WE Blog

Dang it, just need to ban guns in da bars and da churches – that ban will keep the crooks from bringin guns to bars and churches.

No need for The People to defend themselves, with police letting guys like this run loose:

SUSPECT IN CHELSEA BROOKS CASE
Robinson was accused twice before
BY TIM POTTER
The Wichita Eagle

Starting nearly two years before Elgin Robinson Jr. was charged with capital murder in the death of pregnant, 14-year-old Chelsea Brooks, police investigated reports that he had taken indecent liberties with another minor and that a 16-year-old had accused him of rape.

Don’t forget the following from that article you mention:

Randy:

1. This law was not changed “quietly.” HB 2528, which contained the changes, was passed through a whole lot of effort and was a VETO OVERRIDE (2/3 majority in both houses.) Kathleen Sebelius did not sign the legislation. It was big news, at least in the circles I run in, and was oft talked about and all the ramifications, long before it ever took place.

2. You tend to think that the issue is “invitation.” This is not a black-and-white; you seem to be leaving out the third option between fanatical support and fanatical disapproval (the polar opposites that make editorial pages, and are fallaciously trumped up as the only options for personal values alignment) which is BENIGN ACCEPTANCE. The “I’m not telling you to bring a gun in here, but I’m not going to tell you not to either.” Omission in posting a “no guns” sign is not a sign that the owner is an NRA life member; simply that he or she is not so opposed to CCH that he or she will post the sticker.

3. After the passage of the initial bill, and again after HB 2528, the Kansas League of Municipalities went around on a huge disinformation campaign telling a lot of businesses (erroneously) that they were LEGALLY OBLIGATED to post, and that having the sign up brought automatic felony charges/mandatory minimums (talked to a woman at a retirement services business who was given this misinformation). It cannot be said that the information was not out there and in plain sight– the business associations and the KLM fought tooth and nail against the legislation because they KNEW what it contained.

4. Why is this an issue? Have there been ANY incidents in the state of Kansas since the enactment of HB 2528 that would warrant a change in the law? Have the 1/2 of 1% of people been causing that much trouble? And furthermore, would it hurt to DIFFERENTIATE between CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDERS and “PEOPLE CARRYING GUNS?” HB 2528, as well as the original Personal and Family Protection Act, do not permit unlicensed individuals to carry ANYWHERE unless otherwise authorized by law (open carry, carry on own property/legal place of business.)

5. Open carry, in such jurisdictions where it is legal, does not have to abide by the signs since they have no relevance to OC. The signs do not mean “NO GUNS”, they mean “NO CCH PERMIT HOLDERS WITH GUNS.”

Posted by: bifida

6/15/2008 12:01 PM
27481.14 Report as Violation

“Three arrested after a pair of armed robberies
BY STAN FINGER
The Wichita Eagle
Three people — two adults and a 17-year-old boy — were arrested early this morning in connection with two armed robberies less than 15 minutes apart in east Wichita.”

Hmmm, no reason to allow The People to have guns to defend themselves in Wichita.

“Three arrested after a pair of armed robberies
BY STAN FINGER
The Wichita Eagle
Three people — two adults and a 17-year-old boy — were arrested early this morning in connection with two armed robberies less than 15 minutes apart in east Wichita.”

Hmmm, no reason to allow The People to have guns to defend themselves in Wichita.

So what concern does Randy Scholfield have for law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm?

I mean, can Mr. Scholfield name ONE INCIDENT, where a problem has occurred with a concealed weapon by a law abiding citizen in a Church, school or day care center?

Name one, please.

Please name one.

Name one.

How about naming one?

Name one?

I know some who carry concealed in church all the time.

Don’t worry Chas.

These gun nuts crack me up. Acting big a tough, but so afraid of their own shadows. They can’t go anywhere without their pacifier/gun, the bad guys might be there and get them. Look out over there, is that someones grandma, or a crazied lunitic about to shoot up this day-care center?

“Regular” if YOU are licensed to conceal carry?

I have absolutely NO faith in the qualification process. You are a violent incident waiting to happen.

Gee Randy, how many stories are you going to start this week on your obvious disdain for guns and CCH? First the restaurant story. Two days later the church story. Each time virtually all the comments refuted your position and told you to get over it. Now you’ve started the same story a third time, in the WE Blog. It’s one thing to post an editorial, but you keep posting the same thing and getting the same results. What will you do next? How many times will the Eagle let you keep this rant going?

Randy,

This law has been in effect for a year now.

Can you name one time where someone who was carrying concealed legally into a bar, church, or onto school grounds has done something wrong with their gun?

Can anyone?

Yet here you are acting like the very idea of carrying concealed into those places is enough alone to prove that it is stupid.

I have gone to several bars just to hang out with friends and I carry concealed.

Not having a law which says no concealed carry in a bar is going to then presume that drinking while carrying concealed is ok.

What business is it of the state to say that someone can’t carry into a church?

If you don’t want concealed carry in your church then get your church to put up the signs.

I carry to church all the time, just like I carry anywhere else.

Can you form any kind of intelligent argument for why carrying concealed into a church is wrong or shouldn’t be allowed besides the fact that you just don’t like it?

I always loved the irony that when the Legislature passed concealed carry, they specifically BANNED the carrying of firearms…into the legislative chambers!

What were THEY afraid of, “Nathaniel?” “MaxGrobnik?” “Buhler?”

“I always loved the irony that when the Legislature passed concealed carry, they specifically BANNED the carrying of firearms…into the legislative chambers!”
That’s because the capitol, along with federal courthouses, are equipped with metal detectors. They CAN effectively ban all weapons. But the stupid Gunbuster signs cannot keep a criminal from walking right in with one, because that person, by definition, does not obey the law. Therefore, all the signs do is antagonize the law-abiding, and deny them the right of self-defense or invite them to break the law themselves, which they will not do. Anyone, other than a criminal, who is comforted by the signs must be delusional. The bottom line is that the signs don’t stop the criminal, may even encourage him, deny 2nd Amendment rights to others, and placate only the naive. Why are the lefties so quick to support all of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, except for the one in the 2nd Amendment?

quote Monkeyhawk
Posted June 16, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
I always loved the irony that when the Legislature passed concealed carry, they specifically BANNED the carrying of firearms…into the legislative chambers!

What were THEY afraid of, “Nathaniel?” “MaxGrobnik?” “Buhler?” end quote

There is a record of gun and knife fights in the Kansas legislature, during debates on slavery. To day it might be abortion and coal fired power-plants. Legislators are a bunch of hot-heads it seems.
Only after being approved by the Attorney General, who reviews a complete FBI background, mental records and training and a review by the local sheriff, is an adult citizen approved and licensed to carry a concealed firearm for defensive purposes. The people who apply for the license are ” a cut above” the average perhaps. After all, the criminal element has been concealing weapons and assaulting innocent victims without getting ” a permit to carry a weapon for assault.”
Any place where there are people, there are potential victims in need of protection. That ugly sign says to me, that the person in charge of posting the sign has no concern for the safety or welfare of the people who enter, whether it is a church, bar, or shopping center.
It isn’t the weapon that kills, it is the user who is a “killer” and will use a baseball bat, a knife or broken bottle to take you money or your life. Maybe some person with a concealed weapon will save your life someday, just not where that ugly and offensive sign is posted.

document.write(today_string());Friday, Jun 13, 2008
Posted on Fri, Jun. 13, 2008
Are guns coming to a church near you? Comments inserted in-line.

File this under “Things You Thought You Knew”: When Kansas legislators passed concealed carry in 2006, they placed certain places off-limits, including bars, churches, schools, libraries, day care centers — right?
Well, think again.
The new normal: No place in Kansas (with the exception of federal buildings) is off-limits to concealed-carry permit holders unless that place posts those glaring no-gun signs.
Last year, pro-gun lawmakers quietly changed the law.
It was well covered in the news, was talked about on KPTS and KCTU television. The Governor vetoed the HB 2528 and it was over-ridden. That too was covered on the Governor’s press releases before the Legislature voted the over-ride.
Surprised? So are some bar owners, who are complaining that they were never informed about the new rules.
Bar owner’s have the TV, radio and newspapers and they have liquor retailer’s organizations. If they were surprised, it was due to their own fault.
Churches, schools and day care centers, too, may be surprised to know that without the gun signs, they’ve opened the door to firearms.
This was a sweeping change to the original law that significantly loosened concealed-carry restrictions.
Actually it reinstated the original intention, which was thwarted by the Kansas League of Municipalities and the City of Wichita, et al. They immediately passed in secret, laws to ban any carry of concealed carry by State licensed individuals on any city owned property, to include streets, parks, and river banks. These laws were truly “secret” since no signs were posted and public notice nearly invisible. The actions of the cities prompted the legislature to revise the law just to make it functional as originally intended.
It deserves a more vigorous and public debate.
Yes, it does, will the Eagle actually cover the issue as a reporter or will it be a protagonist?
State Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, who supported the changes, told me this week that the revisions had been discussed in hearings — even if no one noticed — and he dismissed bar owners’ complaints, saying that “all they have to do is put the ugly stickers up. It’s about notice.”
I would say the bill; HB 2528 was debated in public hearings with witnesses, which the news media chose not to cover in a timely manner. At the time the law was passed, no bar owner complained. The stickers are a legally approved and required sign that was approved by the Kansas Attorney General in order for criminal conviction. ksag.org/files/shared/concealcarrysignage.pdf
He cited confusion among concealed-carry holders, especially those visiting from out of state, about which places exactly were off-limits.
It’s reasonable to address potential confusion in the law.
Yes, it certainly necessary to address actual confusion, such as the Kansas Board of Regents has on Kansas universities.
But this is no tweak. It sounds more like concealed-carry proponents got their camel’s nose under the tent and decided to push on inside.
Actually, the cities had stuck their hind quarters under the tent and it was necessary to push them out, to stop their violation of the law.
Now, unless a bar or tavern has a sign conspicuously posted, a concealed-carry holder can bring a gun inside and even have a drink, as long as he avoids the legal blood-alcohol level for drunkenness.
Actually, it does not say licensed concealed carry citizens may have a drink, being under the influence or impairment was not changed by HB 2528. What it did do was allow a plumber, delivery truck driver, or any other person other than an employee [who is allowed under the basic KSA 21-4201 law] to enter a building for lawful purposes without breaking the law.
I’m sorry, but this doesn’t pass the common-sense test.
Common sense tells me and many others that killers, mad-men and terrorists may be encountered anywhere and it would be safer to be armed for self-defense. Being able to enter a building does not mean you will be drinking.
Mixing alcohol and firearms is never a good idea — that’s according to the concealed-carry training program. That’s been a central tenet of gun safety for as long as I can remember.
Again, the sign says you can’t enter the building.
Even one drink can affect response time and judgment.
True, but that is not the point. The point is that citizens may have many reasons to enter a bar. Perhaps there was an accident outside and the phone is needed to call police.
Now state law is saying that drinking while carrying is OK? Just don’t get too tipsy?
The law, HB 2528, modified KSA 75.7c, to allow entry into buildings for lawful purposes.
Talk about mixed messages.
Lawyers and editors should be competent at reading and understanding the English language. The mixed message is propaganda spread by the KLM and the anti-self-defense lobby.
What’s particularly offensive and outrageous is the notion that thousands of churches statewide will have to put up those “ugly stickers” on their church doors if they want to keep out concealed carriers.
What is offensive is that churches, which have often been targets of terrorists and the scene of violence and murder, were told that they did not have a choice to allow their parishioners to be armed.
Kirk Longhofer, director of communications at FirstUnitedMethodistChurch downtown, told me his church had just started talking about how to respond.
One immediate concern: “How can we post the sign without making the front door ugly and obnoxious?”
He also said the church’s position is still under discussion. “There are (church members) who are going to think it’s OK — we are a very diverse church.”
I wonder: Will some pro-gun congregants now boycott churches that put up signs, as they’ve pressured other no-gun businesses?
Yes, I’m sure many members will seek other places to worship. The sign does not make the church “gun free” but it does disarm the decent, discrete and background check adult citizens who would make the church a safer place for all the unarmed potential victims. Since concealed is concealed, nobody knows if or who is carrying a weapon. That is true with or without the Personal and Family Protection Act. Anyone wearing clothes might be armed. The citizens, who put their reputations, time and money on the line by getting licensed, do so for lawful reasons.
I phoned the Rev. Lois Harder, co-pastor of LorraineAvenueMennoniteChurch. She had heard of the change. She called it “ludicrous.”
So far, the church has not posted a sign.
“How ironic would it be,” she asked, “if the historic peace and justice church had to put up a no-gun sign on its front door?”
A search of the Eagle archive will probably show more than one murder that has taken place in a church on a Sunday morning.
She acknowledged, though, that without the sign, the church could be welcoming worshippers who carry guns.
Churches welcome soldiers, police officers, private detectives and criminals, all of whom carry firearms and are not restricted by the sign that criminalizes walking past an ugly sign.
That’s the awkward position many churches now face.
Awkward how?
True, some churches have valid concerns about security — indeed, as I learned from Journey, some support the change and don’t want to be off-limits to concealed carry.
For her part, Harder said that worrying too much about security was antithetical to the Christian message of her church.
“Our faith is that our security comes from God — not from any nation, not from any state, and certainly not from any firearms,” she said.
“Her church” or it just her opinion? I have always believed that God helps those who help themselves. Not defending your life or the lives of others could be described as a sin. Not having or allowing a weapon for that defense seems sinful to me, just my personal and humble opinion.
Of course, that sometimes leaves church members feeling vulnerable, she said. But to compromise their beliefs just to feel safer would undermine their very faith identity.
She was “stunned,” she said, to recently talk with a pastor of a different denomination who said he had passed the concealed-carry program and was ready to “start packing heat” in church.
A Pastor has a duty to protect the flock. But packing heat means a chemical heat pack on a cold day.
For the record, I am not anti-gun. I’m comfortable around guns. I grew up with guns. I own several guns. I hunt with guns. I support gun ownership.
Guns have their place.
But when did we decide that bars, churches and schools are among those places?
I’m not sure we decided, but the evil forces made being armed for protection anywhere you have a lawful reason to be prudent. Logic says that if going someplace is optional and you can’t defend your self and loved ones there, don’t go.
God help us. Amen!
Randy Scholfield is an Eagle editorial writer. Actually reading the laws of Kansas is an education. Start here…

ksag.org/files/shared/75-7c-01.pdf

ksag.org/content/page/id/90 Concealed Carry page
__________________
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.

Linda,

This is a thread about concealed carry. We are not quick about telling anyone anything. We simply post about our opinions on concealed carry when it is brought up.

I hardly think that the criminals are monitoring this thread and even if they were they have no real idea who we are or what we do.

Even if they did, what criminal is going to go that far out of his way to try to see if the few people who post on these blogs are going to be where he might be at?

Absurd.

There is hardly any irony here at all.

Send your child to daycare heeled! The graham cracker and juice thieves are coming!

Randy,

I would like to see you defend yourself in a real debate.

Set up a time and a date and I will be there if you are up to it.

Lets see your arguments stand up to someone who knows what they are talking about.

You get to voice your opinion in the Eagle without ever having to answer for it. Well, lets see if you can.

Want to do a debate?

“Nathaniel” struts –

“Randy,

I would like to see you defend yourself in a real debate.”

And that would, of course, involve you being armed, right?

“We have all experienced the limits of Nathan’s mental prowess on the forums”

“Nathan” and “mental prowess” should not be used in the same sentence.

Randy asserts that guns don’t belong in certain places. Nathan has only argued with Randy that the CCH laws only pertain to the law-abiding, and are ignored by the very criminals who do bad things with guns. This is the very essence of this board. Nathan has never called Randy or anybody else here a “liar.” By saying he does, you MP, are speaking falsehoods. Does that make you a “liar,” or are you just wrong? I prefer to think the latter. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The kid at that bar who was shot at told the owner he could do whatever he wanted, he was packing. Don’t know if that was bluster or truth, but the owner ended up popping a few rounds in a house that was fortunately vacant.

While I consider myself a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, Guns in bars make me nervous. IMHO, guns and booze is not a good mix for the same reason booze and cars isn’t a good mix. There’s a judgment issue here. Booze impairs judgment.

When somebody pulls out that gun, I want to be sure that he or she is firing on all eight cylinders, not just letting the booze take control.

The law should be changed so that any establishment that wanted to allow gun packing customers would have to post Guns allowed.

darkanonm
Posted June 16, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
There are biker bars in Wichita? I thought strip clubs and gay bars, but no bikers.

I was taking a poke at the gun nuts and their fear.

How are those of us who choose to carry concealed full of fear?

It is you liberals who are crying about concealed carry in churches, bars, and on school grounds.

The real question should be:

Why are you liberals so scared of law abiding citizens carrying concealed?

I feel that once again, this should be posted:

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
===============================

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/0726sheep.html

“The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is
that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep
dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished
and removed.
The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative
democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much
rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to
hide behind one lonely sheepdog.”

Phantom,

Are you in Great Britain?

Price,
We liberals are not afraid of you cc nuts. Just don’t see the need to arm myself to function in this world.

Boo!

libdave,

Ok, so you don’t want to be armed. Why do you care if others want to be?

Price,
I don’t care. I just think it’s funny that you act so macho, but you can’t leave the house without your pacifier/gun. Boo!

libdave,

I can leave my house without my gun. Why would I want to though?

It is the most effective way for me to be able to defend myself or others from harm.

Would you protect yourself or your family if someone was trying to hurt them?

Nathan, if you live in such a dangerous community that you have to pack a gun everywhere then perhaps you should move. Funny how I can live in a neighborhood with Mexican gangs and I don’t feel the need to carry a gun. I guess I’m just not a scared little child like you are.

Sure thing Nathaniel, I take reasonable precautions for real danger. I have no need to take precautions for imagined threats. I have no need to arm myself.

“Would you protect yourself or your family if someone was trying to hurt them?”

Good grief, I first heard this lame argument in 1971. Boo!

Maggotpunk,

I live in a neighborhood where fires are rare and I am right across the street from a Fire Station.

I still have smoke alarms in my home.

Where I live has nothing to do with why I carry concealed.

Once again, you don’t want to carry a gun? Fine. I don’t care.

Why do you care if I do?

Carrying a gun doesn’t make me a scared little child either.

Would you defend yourself or your family if someone was trying to hurt you or them?

libdave,

Are you saying that there is no violent crime in this nation?

No one gets Robbed? Raped? Attacked?

How are those imaginary threats?

KansasNative,

Where is anyone cheering about the state telling the church what can and can’t be carried inside?

The church can simply post the no gun sign and we can’t carry concealed inside… legally that is.

Mary,

If you have nothing decent to say why bother posting here at all?

Yet again, the liberals have nothing to offer in this discussion besides name calling.

Oh, I got the impression that you were pleased that the state allows CC in church. My bad. So you are against the state dictating what can or cannot be brought into a church?

Nathaniel,
But of course there is violent crime in America. Don’t you tire of posting foolish questions. I have no reason to believe that cc would keep me or my family any safer than exercising common sense.

libdave,

As I already said, you don’t want to carry concealed? Fine.

Why do you care if I do?

Why do you feel like you have to mock me and say I am afraid for carrying concealed?

Nathaniel,
I tire of your lame arguments. Hang on to your gun/pacifier, but don’t try to tell us you aren’t afraid. Boo!

libdave,

I am not afraid.

“Why do you care if I do?”

We don’t.

Maggotpunk,

Show me where that article said someone was murdered?

I never want to have to use my gun. If I do, I am prepared to though.

Once again, why do you care if I carry concealed?

libdave,

I drive my car everyday and I am not afraid of being killed.

I still wear my seatbelt.

I am not afraid that my home will burn down.

I still have smoke alarms.

I carry a pistol because it is one of the most effective ways of being able to protect myself or someone else from harm.

Nothing to do with fear at all.

Once again, why do you care?

Price,
I’m tired of talking in circles with you, I have already responded to that comment. I’m done with this fruitless argument.

Maggotpunk,

This is the title of the article you linked:

“Ten years later, officials say gun-carrying citizens responsible, deterring crime.”

Thank you for supporting my argument.

Can you build it?

“Yes, we can.”

Sounds like Bob the Builder.

Do you know how to build it?

“Yes, we can.”

What about the price of Gas?

“Yes, we can.”

How about all the tax increases you propose?

“Yes, we can.”

The new Democratic Party Mantra:

“Yes, we can.”

What about pulling out the troops in Iraq?

“Yes, we can.”

What about the Democratic party being the recipient of the most money from millionaires?

“Yes, we can.”

What happened to the party of the people?

“Yes, we can.”

Will you overtax the people?

“Yes, we can!”

And put them in harms way?

“Yes, we can!”

Will you negotiate with terrorists?

“Yes, we can!”

Will you try to appease terrorists and our enemies like Chamberlain did before WWII?

“Yes, we can!”

What states or territories are you going to give away to appease them?

“Yes, we can!”

Murdering people does deter crime doesn’t it? End justifies the means, another glimpse into the immorality of Nathan’s religious views.

I usually picture Nathan as that hunter in South Park that justifies the killing of rare animals by shouting, “He’s charging!” right before shooting them.

I wonder what it must be like to be scared all the time like Nathan is. Nathan, do you still wet the bed?

Price,
I told you once, here it is again, I take precautions for reasonable threats. I don’t spend a whole lot of time worring about things that are unlikely to happen to me.
“Come back when you are ready to actually have a discussion beyond the ad hominem.”
Ahh, did I hurt your feelings with my “ad hominem”? Not like you have ever done that on this board.

“It is legal in the state of Kansas to kill someone in self defense. If my father was ever involved in shooting someone, there would never be a lawyer to have a field day with it because the DA wouldn’t press charges. Once again, why do you care if someone carries concealed?”

Didn’t you just answer your own question? Maybe some of us aren’t comforted by the idea of roaming vigilantes, especially considering the fact that you have a set of values that is so different than ours.

bifida,
You are making a big mistake in your argument above, though it is a good one.
The folks against CCH do not use fact to reason.
Their thought process is been stunted and they rely on emotion which flies in the face of factual logic.

Their thought process is been stunted and they rely on emotion which flies in the face of factual logic.

Do people who shoot other people, whether in an offensive situation or a defensive situation, use factual logic or emotion?

Maggotpunk:

Sorry dude, normally I agree with you on a lot of things, but you’re out of line on this one.

You’re talking about George Tiller. He was shot with an ILLEGALLY CONCEALED HANDGUN, pre-CCH, by an overzealous abortion protestor.

I don’t know whether this woman was a “gun nut” or not– she simply saw the gun, as many do, as a means to an end. It is an amoral tool, not an evil instrument. But don’t confuse legal concealed carry with the illegal use of arms which happen to have been concealed prior to their illegal use.

As for the rest of you who are calling it a society of fear–

I know fear. I have been alone, without help, and at the mercy of someone who meant me harm. I survived, but to some of you ’survival’ is enough. You don’t factor in the damage caused emotionally by the event itself, the feeling of helplessness.

You don’t factor in the decade it might take you to fully come to terms with the incident. If 10 years is all it takes. 10 years later I only think about it when I hear about similar instances and I know how the person feels.

You love government intervention, the police department coming like white knights to your rescue. Never mind the fact that the police are not legally responsible to aid you, and have no accountability if you fail to do so (this is a Supreme Court-affirmed precedent–TWICE.)

I lost a friend to WPD shift change back in 2003.

I have thought about filing a FOIA request on the 911 tapes, but I don’t know that I want to hear it. Suffice it to say he was able to run a good long way with a bullet in his body while talking to 911 on his cell phone. Other people called 911. The police just took too long, and only showed up to watch the shooter take himself out.

The deal is, I know that it is statistically unlikely that these things will happen to me again. However, given the fact that I have the right to carry a gun for self defense, it seems silly to me not to afford myself the option.

Exercising common sense keeps you from getting close to bad people, but what do you do when the bad people come to you?

“They want someone else to do that for them just like they want others to do almost everything else for them.”

Bullshit, just flat out bullshit.

Grow up for Christ’s sake.

Maggotpunk
Posted June 16, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Permalink
Here’s one example:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070701_238_A1_hTeny75637

Great article Maggotpunk! I think everybody here ought to read that story. It plays better for us than for you.

Where do criminals get their guns?

Is mindless allegience to political ideology worth, potentially, your life?

“Is mindless allegience to political ideology worth, potentially, your life?”

Huh?

JR,

I guess you and WS Clark have told the same lie so many times now you just keep adding to it just because?

I NEVER threatened to brandish a gun to frighten people.

You did say you would kill my father and I the other night though.

How will you do that?

I always wanted to bonedig that little bit of your history Nathan.

You are invited to do the same.

A peek at Randy’s to-do list:
Wednesday – A gun in a grocery store!
Friday – If you walk in the park, will somebody there have a gun?
Sunday – Why should we allow guns in bowling alleys?
Monday – Is that man at Office Max packing heat?
Wednesday – Why does anybody need a gun while driving in the country?
etc, etc, etc.

The comic stylings of “Nathaniel” –

“…basically a joking comment on my part about just getting my concealed carry permit and that the liberals would wet their pants.”

And pure comedy gold it was, “Nathaniel!”

Too bad Ed Sullivan’s not on TV these days. You would kill! (Okay; bad choice of words.)

Johnny Carson’s philosophy (”If they buy the premise, they’ll buy the joke.”) is so embodied by your joke! Everyone knows liberals quaver at the mere sight of a government-issued document; to the point of incontinence! It’s funny ‘cuz it’s true!

Thanks for the laughs, “Nathaniel.” You’re a regular CarrotTop!

MonkeyHawk,

No one said a word about it until WS Clark turned it into a big deal.

Even Julie at the time new it was a joke and made a comment to that effect.

Only after Clark kept crying about me carrying concealed somewhere and how he wouldn’t show up did I say that I would be carrying all over the place and that he should stay away from them to.

WS Clark went on for days crying about it. He still does.

I told him several times over and over again that I was not threatening him.

It was just an excuse he could use to not go to the meet up.

Has anyone ever met WS Clark?

It is almost worth taking him up on his offer as of late just to see if he would do it.

My actions conditional on yours is not a threat Nathan. It is a promise that I will defend myself.

Search engine math is not helping me find the meetup you ruined. I will look to the archives.

Well that is certainly very…interesting.

Nathan says:

“Then it was about 3 days and 3 pages worth of Clark on melt down about how I was threatening him.”

Hmm.

As shown above, the …confusion? took place on 4 24 07. Nathan says this continued for three days.

On my first look into the archives. I cannot find anything before 4 27 07.

Three days.

Now this was a first look.

Am I doing something wrong? Or have those posts been removed?

JR,

The conversation didn’t happen on this blog.

LOL!!

Hey MonkeyHawk,

In Kansas, there is less than one death a year due to lightning strikes. The chances of you being a victim of a home invasion are greater than being killed by lightning.

Now I’m going to tell you something, you can believe or not. I’m not scared. Can’t remember the last time I was afraid of anything or anyone. I carry for insurance and because I’m not afraid to.

I’m more likely to kill a rabid skunk at the stables that is threatening one of my dogs than ever draw my weapon against another person.

When the libs try and paint CCH license holders as being frightened and constantly living in a state of paranoia, nothing could be further from the truth.

Want to have an adult discussion on carrying in bars? I don’t go to bars anymore. Want to talk about carrying in church? My pastor is OK with it. If they post my church, I’d respect their wishes like I respect any other posted establishment. I’d find another church.

Want to insinuate that I’m a gun nut? Discussion over.

Discussion’s over tonight anyway, it’s past my bedtime!

I’ll afford you that Nathan.

I am aware there were two blogs involved at the time. I was not able to see either of them.

I’ll afford you further that many of the principle posters involved and the meetup itself seem to have been part of the other blog.

I will be FAR more fair for you than you ever have for me. Can you direct me to the….confusion?

“Your original comments on not attending had nothing to do with her.”

They most certainly did.

“Coward.”

What a sad little man you are, Price. It is no wonder that you are still single at your age.

“Many on the left here simply have no rational arguments to make – snark is all you’ve got.”

Unfair statement, GMC – most on the left really don’t place much importance on guns or CC. It is simply not that much of an issue.

I see you are still hiding behind your GrandDaughter…

Nathan(iel),

If and when the time comes that you have a grandchild, you may see things differently. I hope someday you are so blessed.

Predestined, what we (as a country) have known for years is now being discovered in England, Australia, and other countries that have outlawed guns. Only the law-abiding give up their guns, the criminals never do. As a result, armed crimes have increased, not decreased, as a result.

Which brings me back to your question, where do criminals get guns? Just like cocaine and other illegal drugs, much of it comes in from overseas. There is some home-grown stuff, but millions of guns have already been absorbed into the black market, and provide a ready supply for this trade. As others have posted, these people don’t go into Cabella’s, pick out a nice new shiny gun, fill out the paperwork and background check, and establish a record of who bought what and when. I only buy guns from reputable dealers, because I want the warranty in effect to back my purchase, just like I would a television or an auto transmission. I also am not comfortable with the “unknown” quality/damage/malfunctions associated with used guns.
There are enough safeguards in the legal transfer of guns that you could compare them to the legal sale of prescription medications. Yes, maybe some get into the wrong hands, through neglect or to minors. (guns and meds) However, the vast majority of problems occur in the illegal market. We can’t register or license there. It is vexing, and the only solution is to go after the devils who use these weapons in their crimes. But Americans want a quick, easy, feel-good solution, and thwart legal guns, owners, and ownership. Some don’t even question the effectiveness of their solutions, the mere passage of which seems to satisfy them and make them just feel good. Until the next criminal shooting, when they wring their hands, and need another “fix” of feel-good legislation.

When concealed carry was passed, many op-ed pieces bemoaned the coming of a wild west shoot-out sort of society. Has it happened? No. Have you noticed much different in your daily life since the passing of concealed carry? I’m betting no, other than the signs on building doors.

The people most likely to USE a gun will carry them anytime and anywhere regardless of the law. Those who carry a weapon solely for protection, and are fully licensed, are not the people we should be worried about. Especially in church, or in a school.

The issue of having law-abiding citizens carry weapons is such a non-issue, I don’t understand why it keeps coming up. For what it’s worth, I don’t hold a concealed carry permit, though I do keep several guns in my home. If I ever feel I need to carry for my own protection, I like having a legal route to take to allow me to do so. Some of my friends and family members do legally carry, and for the record, they haven’t shot anybody.

An armed society is a polite society. Scholfield, you got beat up a lot in school, didn’t you?

jed

“And you who insist on packing heat are almost three times more likely to blow away a friend or family member than you are to save one from a felon.”

Tell me jed, does this “stat” apply only to people who “pack heat” legally or to people who “pack heat” illegally.

Source please.

Oh you probably don’t have a source cause this is a bullchit stat and you know it.

Jed
Posted June 17, 2008 at 4:51 am | Permalink
I’ve spent most of this evening going over crime statistics from a number of sources.
——————————————————————

And yet not ONE source and not ONE fact was cited.

Let me guess, you went to ONE web site: http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Nice opinion Jed, but everyone’s got one.

Got facts?

Ahhh yesss… Max’s flame thrower makes its daily appearance….

And Max also knows full well what is meant by the statistice that only 13% of murders were committed during commission of a felony…

But, as is normal on the Blog, Max chooses to freely ignore the statistic, and fire up his flame thrower…. Max, GET A LIFE!!!

Chas
Posted June 17, 2008 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
Ahhh yesss… Max’s flame thrower makes its daily appearance….

And Max also knows full well what is meant by the statistice that only 13% of murders were committed during commission of a felony…
————————————————-

Really Chas? What does that mean? There’s not even a source cited for that ’statistice’.

Pure BS, and Chas defends pure BS.

What happens if Kansas totally repeals KSA 75.7c, the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act?

Suddenly over 13,000 honest citizens will be unable to lawfully carry a weapon for self-defense. Does that mean that the state will hire 13,000 more police officers? Certainly not.

Does it mean that the estimated 12-15,000 violent criminals in Kansas will suddenly obey the law and stop carrying tire irons, ball bats, knives and even guns? Certainly not, it might even serve to increase the number of armed robbers and rapists on the street. It certainly will increase the ratio of armed predators to unarmed victims. The whole issue of “bars” or schools and churches is just a smoke screen to the goal of a late term abortion on Governor Sebelius’ vetoes.

Apple Inc.’s new data synching service got off to a rocky start Thursday, as some users were denied access to their accounts just hours before the next-generation iPhone is slated to go on sale.