright deceipt, doesn’t go away that easy.
so now the question where the line is? can certain weapons be banned outright, what about CC it seems to me that only 2 States Alaska and Vermont have gun laws in complaint with the Constitution. what about the mentally ill and felons I understand the logic in barring gun in their cases but constuially how can you?
The Conservative SC is legislating from the bench again! Strike down another McCain bill. What’s that make him 0 for 3? The one that should be struck down is the one favoring EADS.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080626/pl_nm/usa_politics_court_money_dc_1
Actually, it would be “legislating from the bench” to uphold the DC gun ban.
The Bill of Rights protect INDIVIDUAL rights.
Why in the world would we need a Constitution that protects the “rights” of government?
Anyway, Barack Obama looks like a complete fool on this one.
Prior to the decision, Obama says that he is a “Strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment” — but, on the other hand, Obama said that he supported the right of “local governments” to regulate firearms, and he supported the DC gun law.
Obama tried to make it sound like the DC law was written to keep guns out of the hands of “gang-bangers and children” — Huh?
Harvard law review???
Obama is a political coward.
Today, after the SCOTUS ruling, Obama is saying that he supports the right to bear arms but he thinks this ruling went to far.
I guess Obama is trying to find a way to vote “Present” on this one!
You can NOT support the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms AND support the DC gun ban.
Yikes!
Click the pic.
Ugh….
Well, clearly she doesn’t need the gun to keep the fellas at arms length!
Maybe this is a dating strategy for her?
“No! It’s dinner AND a movie DIRTBAG!”
Guns suck.
“Guns suck.”
Technically, they blow.
Full Text of McCain Statement:
“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
“This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Full Text of Obama Statement:
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”
Heh
Somebody get her a boat of gravy and she’ll forget all about that gun!
Molon Labe, Mr. Obama
Go figure the neocon rich back scratching suck up judges sided with the rich. It’s always those with the money wins, now our elections can be bought and sold by the dude with the most money.
Obama drags that ol’ liberal canard, the ‘gun show loophole’ out again.
Interesting term, does anyone know what that means?
I didn’t think so, I doubt that Obama can explain the term.
I’m on record as a 2nd Amendment agnostic, and I welcome the SCOTUS decision as the first decision in some seven decades. I don’t necessarily agree with the CONservative majority’s conclusion, but I appreciate that there’s a clear SCOTUS decision that can guide future gun policies.
Scalia’s majority opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment does not in any way prohibit measures such as:
requiring background checks on all gun purchases;
limiting handgun purchases to one per month;
requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement;
cracking down on illegal guns and gun trafficking;
regulating military-style assault weapons.
District of Columbia v. Heller.
Justice Scalia stressed that regulations can be imposed on the carrying and sale of guns, and implicitly acknowledged that gun control laws can be imposed. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…[It is not a] right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. …[The Court’s] opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”.
No right is beyond reasonable regulations.
“Political_mama
Posted June 26, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Permalink
Go figure the neocon rich back scratching suck up judges sided with the rich. It’s always those with the money wins, now our elections can be bought and sold by the dude with the most money.”
What? Are you onthe right thread? Oh, okay. How about rich land developers taking over peoples property to get rich, backed by the so called libeal court in the Kelso decision? Political Mama– time to open your eyes and not look at every single thing thru those partisan glasses.
Scalia went on record as saying that state laws which forbid mental patients from having guns will not be effected by this decision. So, we may yet be protected from a fully armed MaxG.
With this recent ruling regarding DC gun ownership, that might be a good place to concept test my idea of Kevlar siding. ??
I don’t agree with that either LJ. perhaps you weren’t around when taht decision came down the pipe, but all of us were p’d off about that.
(gloat on
I figured it would pass and will be a lot of weenie roasts in the future about this topic.
gloat off)
I find it interesting to hear about the “conservative” Supreme Court. Just two days ago, the “liberal” supreme court gave terrorists the rights of citizens. This court is, and under it’s current membership, will always be divided 5/4 or 4/5. Through out the 8 who never sway, and just let Justice Kennedy decide everything.
BTW, I am very happy about today’s ruling, but I am chagrined to see that those other four almost ruled the Constitution as unconstitutional!
Word to the wise ; Regular, if I was you, I’d stay away from weenie roasts- they could be life threatening!
If in anyway that a restriction to the 2nd amendment can occur would be to stripped a citizen of their citizenship.
After all the Constitution applies to a citizen of the U.S. not to a non-citizen.
Mh whines:
I’m on record as a 2nd Amendment agnostic
Uh-huh. Is that why you parrot the BradyBunch line, almost word for word? We KNOW what their agenda is . . .
Helmke trying to make an ass-kicking sound like a ‘win’ doesn’t make it less of an ass-kicking.
Brady & crew have never sought “reasonable, common-sense” laws (witness the routine lie of the “gunshow loophole” – there is no such thing, and never was). “Reasonable, common-sense” is a means to an end, a nose under the door of the tent, to further borrow Scholfield’s borrowed phrase. The end is banning and confiscation. No amount of denial on their, or your, part will make it less so. Same is true of Obama; no amount of weasel-words will change it.
Too bad so sad. You lose. But Brady won’t go quietly because, to borrow from myself:
ignorance, or outright deceipt, doesn’t go away that easy (at least not as long as they can keep the Joyce Foundation dollars flowing).
Uhm, “GMC70″ –
“Is that why you parrot the BradyBunch line, almost word for word?”
I was quoting Scalia, not Brady or anybody else.
MH –
requiring background checks on all gun purchases;
limiting handgun purchases to one per month;
requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement;
cracking down on illegal guns and gun trafficking;
regulating military-style assault weapons.
THIS, my friend, is the BradyBunch line. Nearly word for word from Helmke’s whine a few days ago that “we know we’er gonna lose.”
And Scalia’s opinion, while recognizing that no right is absolute (of course), does not speak to these at all. There’s a lot more litigating to do. Chicago’s ban, and incorporation, is next in the crosshairs. As well it should be. Liberty will be affirmed in small steps.
And note this interesting decision:
“A New Jersey Court recently pronounced: “There is no rational relationship between restricting the number of guns that a licensed gun dealer and a licensed gun owner can transact per month and the frequency of illegal gun possession and crime.”
http://blog.nj.com/njv_scott_bach/2008/06/gun_rationing_bill_a339_target.html
See also: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1166448999875
“Gun rationing” even fails the rational basis test, the lowest test in law. Oops.
Who is “Helmke”, and what does that have to do with anything?
So may we assume that the Court mandated strict scrutiny of gun regulations?
Apparently not:
JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential
point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level
of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions.
So lower-court judges will have zero guidance as what standard gun regulations will have to meet.
Oh, that makes sense.
Exactly the point Marty G. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Extremists from right or left will, at one time or another, be upset with the Supreme Court. But the two almost contra-latteral rulings show that balance is still the norm.
Thank Heaven the framers knew to put in checks and balances. To keep extreme views in check. From both sides.
Rage –
No, no strict scrutiny. And yes, the Court left for another day the level of scrutiny. Yes, I too wish that the Court had crossed that bridge, but that was not necessary for the resolution of the matter before the Court. Oh well.
If you’re arguing that strict scrutiny is appropriate, I’d agree with you. I suspect that ultimately it will not be strict scrutiny, however, but some type of intermediate scrutiny.
I continue to be amazed, however, that four members of the Court believe that the “the people” do not have an enumerated right which plainly and by its own language applies to “the people.”
BTW, Rage:
Who is “Helmke”, and what does that have to do with anything?
Paule Helmke. President of the Brady Campaign to Lie About Guns, Gun Owners, and to Gut the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Helmke
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2008/06/does-truth-hurt-paul.html
That guy. And MH’s trumpeting of the measures he insists are still within reach after the Heller victory is right out of BradyBunch playbook.
Think I’m gonna buy the Alaskan, a 2 1/2-inch version of the Super Redhawk using the 454 caliber Casull cartridge.
Nothing like a snub-nosed, large bore that says hello to your friendly paper target. :)
Talk about parroting, “GMC70″ –
“I continue to be amazed, however, that four members of the Court believe that the “the people” do not have an enumerated right which plainly and by its own language applies to “the people.””
I’m amazed that five out of nine SCOTUS justices disregards the 2nd Amendment’s foundation that “plainly and by its own language” cites the need of “A well-regulated militia….”
I have no idea how (in Scalia’s terms) keeping a gun in a District of Columbia home contributes to a well-regulated militia. Perhaps you can explain that to me.
And the 2nd Amend-nuts cheerfully ignore that rightest-of-the-right Justice Scalia specifically stressed in the majority decision that government has a responsibility to establish reasonable restrictions to gun ownership.
And that’s just about as typically perverted as most CONservative rhetoric. I mean, what part of “…shall not be infringed” does Scalia not understand?!
(I’ll repost my “Guns in Prison” post only by request.)
Scalia drew the line in the sand. You do have the right to defend your home, by his reading of the Constitution. But he was pretty specific in encouraging all sorts of infringements.
This was hardly a victory for 2nd Amend-nuts.
MH –
You didn’t read the opinion, did you? The majority did not ignore the “well-regulated militia” phrase. A militia purpose and an individual right for lawful purposes are not mutual exclusive. Indeed, the milita makes little sense in the absence of an individual right to “keep and bear arms.”
And Helmke and you can try to spin this all you want, but you lose. Big. Mayor Daley better get ready, I understand the challenge to Chicago’s extreme gun ban is already filed. He’ll lose, too.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range. And then a good scotch.
Regular: You could have bought your gun before this decision. Why did you wait until this decision to purchase your gun?
Oh, still no response from my email on Monday to Dr. Wood. What gives? Is he not interested?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Gee,it looks pretty straightforward to me. The right of the people. Mince it any way you want, but it still says you have a right to bear arms.
“This was hardly a victory for 2nd Amend-nuts.”
Wow, talk about some major denial there.
Monkeybutt,
How can one claim to be an agnostic on the issue yet never side with anything on the “right” of the issue.
All your posts lean far more left than right.
Agnostic? More like to cowardly to simply say what you really are.
Home Invasions. It’s nice to have the 2nd Amendment maintained.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372202,00.html
An Arizona home invasion allegedly orchestrated by Mexican citizens wearing tactical gear sparked fears that members of the Mexican military were involved in a wave of violent crime in the Phoenix area, according to local reports.
Police followed the sound of gunshots early Monday morning to the home of 30-year-old Andrew Williams, whose bullet-riddled body was found inside, the Arizona Republic reported. Officers then pursued a report of a suspicious Chevrolet Tahoe in the vehicle and arrested three suspects, all wearing body armor and carrying assault-style rifles.
A statement by one of the suspects that he had received prior military training fueled speculation into the fact that they were members of the Mexican military. Phoenix police said Wednesday that none of them were active members.
However, in a radio interview this week, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association President Mark Spencer said the men involved were hired by drug cartels to carry out home invasions and assassinations.
#
LLTVET
Posted June 26, 2008 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
Regular: You could have bought your gun before this decision. Why did you wait until this decision to purchase your gun?
Oh, still no response from my email on Monday to Dr. Wood. What gives? Is he not interested?
——————————
Well, even though retired Dr. Woods is still busy. Not sure if he has health issues. He’s in his 80s I believe, so he does things a tad slower. :)
Could have made a gun purchase at any time that’s true. However, the choice was hard to narrow down.
I am curious BJ,
How do you expect to be able to destroy my father and I without a gun?
I am looking forward to the NRA being able to overturn many of the other laws in this country which place similar restrictions on firearm ownership.
I was going to examine the 10 inch barreled S&W 50 caliber, but didn’t want an arm breaker weapon that really can’t be hidden or stored easily. heh
I bet that gun has a mule kick to it.
I’ve only glanced at the opinion, but it will be interesting if they made a coherent argument for ignoring any actual connection to an actual militia. I haven’t seen one yet.
One can of course argue that the public must have guns to participate in the militia (I’d buy that), but a rational person would also conclude that mandates some obligation to participate in the defense of a free state, the closest thing being the National Guard.
The Court swept aside the logic of years of precedent, their protests to the contrary nothwithstanding, but they are allowed to do that. It remains to be seen if they got it right.
But, yes, GMC, I favor, as a matter of principle, strict scrutiny–if it’s a constitutional right, it deserves nothing less, though I also think that a compelling case can and will be made for some reasonable regulation of firearms.
Leaving the lower courts to apply their own standards is a prescription for chaos.
Well Nathan, you have been posting for about a half an hour now – have you accused anyone of being a homosexual yet? How about a pedophile? Frequenting prostitutes?
WS Clark,
You didn’t show up till now, so no.
Feeling guilty?
Scalia explains the history rather well.
However, from my own understanding of history, and Kansas law, EVERYONE is a member of the “militia” if you happen to be a male between the ages of 18 and 40 and not a sitting judge.
The 2nd Amendment MIGHT have been, specifically, to allow individual “free” states to defend themselves, from other states or from the Federal Government itself.
More than likely, to me, the reason that “Militia” is mentioned is to remind us that the GOVERNMENT already has guns, and that, THEREFORE, perhaps, the PEOPLE should also have guns — in order to protect against a tyrannical government.
A statement by one of the suspects that he had received prior military training fueled speculation into the fact that they were members of the Mexican military. Phoenix police said Wednesday that none of them were active members.
Actually, the big issue here is the Columbian drugs cartels taking over Sonora, and the violence at the border.
Funny thing, though: it’s possible to be alert as to one’s safety without freaking out. It’s called realism.
Back under the bed, Max.
EVERYONE is a member of the “militia”
What if I don’t want to join? And shouldn’t there be standards?
#
Rage
Posted June 26, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Permalink
EVERYONE is a member of the “militia”
What if I don’t want to join? And shouldn’t there be standards?
—————–
Yes, no members of the militia that are Liberal hemorrhoids. :D
“You didn’t show up till now, so no.”
Actually, I was here earlier today.
Are you getting treatment for your phobias and hallucinations yet, Price?
This was a GREAT decision! One of the best they have made this year or in many years! It is about time that courts started taking the 2nd Amendment seriously and not allowing the state to run roughshod over the rights of people to have guns. Self preservation is a basic human right. As basic as the right to breathe air! This case was about the right to KEEP arms and not we need to start pushing the right to BEAR arms too.
We have a right to free speech, but you don’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, the old saw goes. Okay, there is an individual right to own a gun. But common-sense regulation of the ownership and use and storage of lethal weapons is still allowed to protect the public.
You need to protect your house with a firearm? Please get a shotgun. Please do not fire a round that will travel through your wall, across the street and into your neighbor’s nursery bedroom.
(WS & Nat.. please kiss and make up will ya? This personal feud and mutual baiting is tiresome for us and unbecoming of you both)
“WS & Nat.. please kiss and make up will ya?”
Naw, Nathan Price hates me so much that any hope of peace has long since vanished. Price thinks it is funny that I have my blood tested once every year or so for HIV/AIDS. He thinks that it is funny to accuse me of being a pedophile or a homosexual. He thinks it is funny to accuse me of frequenting prostitutes.
Nathan Price is funny – a funny little man that is mentally and emotionally stuck in the sixth grade.
Clarkie,
I honestly couldn’t evet begin to find those threads, but I am almost positive you were getting tested for AIDS much more than you are trying to play off here.
Either way, I am not the one so worried about getting AIDS.
It is a natural conclusion to assume that someone who is must have some questionable lifestyle activities going on.
The things I say about you are not any more funny than your tantrum for 3 days saying I threatened you.
Or the time you said your cowardly step son and his friends wanted to “talk” to me when you invited me over for Ribs.
Nope Clarkie. The things I say are no worse than the crap you spew here.
If I am in the 6th grade, then what grade is it where you want to lure me out to confront your coward step son and his friends?
First of all, it is Mr. Clark to you, Price.
Second, a sexually active adult these days gets a HIV/AIDS test as appropriate. As most of my relationships last one or two years, that is the frequency of my tests, but I am certainly not “worried” about contracting AIDS.
“Either way, I am not the one so worried about getting AIDS.”
Of course not, Price, you are still a cherry boy.
“Or the time you said your cowardly step son and his friends wanted to “talk” to me when you invited me over for Ribs.”
One, I have a son-in-law, not a stepson, and he was angered about your comments about his soon to be adopted daughter, and he certainly is not a coward. And yes, you have pissed off a number of his friends.
“The things I say about you are not any more funny than your tantrum for 3 days saying I threatened you.”
I did not say you threatened me – I said you “wanted to intimidate liberals.”
If there is anything true in this world it is that I am not afraid of you.
“If I am in the 6th grade, then what grade is it where you want to lure me out to confront your coward step son and his friends?”
You have pissed off more than just me with your juvenile commentary – if you make comments about my son, my daughter and my son-in-law, you have to expect them to be angry also.
Clarkie, (Calling you Mr. would be a sign of respect that I wont give you here, pig)
Ok, he is your coward son-in-law.
My deepest apologies.
I have never said anything about your daughter either.
So what on Earth you and him have your panties in a wad over is beyond me.
The only time I said anything about your coward son-in-law was when you told me he and his friends wanted to see me.
I rightly called him a coward, because only a coward would need to have his friends with him to see me.
What that makes you for wanting to see me come over to meet your son-in-law and his friends, I am not sure.
Clark must live a very sad life to tell his family about his rantings and whines on the WE Blog.
Can’t think of anything more pathetic than that.
Acutally, I think Clark is full of B.S. when he talks about his daugher, son-in-law and etc.
No one can be that self-absorbed to go looking for support on a blog for statements he made on his own.
Pathetic, just pathetic.
“Clarkie, (Calling you Mr. would be a sign of respect that I wont give you here, pig) Ok, he is your coward son-in-law.”
Well, Natie, no respect from you equals no respect from me.
My son-in-law is twice the man that you could ever hope to be in your wildest dreams. He takes care of his family, works hard and is in the process of adopting his stepdaughter. He didn’t request that his friends meet you, his friends expressed their anger at your comments.
Like I said, he is twice the man you are.
As for the rest of your lame comments………. two words.
Cherry boy.
“Acutally, I think Clark is full of B.S. when he talks about his daugher, son-in-law and etc.”
Well, I could be just like you, McCluer – lie about having a wife and son or lying about never being married, etc., but then, I am not stupid like you.
By the way, JM, which is true – were you a married man, cuckold, and with a wife that ran off with another man with your son or is it that you have never been married?
Clarkie,
Once again, I don’t see how anything I have said here should have upset anyone but you.
Why doesn’t your son-in-law and his friends simply hop on the blog and tell me why they are mad?
It is not hard to do. If they have the time to get upset about what I say here, why don’t they have the time to tell me why here?
Unless you are making it all up? Which I wouldn’t put past you.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …..”
The words that bother me most in 2nd Amendment are the words, “Well Regulated” and “Security of a free State”
Seems to me that there MUST be some connection between Well Regulated, Security, and Right to keep and bear arms (as part of that Well Regulated Militia) And so far, I cant for the life of me find that connection in the SCOTUS majority decision.
But, I was heartened by Scalia’s “promise” of sorts, that regulations would be supported by the Court…
But, now, I hope all of the gun bangers will be happy, and take all their nasty little pop guns, and go back under their private little rocks, and defend all the perimeters… LOL
“Why doesn’t your son-in-law and his friends simply hop on the blog and tell me why they are mad?”
Because blogging is not their thing.
As for being mad?
Just look at your posts regarding my family……………………. who wouldn’t be pissed off?
Clarkie,
Something tells me they got your version of what was said here, not mine.
Tell your son-in-law and his friends to post here and let me know what they are mad.
Otherwise, just shut up about it.
As I have said, the things I have posted are about you, not them. I could understand if they were upset about how I treat you, but then they would only need to look at what a pig you are here to see why.
“Otherwise, just shut up about it.”
Nope.
“but then they would only need to look at what a pig you are here to see why.”
Nice try, but thanks for playing the game.
Send your son-in-law over to the house Clark. I’ll be sending him home with a limp. :)
“Send your son-in-law over to the house Clark. I’ll be sending him home with a limp.”
Yeah, right………………………….
Send him over Clark.
Put up or shut up.
“Send him over Clark.”
What are you gonna do, McCluer, hit him with your divorce certificate?
Hell, you chickened out when I accepted your challenge and I am about 80 pounds lighter and thirty years younger than my son in law.
Loser.
By the way, McLiar, which is true – were you a married man, cuckold, and with a wife that ran off with another man with your son or is it that you have never been married?
So Clark, what’s the problem?
Can’t send him over, because he is not what you said he is, indeed if he exists at all?
Appears that Clark is weaseling out of lie. Making up stuff he can’t back up.
Diverting attention from the challenge.
Clark the liar – tsk tsk
By the way, McLiar, which is true – were you a married man, cuckold, and with a wife that ran off with another man with your son or is it that you have never been married?
Still diverting attention from the main issue eh Clark?
Clark is a liar, making up non-existent relatives.
I have it figured out now.. WSClark and Nathaniel are two split personalities of one disturbed person. BuWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Still diverting attention from the main issue eh Clark?”
By the way, McLiar, which is true – were you a married man, cuckold, and with a wife that ran off with another man with your son or is it that you have never been married?
Can’t answer honestly, can you McCluer?
Ah Clark the liar refuses to answer about his fake relatives and the challenge.
divert, divert, divert…by Clark the liar
“Ah Clark the , McCliar?liar refuses to answer about his fake relatives and the challenge.”
What challenge, McLiar?
And my son in law is certainly not made up – why would I make up a fake husband for my daughter?
Clark the liar, cannot deal with truths.
By the way, McLiar, my son in law is working tonight, as is my son.
But, can you answer this?
Which is true – were you a married man, cuckold, and with a wife that ran off with another man with your son or is it that you have never been married?
Clark the liar will be permanently addressed as such, hitherto.
McLiar, which is true – were you a married man, cuckold, and with a wife that ran off with another man with your son or is it that you have never been married?
“Clark the liar, cannot deal with truths.”
Do you mean like lying about who I am, JM?
How long did you deny that you were JM, McLiar?
And……………..
Well, James McCluer, were you a married man, cuckold, and with a wife that ran off with another man with your son or is it that you have never been married?
Jeez, you guys need to GROW UP! Just my opinion, but ANYBODY who sits at a keyboard and talks sh*t like you guys do is a coward. I’m not really one to advocate violence, but if you guys had one testicle among you, you’d settle this like men.
Bunch of keyboard-pounding sissies!
“I’m not really one to advocate violence, but if you guys had one testicle among you, you’d settle this like men.”
I accepted McLiar’s challenge, he went to Denny’s instead of manning up.
By the way, Nanu, do you actually have testicles or do you just WISH that you did?
#
WSClark
Posted June 26, 2008 at 8:23 pm | Permalink
By the way, Nanu, do you actually have testicles or do you just WISH that you did?
Your interest in my testicles is duly noted.
Fag.
“Fag.”
Congratulations on your graduation from sixth grade, Nanu, good work.
Asshole.
Clark the liar is just arm flailing now.
“Clark the liar is just arm flailing now.”
Well, James McCluer, were you a married man, cuckold, and with a wife that ran off with another man with your son or is it that you have never been married?
Better watch out Regular. Next thing you know, he’ll be getting interested in your testicles.
“Next thing you know, he’ll be getting interested in your testicles.”
McCluer doesn’t have any testicles – he told us that he lost them in the War.
This is one of the greatest days in our history. Now, we need to make CC “permits” unnecessary. I don’t need a fracking permit to excercise my rights.
Which war? The one in Mississippi?
Natie is the type of guy that would mow down eight people at a picnic because he thought that they were liberal non-Christian heretics. McCluer would be the guy that handed Natie Price the ammunition because he doesn’t have the guts to do the shooting himself.
Both of them would truly like to kill those that disagree with them. Natie Price is just itching for a chance to kill liberals and non-Christians.
McCluer, on the other hand, has no guts and is hoping that Natie will do the killing for him.
“Which war?”
The War of Words………………
“I don’t need a fracking permit to excercise my rights.”
Can’t pass the background test, eh, Semper?
She looks like her name is something like Marge.
Or Mathilda.
Hey Nathan? You should ask the editors to get you the name of the chick in the pic. COULD be a dating chance for you.
That is if you are interested in that sort of thing.
It is safe to say that Natie Price is a dangerous psychopath, along with his buddy McCluer, and both of them should be avoided at all costs.
Natie wants to kill anyone that disagrees with him.
McCluer wants to kill, but doesn’t have the guts.
Together, they are a dangerous combination.
Mark my words, the two of them will kill before too long.
I’ll recant my statement that the CC law is a violation of my rights. After taking a dump and thinking about it while doing so, I’ll admit that people who carry should know how to use a gun, otherwise it could turn into a fiasco pretty quickly.
-PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE! It is key! Know your weapons like the back of your hand.
-Rotate your ammo every 30 days if it’s carried in a manner in which it can be exposed to moisture from your body. Throw those round in a box, and use them for your target practice. Yes, it’s like 1/1,000 rounds that will not fire due to this, but having a hang fire can get you killed, and you should be practicing enough to fire off those rounds anyways. Even under ideal conditions, rotate your ammo quarterly.
-Don’t carry a cannon. You are liable for missed shots that hit someone else, or for rounds that exit your target and strike someone else. Their are cases where higher velocity rounds are less effective at very close ranges, because they punch through the target before they start to mushroom and tumble. A good compromise is a 9mm compact model that can easily be concealed in the small of your back, and they carry 7-8 rounds, and a .380 strapped to your ancle. You can draw the 9mm for stuff over 20 yards, but if your fighting for your life within lunging distance, grab for your .380. I am dead set against the little .25’s and .22’s that are out there. They are “saturday night specials” very cheaply made, very likely to jam, and won’t stop anyone. Multiple layers of clothing will stop those rounds from 30 feet. That is if you can even hit your target.
-PRACTICE SOME MORE and be serious about it when doing so!
-If your in a situation where you need your gun in real life, just do as you did when practicing. Training causes muslce memory and unconscious execution of the firing and aiming process.
-Never bring your weapon into a situation unless you intend to use it, and do not hesitate! Otherwise your weapons can be what kills you, not what saves your life.
-Never fire a warning shot, it could be a fatal mistake. Shoot to kill, practice pulling double taps over and over and over during target practice. bam bam, double tap to the chest, as, or after they fall, plant one in their head if possible. You never want the target to live. They can sue you, and everybody feels sorry for the disabled, criminal or not. Plus, living they can lie about what transpired, and cast doubt on you. Ya never know.
-Always aim at center mass, don’t try to be cool and pull off one right between their eyes, you could miss and send a stray bullet flying towards an innocent person. Stick to the double tap method, and if you can, then get the headshot.
-Never gloat after shooting someone. If you ever do kill someone, you will understand that it’s not a good thing. Also, cops hate it, and they might just get a hard on for you.
actually, I did pass the background, and own over … I own alot of firearms LOL
Semper Dude is just ITCHING to get a chance to KILL someone – sounds just like Natie Price……
Clarkie,
Is accusing someone of wanting to kill others ok?
But calling you a pedophile is out?
Idiot.
At least you are not hiding behind your Granddaughter this time like the coward you were last time.
So which is it? Are you scared to meet with me or not?
One day you will never meet me because you are scared of me, the next you are using your Granddaughter as the excuse, then a year later you are inviting me over for Ribs so I can meet your coward son-in-law with all his friends, and now you are back to saying you are scared to meet me.
The only psycho here is you.
“Are you scared to meet with me or not?”
Not.
“But calling you a pedophile is out?”
Yes.
“One day you will never meet me because you are scared of me, the next you are using your Granddaughter as the excuse, then a year later you are inviting me over for Ribs so I can meet your coward son-in-law with all his friends, and now you are back to saying you are scared to meet me.”
Huh?
Try that “punctuation” thing, Natie, you might actually make some sense.
Naw, you never make sense.
Loser.
And no, Natie, I have no fear of you……
It has been suspected that Nathan is posting in multiple nics.
The 10:31 post confirms it.
Dude? You are sick. I guess it runs in the family.
WS, I can assure you of one thing, I know that killing someone is not a good thing. I wish I didn’t know, but I do. For the record, what I do know about it was all legal and done in service to the United States of America. However, it is at times necessary. Necessary to save your buddy, a family member, your self. Necessary to keep order, and protect property.
You see WS, if Kansas had the Castle law, where one can shoot someone merely for stealing their stuff, think of the crime reduction. In Texas, I could shoot someone for entering my yard and trying to wheel away my lawn mower. I support that extreme level of policy. If drug addicts couldn’t go out and commit petty theft, they wouldn’t be able to support their drug habits, and their would be less drug use. If everyone was strapping, think about how much nicer everyone would be to each other.
You see WS, I don’t need the fricking “govament” to protect me, to serve me, to provide anything for me, I’m not entitled to jack crap. Think if everyone had a gun WS. Look how much money we could save by cutting the law enforcement level by 80%. How much more free we would actually be.
Guns are the cornerstone of this country. They are the single most important reason why we have never been invaded by a foreign power in over 100 years. The Japanese were right on our coastline in WWII. They flat out admited they wouldn’t land on shore because they knew we are a heavily armed civilian population. The former USSR had a very strick doctrine of NEVER considering occupation of American soil, because their are so many people with guns, it would be a turkey shoot for every booger eater out there.
GUNS GUNS GUNS!!! Bless our guns!
“GUNS GUNS GUNS!!! Bless our guns!”
Obviously, you have a hard on now, so come back later when you are a bit more calmed down.
You would kill someone over a lawn mower Nathan?
Damn you ARE sick.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. “Guns are the cornerstone…”‘ LOL You extremists… LOL I laugh at you and your pop guns.
And I, for one, I am nice to people even if they do not have the ability to kill me with the wiggle of one finger.
You are so afraid, so angry… so fearful…. so pitiable. So well armed!
You train some guys in the military arts of killing and they have nothing else to fall back on and they think the whole world is a war zone… Some come out being better human beings… some don’t…
“If everyone was strapping, think about how much nicer everyone would be to each other.”
If NO ONE was “strapping”, think how much nicer those who have would be forced to be to those who have not. I WANT the guy filling up his Hummer afraid of the poor person that asks him for some change.
Careful SEMPERFIGUY,
You’re dealing with people on this BLOG that wet their pants at the thought of someone having a gun!
Pretty good post, but I have a few minor disagreements.
Double tap vs. triple tap center mass. I prefer triple tap. It’s the way I practice.
Head shot is good idea, but not for your reasons. You don’t kill him to keep him from testifying against you. You kill him because that was the only purpose for draying your gun in the first place.
Avoid at all costs drawing your weapon, except of course if you actually fear for your life. You kill him because you feel he is going to kill you.
You recommend a 9mm for over 20 yards. You’re life is probably not threatened if you need a shot greater that twenty feet. Within 20 feet, your .380 on your ankle is probably very unhandy.
A .380 ankle piece would be good if you were in a restaurant and needed to draw your weapon without being seen. You could draw it and have it handy without drawing too much suspicion. Most scenarios that would require self defense with your weapon are close quarter. I like something big, noisy with a little punch.
I carry a Kimber Ultra Carry II. Small, compact and provides a pretty good punch without a lot of muzzle velocity. It’s equipped with the optional laser grips and night sights. It’s capacity is limited to six in the mag and one in the chamber but I carry two spare magazines and I’m getting pretty handy changing out.
I love that the cons go about in such paranoia and fear. Sucks to be them.
They should know.
They DO know.
If wishes were bullets, they’d already be dead.
HLP posted June 26, 2008 at 11:23 pm
“You’re life is probably not threatened if you need a shot greater that twenty feet.”
The people killed by Charles Whitman, and similar, would disagree.
Hank carries guns, to protect himself… but he will probably die from old age. Or slipping in the bathtub.
A comment regarding an earlier post about the “years of precedent” regarding the militia interpretation. There has only been ONE SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment, in 1939. There, a criminal argued that it shouldn’t be illegal for him to have a sawed-off shotgun. In an narrow opinion, the court said that such a gun didn’t fit the militia criteria, and therefore, he was a criminal. (He WAS a criminal, and was using the 2A as a defense – the court looked for a way to “get” him.) (also, another side-note, sawed-off shotguns WERE used in WWI as a trench gun, and thus, DID have a military use.)
So the court, in an effort to appease the law enforcement types at the time, levied this narrow opinion. It is THAT opinion that has ever since been used as the principle arguement that the 2A was for a militia, not the people.
Of course, as you all know, the whole Bill of Rights was designed to articulate the freedoms of the people that the govt couldn’t take away. Like freedom of speech, religion, from illegal search and seizure, et al. For a great read on this subject, read both the majority and the minority opinion produced by the court today. Then see what you think.
I disagree with the point about killing as the intent of shooting an assailant. Yes, shoot center of mass, if you kill him, it is incidental. But, if he is thus disabled, and cannot further his attack, you do NOT have a right to kill him.
“The people killed by Charles Whitman, and similar, would disagree.”
What’s your point cosmos? A 9mm semi auto would not have been much help against Whitman.
I’m starting to believe that you don’t have much of an education. Using a specific example (old one at that) as a rebuttal to a general statement is an obvious indicator that you’ve not had logic 101.
Whitman was even before CCW in Texas. However, in those days there were a few cowboys that had rifles in their pickups and returned some very effective fire.
Even your old, irrelevant example is flawed. His first victims were killed at close range prior to him reaching the top of tower. Maybe, just maybe, lives would have been saved if one of his earlier victims were armed.
BJ,
We are not the ones who feel threatened every day on this blog and are too scared to go to a meet up where we are.
The only ones to show any fear around here are you liberals.
Not us.
It isn’t fear Nathan.
It’s choice.
I don’t know anyone that wants to meet or see you or your dad again.
YOU did that Nathan. I wasn’t even posting then.
“What’s your point cosmos? A 9mm semi auto would not have been much help against Whitman.”
Hank, you carry a gun(s), to protect yourself from other people with guns. Think about it for a while… maybe you will figure it out? Or maybe not…?
“I’m starting to believe that you don’t have much of an education. Using a specific example (old one at that) as a rebuttal to a general statement is an obvious indicator that you’ve not had logic 101.”
Okay, emphasis required, for the reading “challenged”:
“… Whitman, and SIMILAR, would disagree.”
“Maybe, just maybe,… ”
Maybe, maybe, maybe…. That’s very reassuring Hank. /sarcasm OFF
Protect yourself Hank. Put non-slip strips on the bottom of your bathtub.
BlueJay,
I can name several people that have no problem meeting with my father or I.
Are you sure you can’t name one or are you just saying that because?
A gun is no more than a social flyswatter or mousetrap. I don’t go about killing flies or mice, but if they threaten me, I have no compunction about swatting them. The same goes for the social vermin who would rob, rape, or kill me or my family. Their actions already take them out of the normal category of persons, and place themselves in a varmint situation where I felt justified in “swatting” them. I am a religous person, but if I am threatened, I have no problem defending myself.
“You kill him because that was the only purpose for draying your gun in the first place” I agree with you totally on that one, and you make some good points otherwise as well.
“I disagree with the point about killing as the intent of shooting an assailant. Yes, shoot center of mass, if you kill him, it is incidental. But, if he is thus disabled, and cannot further his attack, you do NOT have a right to kill him.” I disagree with you totally, with all due respect. A wounded person can be an even greater threat! At that point they have nothing to lose. Who knows if they have a knife to lung at you with, or a weapon of any sort, AND it is a proven fact time and time over in this country, that when they survive, these cry baby liberal commie f ing juries actually award these scum bags money!
As far as the comment about “you would kill someone over a lawn mower…” HELL YES I WOULD, I would over a bicycle,a stick of gum. However, their is a huge liability in doing so, even in TX. For example it could be a dad thinking his kid left his bike in someones yard, the scenerios are endless, therefore I’d identify myself as the owner of said item and ask him to state his business, if he said f you and proceeded to take it, I’d draw and his life would be over.
As far as double or triple tap, I believe a 3 round burst is great also. Semi autos have a different trigger pull on the 1st round than all the following rounds, due the hammer having to be pulled back with the first pull of the trigger, but I practice cocking as I’m aiming, and can fire 2 rounds perfectly aimed. The slim CC friendly weapons I carry do lack one thing. Ammo, therefore if I can use 1/3 less ammo, and get the same desired effect, then to me that makes the most sense. You never know if other threats are going to present themselves, and loading a new magazine leaves you vulnerable.
“You kill him because that was the only purpose for draying your gun in the first place” I agree with you totally on that one, and you make some good points otherwise as well.
“I disagree with the point about killing as the intent of shooting an assailant. Yes, shoot center of mass, if you kill him, it is incidental. But, if he is thus disabled, and cannot further his attack, you do NOT have a right to kill him.” I disagree with you totally, with all due respect. A wounded person can be an even greater threat! At that point they have nothing to lose. Who knows if they have a knife to lung at you with, or a weapon of any sort, AND it is a proven fact time and time over in this country, that when they survive, these cry baby liberal commie f ing juries actually award these scum bags money!
As far as the comment about “you would kill someone over a lawn mower…” HELL YES I WOULD, I would over a bicycle,a stick of gum. However, their is a huge liability in doing so, even in TX. For example it could be a dad thinking his kid left his bike in someones yard, the scenerios are endless, therefore I’d identify myself as the owner of said item and ask him to state his business, if he said f you and proceeded to take it, I’d draw and his life would be over.
As far as double or triple tap, I believe a 3 round burst is great also. Semi autos have a different trigger pull on the 1st round than all the following rounds, due the hammer having to be pulled back with the first pull of the trigger, but I practice cocking as I’m aiming, and can fire 2 rounds perfectly aimed. The slim CC friendly weapons I carry do lack one thing. Ammo, therefore if I can use 1/3 less ammo, and get the same desired effect, then to me that makes the most sense. You never know if other threats are going to present themselves, and loading a new magazine leaves you vulnerable.
“You kill him because that was the only purpose for draying your gun in the first place” I agree with you totally on that one, and you make some good points otherwise as well.
“I disagree with the point about killing as the intent of shooting an assailant. Yes, shoot center of mass, if you kill him, it is incidental. But, if he is thus disabled, and cannot further his attack, you do NOT have a right to kill him.” I disagree with you totally, with all due respect. A wounded person can be an even greater threat! At that point they have nothing to lose. Who knows if they have a knife to lung at you with, or a weapon of any sort, AND it is a proven fact time and time over in this country, that when they survive, these cry baby liberal commie f ing juries actually award these scum bags money!
As far as the comment about “you would kill someone over a lawn mower…” HELL YES I WOULD, I would over a bicycle,a stick of gum. However, their is a huge liability in doing so, even in TX. For example it could be a dad thinking his kid left his bike in someones yard, the scenerios are endless, therefore I’d identify myself as the owner of said item and ask him to state his business, if he said f you and proceeded to take it, I’d draw and his life would be over.
As far as double or triple tap, I believe a 3 round burst is great also. Semi autos have a different trigger pull on the 1st round than all the following rounds, due the hammer having to be pulled back with the first pull of the trigger, but I practice cocking as I’m aiming, and can fire 2 rounds perfectly aimed. The slim CC friendly weapons I carry do lack one thing. Ammo, therefore if I can use 1/3 less ammo, and get the same desired effect, then to me that makes the most sense. You never know if other threats are going to present themselves, and loading a new magazine leaves you vulnerable.
“You kill him because that was the only purpose for draying your gun in the first place” I agree with you totally on that one, and you make some good points otherwise as well.
“I disagree with the point about killing as the intent of shooting an assailant. Yes, shoot center of mass, if you kill him, it is incidental. But, if he is thus disabled, and cannot further his attack, you do NOT have a right to kill him.” I disagree with you totally, with all due respect. A wounded person can be an even greater threat! At that point they have nothing to lose. Who knows if they have a knife to lung at you with, or a weapon of any sort, AND it is a proven fact time and time over in this country, that when they survive, these cry baby liberal commie f ing juries actually award these scum bags money!
As far as the comment about “you would kill someone over a lawn mower…” HELL YES I WOULD, I would over a bicycle,a stick of gum. However, their is a huge liability in doing so, even in TX. For example it could be a dad thinking his kid left his bike in someones yard, the scenerios are endless, therefore I’d identify myself as the owner of said item and ask him to state his business, if he said f you and proceeded to take it, I’d draw and his life would be over.
As far as double or triple tap, I believe a 3 round burst is great also. Semi autos have a different trigger pull on the 1st round than all the following rounds, due the hammer having to be pulled back with the first pull of the trigger, but I practice cocking as I’m aiming, and can fire 2 rounds perfectly aimed. The slim CC friendly weapons I carry do lack one thing. Ammo, therefore if I can use 1/3 less ammo, and get the same desired effect, then to me that makes the most sense. You never know if other threats are going to present themselves, and loading a new magazine leaves you vulnerable.
“As far as the comment about “you would kill someone over a lawn mower…” HELL YES I WOULD, I would over a bicycle,a stick of gum.”
You would take the life of another human being over a stick of gum now?
A stick of gum.
I cannot even conceive of the type of mind that can come up with that.
Not only would i over a stick of gum, i’d bait someone into trying. Go ahead and make my day! LOL
I’d only do it if I could do so legally. It’s not legal to do in KS, so I won’t.
I’m an environmentalist! We could do much to slow down global warming by removing alot of the flak from the planet!
“Not only would i over a stick of gum, i’d bait someone into trying.”
I bet your dick got really hard when you posted that little gem.
7 Trackbacks
[...] Supreme Court overturned a 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and in doing so judgedhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/06/gun-rights-guaranteed/Court rules in favor of 2nd Amendment gun right Richmond Times-DispatchThe U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 [...]
Antibiotics…
nice post about this…..
Cardiovascular…
nice post about this…..
alaska deal travel…
That got me thinking……
Kds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
radio control hummer…
I have been searching for sites have content related to radio control racing hobbies to tell them about the Engine Analysis Software for tuning all Nitro RC Engines….
mexican sign language…
Some weblog software programs, such as Wordpress, Movable Type and Community Server, support automatic pingbacks where all the links…