Last month saw a 15 percent increase nationally in background checks for gun purchases, compared with October 2007. On and just after Election Day, assault weapons were flying out the doors at gun stores. One Georgia gun shop briefly advertised an “Obama sale.” Do people really think President Obama is going to disarm them? Or is this just scaremongering (but effective) marketing by the gun lobby?
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- kansasdem on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
177 Comments
The same paranoia happened when Clinton was elected. Yet there was no roundup of guns. The only time that’s happened when Bush had guns rounded up from civilians in New Orleans.
Rhonda,
I appreciate the question, but doesn’t there have to be proof for your answers?
You gave us an either/or question where I don’t believe there is proof for the or you give us.
Where is this scaremongering marketing by the “gun lobby”? I must have missed it.
The simple fact is that a majority of gun owners know what happens when the Democrats get a majority. They try to enact more gun control legislation. This is a simple fact.
The Democrats tried to pass the Assault Weapons ban 2 years ago. It is a safe bet that they will try to do the same again and be much more sucessful now. That is why people are buying more of them before there is a ban.
The last Assault weapons ban was passed in 1994 under a Democratically controlled Congress.
Obama’s language on the 2nd Amendment has been the same type of wishy washy language we have been getting from Deomcrats for the past 10 years. It doesn’t inspire confidence in us gun owners.
Maggotpunk, once again, you spout your Marxist hatred. The Bush administration was NOT responsible for rounding up guns during Katrina. That was the doing of New Orleans Mayor Clarence Ray Nagin, aka Willy Wonka, a black DEMOCRAT. The same Clarence Ray Nagin who said New Orleans should be a “Chocolate City”. Get your facts straight, Comrade.
The question I have now is do I buy the shotgun I have been wanting or another Assault Weapon before Congress bans it….
WHY does anyone need an assault weapon?
Just me, but I’m fairly convinced that anyone who thinks that they DO need an assault weapon really has no business having one.
“do I buy the shotgun I have been wanting or another Assault Weapon before Congress bans it….”
ANOTHER assault weapon? How many can you fire at once? What is your purpose in having such weapons?
Again, just me. But your family is a tragedy just busting to happen.
Last I heard Bush would have signed the assault weapons if it passed. And John McCain has always supported enacting stricter controls at gun shows
follow the money…it leads to the NRA an extension of the weapons manufacturers.
duh
If it is the right of everyone to have arms, then why be upset over Iran getting nuclear weapons?
Everyone should be able to freely own their “arms” of choice. It’s in the Constitution!
I’d like to have a few atom bombs myself. Why not, the Constitution guarantees it!
BlueJay,
WHY does anyone need a boat? Jet Ski? Or any other recreational vehicle?
Do you know how many people are killed in boating accidents every year?
I say we ban them all. No one “needs” them.
Back in the day, I went around saying that President Clinton stated he was not wanting to ban firearms ownership. He was just wanting to pass a slight restriction on ownership, that stated if your name started with a letter of the alphabet. You could not buy a gun and empowering the BATF the authority to come into your home without a warrant to take the ones you had.
This has been a very effective bug-a-boo against the democrats for years. It appeals more to a emotional level than hard evidence does. President Reagan passed some of the more restrictive laws after he was shot.
More current the BATF went on a campaign to drive some dealers out of the trade and it worked.
“The Pawn shop” quit selling firearms after BATF kept sighting them for violations that did not exist.
Finally it went to court and the Judge reprimanded BATF for their actions and told the owner he could have his license back. He told the Judge no thanks as he did not want to deal with such a corrupt government agency.
Just what is an assault weapon anyway? It carries more rounds? It kind of sort of looks like a weapon used in war? To play on something Archie Bunker said to his daughter, “which would hurt worst being shot with a AK47 or a twelve gage double barrel?”. Fact is it is what it is used for and not its look or function that makes a weapon an assault weapon. A rock is just a rock until you pick it up and hit someone in the head with it.
A boat, jet ski, or RV cannot kill several dozen people in a minute or less there Nathan.
The question was to you and not an invite to ask another question.
Why do you “need” even ONE assault weapon?
What is it you fear or what is it you are planning?
Like it or not, there’s already gun control. You can’t own a .50 cal machine gun. You can’t own a howitzer.
Personally, I’d prefer not to see “assault weapons” banned because the last time they did that, they did a very poor job of defining exactly what an “assault weapon” is.
Banning “assault weapons” really isn’t going to make any difference in the national murder rate. It just gives people who don’t know anything about fire arms something to feel good about.
If we really want to make a difference, pass a law that forces gun owners to take a safety course and be certified. Licensing might not be a bad idea as long as it doesn’t include registration. You have to be licensed to drive a car and in a lot of cities, to ride a bike.
Personal self defense isn’t the only reason to own a gun. Gun ownership also serves as a check against onerous government. I wonder where we’d be today if the colonists hadn’t owned guns.
I guess what I want to understand is the mindset.
Someone who wants one or more assault weapons, do they fear attack from a platoon size group of people? And, if so, why?
Repeal ALL bans/laws on “arms”. The Constitution never mentions ANY type of “arms”. The Constitution guarantees the people the explicit right to have ANY and ALL “arms”.
Show me where the Constitution mentions “guns” or “firearms”. It doesn’t.
“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.”
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do the politicos not understand?
XXX,
Actually, you can own a .50 machine gun. All you need is a Class III weapons license. And Kansas just passed the law allowing us to do so as well.
I don’t care if we license people either, but that should mean we can carry in public.
You don’t have to have a license to drive on your private land.
There shouldn’t be those kinds of restrictions on ownership on your own property.
That is where your comparison fails.
Heheheheh. You cons. Got played again.
The gun sellers made out like bandits, no pun intended. I’m sure they are thanking obama right now. What better tool to increase sales and part the paranoid from their money?
Good job of marketing. Bravo.
Close the gun show loophole. Make sellers responsible for selling their weapons. Like they say, guns don’t kill people, people do. So make the seller responsible for checking the background of the buyer, or at least as far as the law calls for. After that, it’s up to the buyer to be responsible as an owner.
BlueJay,
I collect fire arms. There’s a gun show the end of this month and I think I’m finally going to be able to add a Russian-built AK-47 to my collection. There’s just something about the precision and workmanship that goes into a well-made fire arm. You know me. Do I strike you as some kind of wild-eyed nutcase who’d shoot somebody? I don’t even hunt. I don’t have the heart to kill an animal, though I have no problem with people who pursue the sport. But I’d have no problem shooting somebody in defense of my life or the life of a loved one.
Banning assault weapons isn’t going to make any difference. If we really want to have an impact, we need to ban cheap poorly made handguns, “Saturday Night Specials”. It’s very hard to conceal an assault weapon. A Saturday Night Special on the other hand…
If we ban guns, then only criminals will have guns. That’s not a very comforting idea.
Nathaniel
Posted November 8, 2008 at 7:46 am | Permalink
XXX,
Actually, you can own a .50 machine gun. All you need is a Class III weapons license. And Kansas just passed the law allowing us to do so as well.
_________________________________________________
Nathan, that’s the exception rather than the rule. Under certain circumstances, you can own a tank.
Your statements really don’t help our position.
I for one as a female after 911 bought a gun took the NRA class and passed it. I am not a fanatic but
I do believe that we have the right to bear arms and to defend ourselves. Latley I have been considering buying of additional guns, and putting them away. There is an ill wind blowing and you can point fingers and make fun but I for one am not going to give up my rights or my Country without a fight. For our countries sake I pray that I am wrong.
Yeah sadie, we are making fun but only kind of laughing. You may be a joke, but it’s just sad, not funny. I dont care how many guns you own. If that’s how you chose to spend your money, knock yerself out. Some folks are buying and stocking bomb shelters too. Whatever gets you through the night.
I’m just pointing out the buying guns because of some manufactured “fear” of obama is a marketing ploy that is worthy of karl rove. And it worked!
Laugh all you want… End of discussion.
Oh, excuse me, were we HAVING a discussion? I hadnt noticed. But typical for a con. The “discussion” is over when they say so. heheheheh. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
nitwit
#
sadie12
Posted November 8, 2008 at 8:01 am | Permalink
There is an ill wind blowing and you can point fingers and make fun but I for one am not going to give up my rights or my Country without a fight. For our countries sake I pray that I am wrong.
______________________________________________
Sadie, just curious. Who are you going to defend the country from, over-reaching government, or Democrats?
Obama’s first decision as President-elect: Adding to his anti-gun “F-Troop”
“Like Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel has established a solid anti-gun record, having voted against a law prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers and against prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse, and voiced support for mandating “smart gun” technology.
While Obama ran as the “change” candidate, Obama’s choices point to a “change” back to the 1990’s. The story goes on to note that John Podesta, Bill Clinton`s former White House chief of staff, is heading the Obama transition team. Gun owners will remember Podesta well for his work as President Clinton’s point man on gun control, coordinating federal lawsuits against the firearm industry and Clinton`s failed effort to mandate universal firearm-owner licensing.”
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6190
KFG
“Good job of marketing. Bravo.”
No marketing required. It’s like folks buying plywood, bottled water and generators when they think a hurricane is headed their way. They’ve seen what happens.
Gun owners have seen what happens when Democrats have control. They don’t need to be told what to do.
I posted this yesterday on open thread. Lets repeat, from O’bidens transition website.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Not the continued lies about the Tiahrt Amendment and the scary language about “assault weapons”.
KFG
The gun makers don’t have to market it. O’Biden is doing it for them.
#
Heckler
Posted November 8, 2008 at 9:03 am | Permalink
Gun owners have seen what happens when Democrats have control. They don’t need to be told what to do.
__________________________________________________
Heckler, I think Democrats have learned/are learning their lesson when it comes to guns. Gun ownership is a visceral subject with Americans and is just as much a “third rail” issue with voters as Social Security. Banning assault weapons is a loser. We’ve been there and done that. Is the assault weapons ban still in place? If it was such a good idea, why not?
I don’t think Democrats can pull together enough votes to pass another assault weapons ban.
I am not sure who we will have to defend ourselves against. But I know that it scares the hell out of me. If it is the enemy from outside or the enemy within. And I don’t say we lightly.
XXX
“I don’t think Democrats can pull together enough votes to pass another assault weapons ban.”
Perhaps. I know many of them remember 1994. It depends on whether or not the Obama administration pushes it. Some in Congress will push it. We lost a number of pro-gun seats. Time will tell but I think that your optimism is misplaced.
Your statements really don’t help our position.
-Nathan
What is your position Nathan. Some gun laws/control are OK and others not (depending on what YOU want)?
The Constitution is clear. The right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
What gun control laws are you advocating Nathan?
XXX
What gun show is coming up? I’ve been thinking of getting an AR-15 stripped lower and building a new one as funds allow.
“Nathan, that’s the exception rather than the rule. Under certain circumstances, you can own a tank.
Your statements really don’t help our position.”
True that in reference to Nathan.
Nathan has posted of his concern for being able to “take out” people at range. He has also joked about bringing a gun to a social gathering to intimidate people for giggles. INCREDIBLY irresponsilbe and frankly worrisome statements.
I suppose I understand the desire to collect things for no more than appreciation of what they are. I was at an estate sale once where a guy had collected literally a garage FULL of yardsticks. It was just his thing. But a garage full of stolen yardsticks can’t much hurt anyone.
As is true in so many cases, I would say that with this particular freedom comes responsibility above and beyond licensing, marksmanship, etc. Let those concerned with their right to the greater than ordinary degree to own arms be the best advocates they can for the attendant responsibility. I can be comfortable with that.
#
Heckler
Posted November 8, 2008 at 9:26 am | Permalink
XXX
What gun show is coming up? I’ve been thinking of getting an AR-15 stripped lower and building a new one as funds allow.
_________________________________________________
Nov 22-23 at the Coliseum. Those are always huge. I like to go even if I don’t buy just to see the people.
Nathaniel
Posted November 8, 2008 at 6:28 am | Permalink
The question I have now is do I buy the shotgun I have been wanting or another Assault Weapon before Congress bans it
–
Oh go ahead and treat yourself and get both! You have been such a good little boy this year.
“Nathaniel,” faced with a conundrum, asks –
“… do I buy the shotgun I have been wanting or another Assault Weapon…?”"
Just who are you planning to assault?
“But a garage full of stolen yardsticks can’t much hurt anyone.”
I’ve known of some pretty mean nuns that make that a false statement!
There is no doubt that an AK or an AR is an intimidating weapon. But if you really look at the 2nd Amendment, including the “militia” clause, you’ll see that the PRIMARY intention of the amendment is to allow Americans to be able to pick up their (combat) arms, and either support the government (militia) or defend themselves from it. In either case, these are exactly the type of weapons that would be appropriate. Self-defense against another person isn’t even addressed in the Bill of Rights, that much is (or at least was at the time) always presumed to be the case. Sports, hunting, collecting, etc, also have nothing to do with the amendment. The essence of the 2A is freedom. Including the freedom to rise up against a tyranical government. Should we outlaw Hummers because they are of a military design, and nobody really needs one?
Had the Dem’s lost, there would have been rioting in the streets in some parts of the country. Now that they have won control, many believe that their continued programs of extracting taxes from the productive people while giving money to the non-productive people will ultimately break the country’s economy, and perhaps even the whole system. Democracies have typically lasted about 200 years; the end begins when people start taking more out of the treasury than they put in. (quote available) What follows is a period of anarchy, until a heavy-handed tyrant takes control. Will this happen here? I pray that it doesn’t, but am prepared the best I can if it does.
Nathan
Let me fix you quandry of shotgun/EBR. No need to compromise.
http://www.tromix.com/saiga.htm
Pant schitting hysterics beware!
Nothing like guns to bring out the dumb-asses. Come on, Sadie12, ain’t no black helicopter going to swoop in and take away your precious guns.
Or Nathan’s
Or anybody else’s
Yeah I own guns, but I’m not a tin-hat wacko.
Get a grip, people
Dennis
I want a bazooka.
Cruise missiles!
We’ve seen many discussions about guns on this blog. This is the most reasonable one I’ve read. Good job, bloggers!
If you don’t use reason and logic in your everyday decision making, then you are easily manipulated with fear. Some people have gotten a little smarter over the last 8 years. Some get their news only from e-mail rumors and Fox. Grow up America. God gave you a brain and a precious gift called “Free Will”.
I always thought it would be fun to own a 50-caliber machine gun, the old Ma Deuce. But the ammo would bankrupt me.
Or maybe one of those rrrrrrrrpppp!!! chain guns. Now that’s some serious firepower.
Dennis
#
YellowdogLiberal
Posted November 8, 2008 at 11:18 am | Permalink
I always thought it would be fun to own a 50-caliber machine gun, the old Ma Deuce. But the ammo would bankrupt me.
Or maybe one of those rrrrrrrrpppp!!! chain guns. Now that’s some serious firepower.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
OK, here’s some REAL family fun. Even if you don’t normally check out links, this one is worth seeing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRco6hY7rFE
XXX,
The “saturday night special” is nothing more than liberal political BS lingo like “cop killer bullets”
I can’t believe you of all people fall for that crap.
There are many people who simply can’t afford more expensive handguns and all they can get is a cheaper gun.
When you need to defend yourself it doesn’t matter if you have a cheap 100 dollar .22 or a 1500 dollar Kimber. You will have a tool to defend yourself.
What exact price amount do you think is too cheap?
Is it your proposal that people must pay X amount of dollars to be able to buy a gun?
Talk about elitism.
You can get many decent weapons cheap. Calling them a “saturday night special” is just the liberals trying to go after affordable guns.
XXX,
“Your statements really don’t help our position.”
Who is this “we” you are talking about?
The more and more I listen to you talk about gun control you and I are not anywhere close to the same position on gun control.
All I said was the truth. You need a class III weapons license to own machine guns.
How is that not helping “our” position?
Nathaniel
Posted November 8, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink
The more and more I listen to you talk about gun control you and I are not anywhere close to the same position on gun control.
_________________________________________________
I think you’re right, Nathan.
YOU need help. You sound crazy, even to me.
More lies from BlueJay:
“Nathan has posted of his concern for being able to “take out” people at range. He has also joked about bringing a gun to a social gathering to intimidate people for giggles. INCREDIBLY irresponsilbe and frankly worrisome statements.”
XXX,
What makes me sound crazy?
Please explain instead of turning into the typical liberal around here.
Have any of you known anyone who actually had a firearm confiscated by the government during the Clinton years?
If so, what make and model was it and for what stated reason was it taken?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.
Just how are we going to take out the tanks and helicopters with machine guns, we’re going to need real stopping power.
Rage,
I can name several weapons that we could no longer buy.
Phantom,
Tank traps. I used to be an Amphibious Vehicle Crewman. I know how to build tank traps.
I ain’t no fukcing “gun nut religous righty” but I know what it means to protect my family, I know that it’s built in to being a human-being. On the other hand, you chicken-$hitS want someone else to do that for you. In the next few years, I’ll figure that if you’re unarmed, you voted that way and want it that way. And hopefully, someone will be glad to help you out.
Good luck.
You deserve whatever you get, swine. Goddam gutless, cowards.
Nathan, I agree. When lawmakers target cheap guns (the type most often used in crimes) they are inadvertantly also taking from the poor the ability to defend themselves. Chicago’s extreme gun laws are not designed for the rich, they are a direct attempt at disarming the poor. In neighborhoods where gangs reign supreme, where cops won’t go, and lawlessness prevails, how can you tell a citizen there that a $100 gun is illegal, he’ll have to save up for a $500 gun to defend himself?
Remember folks, we have laws to control people’s behavior. It isn’t the gun, it’s what you do with it that is legal or illegal.
The US just tilted left, if you believe the pundits. Labor, in the UK is afraid of the next election, for the Conservatives are way ahead in the polls Last night New Zealand threw out their Labor/liberal government for a more right leaning approach. Australia got rid of their Liberal government a year ago and now have a right-of-centre party in charge. Canada just re-confirmed government by conservatives. Granted “left” and “right” mean different things in different places and probably the “right” in the above countries may well be “left” of the Democrats, but it’s an interesting trend in the 4 sister Parliamentary Democracies.
I can name several weapons that we could no longer buy.
Were they on your “to-do” list?
No, they’re not going to come in black helicopters, and take away our guns. The 2A, and the fact that too many people already own guns would make that a disaster. Instead, the common fear is that they would do it in slow steps, like the old “cooking a frog” story. In the words of the president-elect, simply use “common sense” methods:
1. Cut off the supply by heavy taxes, restrictions and partial bans. The bans can be expanded later, step by step.
2. Require registration and licensing, charging ever-increasing fees. Eventually some will consider the fees too high. At the same time you will build a data base of who has what.
3. Begin requiring inspections and safety-checks. Confiscate all weapons that do not pass.
4. Prohibit the personal transfer or inheritance of weapons. Take them when the old man dies.
In one generation, America could be virtually disarmed without any storm troopers.
In the next few years, I’ll figure that if you’re unarmed, you voted that way and want it that way.
You’re spewing that hallucinated, paranoid BS and you’re actually calling other people cowards? Wow. Coming from the fine mind who is certain we’ll see an inaugural terrorist attack, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
There are already enough real dangers in this world, Pleefer.
MartyG
Posted November 8, 2008 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
The economy is is free fall, our health care system is broken, bridges are crumbling, toxic goods are coming in from China, and you think the new administration is going to focus on an imagined relentless strategy to take away your guns.
That’s easily more insane than any black helicopter scenario.
But enjoy your delusions. I’m out of here.
Nathaniel
Posted November 8, 2008 at 11:46 am | Permalink
XXX,
What makes me sound crazy?
_________________________________________________
Oh, maybe what you’ve been posting all day for starters. Or maybe what you post generally.
Shall we take a poll as to how many people on these threads think you sound crazy? I enjoy my guns, but I don’t sleep with them. You on the other hand, are fixated.
While I can carry a concealed weapon, I very seldom do. What percentage of the time do you leave home without carrying a weapon? While you may think that you need to carry a weapon at all times, that’s a little crazy to normal people.
_______________________________________________
“Please explain instead of turning into the typical liberal around here”
Trying to stick me with the “liberal” label is pretty lame, boy.
Keep your stupid labels to yourself.
__________________________________________________
#
Nathaniel
Posted November 8, 2008 at 11:50 am | Permalink
Rage,
I can name several weapons that we could no longer buy.
__________________________________________________
I read somewhere that the Biblical definition of “several” is eight.
Name 4 weapons that we can no longer buy.
It’s true that Clinton did succeed in passing a so-called “assault weapons” ban (which after I studied it, I personally opposed).
But if you already had an “assault weapon,” nobody confiscated it.
The idea that “Dems are going to take away your guns” is so stupid that . . . you’d have to be a brainless CON to believe it.
BTW, I don’t hear anybody answering Rage’s question–
What guns were confiscated by “Clinton gun haters”?
Anyone? Anyone?
Back to the gist of this board, i.e. what is it about Obama that has caused this? Two quotes, the first from the Obama-Biden website, and then from the NRAs response. Please read both.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/
“Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. ”
The NRA’s reply is too long to post, because it addresses each point. Here’s the link:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4227
If you really want to be informed, please read both sides.
BTW, does anybody happen to own a lever-action Winchester type .30-.30?
I think I’d like to get one pretty soon, or at least a .22 replica for target shooting . . .
#
CapnAmerica
Posted November 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
BTW, does anybody happen to own a lever-action Winchester type .30-.30?
I think I’d like to get one pretty soon, or at least a .22 replica for target shooting . . .
________________________________________________
Capn, gun show this month. The 22nd and 23rd at the Coliseum.
Capn, there’s a gun show this weekend also at the Cessna Activity Center. See you there!
Used thuddy thuddys are pretty cheap right now. Just looked at one at the Bullseye that was used in excellent condition. I believe it was just a hair over $300.00. Had a scope on it too. Didn’t ask if the price included the scope.
Sounds to me like the gun shops are spreading rumors to run up business during a recession. Otherwise all those pawned guns are going to glut the market and keep prices down. Y’all might save a bunch of money if you’d just wait 6mo. or so to buy that new and bigger howitzer.
Ah, XXX,
With all due respect, you are starting to sound a little like a bed wetting, elitist, self-righteous, name calling liberal.
You call the boy ‘fixated’ but I dare you to find any discussion about guns that he has ever started. Granted, its not always some nitwit liberal that starts the conversation on guns but the boy usually only joins in to give his view or correct a misconception.
Nathan is a Marine. Nathan is an armorer in the Marine Corps. Nathan is qualified range director in the Marine Corps. Nathan is a marksmanship instructor in the Marine Corps.
In civilian life he has completed the training to be a gun safety instructor for the State of Kansas and he volunteers his time to certify young people in the Kansas Hunter Safety course so they qualify for a hunting license. He has completed the requirements for CCH and has received his CCH license.
Then you whine about him calling you names! After you have called him fixated and crazy.
Why don’t you just thank him for his service instead? He respects you for yours.
Jed, this is no rumor. “They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.” As I noted above, this is from Obama’s own website.
Every story nationwide about this market phenomenon quotes those who believe they should buy now, because they won’t be able to buy later.
“They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.”
Assuming the Congress somehow finds time, how, specifically, will that affect your life, or anyone else’s? Don’t give me the usual “slippery-slope” argument. I want to know specifically, what need this class of weapons fills that no others can.
“You deserve whatever you get, swine. Goddam gutless, cowards.” -pleefer
Apparently someone else wants to go blind like Reggie… keep it up kiddo, instant karma’s gonna get you too!
“HLP” posted –
“You call the boy ‘fixated’ but I dare you to find any discussion about guns that he has ever started. Granted, its not always some nitwit liberal that starts the conversation on guns but the boy usually only joins in to give his view or correct a misconception.”
First off, “the boy” resents being called “the boy.”
He considers it an insult.
From what I’ve observed from “Nathaniel’s” contributions in this forum, you probably don’t want to piss him off.
“Nathan is a Marine. Nathan is an armorer in the Marine Corps. Nathan is qualified range director in the Marine Corps. Nathan is a marksmanship instructor in the Marine Corps.”
“Nathaniel” served one tour of duty in Iraq. Thousands of Marines have served three and even four tours. Why, do you think, the Marines think they’re better off with “Nathaniel” in south-central Kansas instead of on the front lines?
The Marines became what they are by being a strong, brave, effective force able to fight against anybody. But they tend to be selective with the people they want to fight with.
“In civilian life he has completed the training to be a gun safety instructor for the State of Kansas and he volunteers his time to certify young people in the Kansas Hunter Safety course so they qualify for a hunting license. He has completed the requirements for CCH and has received his CCH license.”
Yeah. And none of his civilian accomplishments relate in any way with his obsession with firearms, now do they?
“Then you whine about him calling you names! After you have called him fixated and crazy.”
“HLP,” here’s clue to the potential suppression of animosity “the boy” might be dealing with. Once I followed your lead and referred to him as “boy” he became particularly angry. He accused me of calling him names.
You rise to the defense of the man you call “the boy” by listing all his post-combat achievements, all centered around guns.
After his one tout in Iraq the Marine Corps has determined they’re better off without “Nathaniel” on their side.
I admire the Marines.
I respect the Marines.
And I thank the Marines for choosing to pursue their mission without “Nathaniel” representing the taxpayers of America in Iraq. Or Afghanistan.
The “boy” has issues, “HLP.”
As much as you bask in reflected glory of “Nathaniel’s” worship of you, watch out.
He’s never gonna show up for supper at your place without bringing the tool he needs to wipe you out.
mxyzptlk
Posted November 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
“You deserve whatever you get, swine. Goddam gutless, cowards.” -pleefer
Apparently someone else wants to go blind like Reggie… keep it up kiddo, instant karma’s gonna get you too!
————————————————–
If it was instant wouldn’t it have as soon as he
hit “submit”?
The upshot is that any possible legislation will be challenged and, consistent with the Heller, the government will have the burden of proof.
Absent any standard of review offered by the Supreme Court, it will probably come down to some kind of ‘competing interests’ or ‘balancing analysis’ test. The Heller decision, I think, has similar language, but I’m forgetting exactly what it was.
You can call this gray haired grandmother anything
you want. But most of all I am a upper middle class
educated person with a good job. My Great Grandfather fought in the Civil War, My father in WW
II in Italy. My father in law Omaha Beach DD+6. I come from some strong stock. I am not afraid of the black hawk helicopters coming. I fear that it is going to be the people that follow blindly and
allow their freedoms to be taken and won’t know until it is too late. The colisium has a good gun show. It is also a great place to people watch. I guess it might be good to take some of my hard earned money before it is distributed to other people and invest it.
There is some really good medication for your paranoia, Sadie…I’d suggest you see a doctor.
I fear that it is going to be the people that follow blindly and allow their freedoms to be taken and won’t know until it is too late.
I would be willing to bet that I’ve spent more years of my life actively defending our freedoms than most people on this forum. One thing you learn is that it is neither possible nor desirable to spend all your time defending against any possible encroachment, real or imagined.
But I’ve also found that the NRA types are usually hyper-sensitive about the 2nd amendment, yet, strangely, are apathetic if not downright hostile to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Where, e.g., is the outcry against Proposition 8 in California, or Proposition 102 in Arizona?
I think we stick to the Founding Father’s original intent. All have a right to own a muzzle-loading musket or pistol that shoots lead balls.
Don’t miss:
http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_new_world_orde_10121.php
Sadie’s rant reminds me of the crazy paranoia that preceded New Years of 2000. I knew one guy who actually stocked food and water, unpacked his guns, and was sure it would be the end of civilization and every man would have to fend for himself.
“I guess it might be good to take some of my hard earned money before it is distributed to other people and invest it.”
Sadie dear, listen to me…if you make less than 250,000 per year..YOU….GET…A…TAX…BREAK.
ICT lies,
“Maggotpunk, once again, you spout your Marxist hatred. The Bush administration was NOT responsible for rounding up guns during Katrina. That was the doing of New Orleans Mayor Clarence Ray Nagin,”
The mayor does not have authority over federal officers. Thanks for proving that, once again, you are completely clueless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html
Hmmm… I wonder why Maggie would post a link that seems to prove himself to be wrong.
———–
From Maggie’s link:
“Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here, as President Bush steeled the nation for the grisly scenes of recovering the dead that will unfold in coming days.”
General Mason said Guard troops, although carrying M-16 rifles, would not use force to evict recalcitrant citizens. That, he said, was a job for the police, not members of the Guard.
“I don’t believe that you will see National Guard soldiers actually physically forcing people to leave,” General Mason said.
“Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons,” he said.”
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
“I guess it might be good to take some of my hard earned money before it is distributed to other people and invest it.”
Sadie dear, listen to me…if you make less than 250,000 per year..YOU….GET…A…TAX…BREAK.
_______________________________________________
hehehehe
Mary, my poor clueless friend,
Are you planning to divest yourself of some rental property in the near future? I would try and figure out what your fun loving dems are planning to do with the capital gains tax if I were you!
Let me know how that works for you after little barry takes office!
Outlander, it’s cute that you missed the blatantly obvious from the article:
“Police officers and federal law enforcement agents scoured the city carrying assault rifles seeking residents who have holed up to avoid forcible eviction, as well as those who are still considering evacuating voluntarily to escape the city’s putrid waters.”
It was in the second paragraph, federal law enforcement. Mayors don’t run the federal government. Your choice to overlook it just proves your dishonesty.
You missed the point it is not the money. Prozac for
all… Happy pills.
The city is the organization that took the guns. They are the entity that ended up getting sued.
An AP article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318478,00.html
Maggie: You might want to read it again. It says nothing about anyone taking guns, only carrying them.
That’s OK. Glad to help out.
“Assuming the Congress somehow finds time, how, specifically, will that affect your life, or anyone else’s? Don’t give me the usual “slippery-slope” argument. I want to know specifically, what need this class of weapons fills that no others can.”
See my earlier comments regarding the purpose of the 2A. This whole story is about something that is legal to own now, but may not be in the future. As such, there will be a natural desire to get one while you still can.
Your question regarding how this will affect my life argues that if I don’t need it, it shouldn’t matter to me. That’s besides the point, and just about the same as making Hummers illegal. No where else in this free country do we decide whether someone “needs” something before they are allowed to purchase it. Finally, the whole grouping of “assault” rifles is vague, and thus open to a lot of (mis)interpretation. All the definitions specify size, caliber, features, and mostly just their appearance. There are semi-automatic hunting rifles of larger calibers, and of equal or larger capacity. But because they are made of wood, and are “pretty,” they are not classified as assault rifles, which everyone knows are those ugly, scary-looking things.
Finally, this is a solution designed for a problem that does not exist. Legally-purchased firearms by law-abiding people are not the problem, and are NOT the source for the weapons involved in street crimes. They come from the black market, to people who couldn’t pass a background check. Why deny people the right (as specified by the 2A, not a court-interpreted right) to own such a weapon, if passing such a law would do no good whatsoever? This is why the previous ban was allowed to expire, there was no support to renew it because it had zero effect on “the problem.”
mxyzptlk
Posted November 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
“You deserve whatever you get, swine. Goddam gutless, cowards.” -pleefer
Apparently someone else wants to go blind like Reggie… keep it up kiddo, instant karma’s gonna get you too!
———————-
Looking at the verbage here I think I might have found another Chass nic. Interesting.
“Looking at the verbage here I think I might have found another Chass nic. Interesting.”
In addition to SquarePeg?
The combination of letters on the keyboard used to form mxyzptlk, do appear to be something quickly assembled during a period of extreme STUCK KEYBOARD CAPLOCK BUTTON, and STFU mentality.
Mr. Mxyzptlk (pronounced IPA: [m?ks?j?zp?t?l?k], enPR: m?ks-y?z?p?t-l?k? or IPA: [m?ks?j?z?p?t??k], enPR: m?ks-y?z?p?t?l-?k), sometimes called Mxy, is a fictional supervillain who appears in DC Comics’ Superman comic books. He was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and first appeared in Superman (Vol. 1) #30 (September 1944). He is usually presented as a trickster, in the classical mythological sense. In most of his writings he can only be stopped by tricking him to saying his own name backwards which will return him to his source reality in the 5th dimension…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Mxyzptlk
hmmm, some of those pronunciation symbols don’t copy well. ;-)
So he’s another Captain America?
To my knowledge s/he is mxyzptlk. I know Capn and mxyzptlk is not Capn.
Judging from all the rampant insecurity demonstrated by some of you, I’d guess that Sigmund Freud got it right- the bigger the gun, the smaller the prick!
ST. JOHNS, Ariz. – A man who police believe was shot and killed by his 8-year-old son had consulted a Roman Catholic priest about whether the boy should handle guns and had taught him how to use a rifle, the clergyman said Saturday.
The father, Vincent Romero, 29, was from a family of avid hunters and wanted to make sure the boy wasn’t afraid of guns, said the Very Rev. John Paul Sauter of St. Johns Catholic Church. The boy’s stepmother had suggested he have a BB gun, the priest said.
Romero taught his son how to use a rifle to kill prairie dogs, Sauter said. Police say the boy used a 22.-caliber rifle Wednesday to kill his father and another man, Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos.
mix yez pit lik
I’ve told no lies Nathan.
I can understand this rush to buy guns only from the standpoint of say, a collector.
But for the paranoids like Hank, Nathan, Pleefer and MartyG? I don’t get it.
IF the government comes after you, they WILL be better armed. Too, in your proud stand, you can only fire, at best, two guns at a time. MORE guns than that do you no good.
Most ironic in all of this is that the very folks who are so sore afraid for their guns have been COMPLICIT in the growth of government power and control in our lives these last 8 years. They can ruin your life or make you WISH you were dead without even drawing a gun.
But hey? Waste your money on extra guns. Put a few in the freezer to keep for later. Bury a few in the yard against the coming Order! I know for some of you cons, the sky falling is now 4 day old news.
A gun is simply not a gun, it is a tool. Different types of firearms serve as different tools. There is no denying that some guns are manufactured to hunt animals, and others are manufactured to kill people. Now for self defense purposes, a gun to stop an intruder is fine, but I do believe there is putting a foot over the line. I truthfully feel that no citizen should be packing anything larger as to out gun the local law enforcement, unless that person is certified a certain level of competency, responsibility, and is especially entrusted by some sort of stringent psychiatry examination before receiving some sort of specialty license. So No, I don’t think guns should be taken away by any means, but a uniform national reform of gun laws might be a wise idea, with maybe a few exceptions to certain locations. But besides my opinion on this issue, I find it hilarious, and a little bit sad, that people are rushing out to buy guns because Obama won the Presidency. I’m sure Obama has much larger issues to deal with than citizens with guns.
Blue,
Comes from watching “Rambo” and “Natural Born Killers” back-to-back 63 times in a row while playing “Grand Theft Auto.” They’re not about to let reality get in the way of their fantasies.
Everyone on this blog (with the exception of myself) agrees with some sort of arms control/laws. It is the degree of arms control that seems to be the issue.
MartyG
Posted November 8, 2008 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
About what I expected, but I think the “void for vagueness” argument is your best bet in a court of law. There’s really no telling which form this hypothesized law might take (assuming it even gets out of committee), but I rather expect it would take into account intervening laws, cases, and circumstances.
Of course if the government goes to court saying nothing more than “They’re guns! We want to ban them!” they will lose. That was obvious even before Heller.
The issue you seem to not to grasp is that a Second Amendment claim will in fact be facing precisely the argument put forward on that website, i.e., that these are uniquely dangerous guns and not necessary to own to accomplish the purposes acknowledged in Heller. And they will certainly include any correlations and causational data than they find.
Simply saying “why not ban Hummers?” is not a particularly clever rejoinder. It argues to the wisdom of a law rather than its infringement on personal freedoms. And the government, in fact, can ban Hummers. It’s the equivalent opposite argument (”These are guns–why ban them?”). The government will have the burden of proof, but they will come ready to establish it.
P.S. How about the institutionalized bigotry against gay people, in the form of state Consitutional amendments?
“Everyone on this blog (with the exception of myself) agrees with some sort of arms control/laws.”
I don’t. You should try to post only for yourself.
That is the only certainty you have.
To what “degree” to you want to exploit the US Constitution?
mxyzptlk, I’m sure as you already know, a gun does not have a brain, and cannot act on it’s own and make decisions to kill. A gun is simply a tool, and can be used responsibly, or violently. Nobody can do nothing about a boy who makes a conscience decision to kill his father, the only thing that could have been done was raising the kid different, and sadly when tragedy happens, it’s all to easy to look in hindsight and point out the obvious. But really it’s no different than if the kid used a baseball bat to kill his father. The intent was murder, it doesn’t matter what the means was to murder his father, it’s the intent is what the crime was, and the boy is to blame for that, and poor parenting most likely as well, and not guns. Just about anything can be used as a tool for violence, cars, baseball bats, wrenches, glass bottles, but those objects don’t get the negative attention that guns do. Why, because a guns purpose, is to maim, or kill. Honestly, if someone was going to kill me, I would rather be shot in the head, than bludgeoned violently with a baseball bat, or ran over by a car. Remember it’s the intent, not the weapon used.
I don’t.
Kewl! You know where I can get an armed warhead, AW?
An interesting scenario presents itself here.
And in all the discussion that has gone to this subject before, I’m disappointed in myself that I did not stumble over it before now.
We have people who are hysterical afraid about their right to own this or that or how many guns. The loonier among them even imagine a government that comes to take their guns away.
Let’s visit the theater of the absurd and see what plays out.
Let’s say President Obama decides that private ownership of guns should be done away with. Let’s take it a step further and have him sending folks out to collect the guns.
WHO gets sent?
Our own Nathan is a weapons expert and active duty member of the military in whatever capacity.
So it’s a good bet, it’s Nathan gets to be the hand of government that comes to take the guns.
Will he do it? He HAS to. If he fails to obey a direct order he can be immediately subjected to military justice. He can’t do himself, his beliefs or anyone else any good from a military stockade. So, he has to at least appear to do his duty.
But just how diligently is he going to do that duty?
Will he voluntarilly turn in his own private weapons? Does he lead the squad to dad’s house and that weapons cache? His many friends who own guns. SURELY duty demands they get a visit too!
Anybody think that would happen?
While Nathan is a bit rigid in his thinking. I hardly think he is a reprogrammable robot.
Now imagine several thousand more like Nathan in states all across this country.
Can you start to see that fears of wholesale gun seizure are really rather absurd?
Kewl! You know where I can get an armed warhead, AW?
___________________________________________
hehehe
I do! What kind of delivery system did you have in mind?
Strategic or tactical?
Conventional or nuclear?
Nuclear, of course, Hank! Can you get me a bargain?
Revisiting the scenario above, let us say that Nathan and others charged with taking the guns see the chance for a power play.
Hey, if we are to this level of the government breaking down things get dicey all over.
Let’s say Nathan goes for the guns ONLY of his political enemies. A not unwise move in the storm that is brewing in our play.
So he gets my shotgun. Oh but at my trial, I am going to tell what I know and who I know. Nathan and his friends no longer survive the gun purge.
Nathan and people like him charged with taking the guns know this going in. because I just told them. So, likely I’m gonna get a pass from the weapons grab.
See how quickly it breaks down?
American_Way posted November 8, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“Everyone on this blog (with the exception of myself) agrees with some sort of arms control/laws.”
I don’t. You should try to post only for yourself.
That is the only certainty you have.
To what “degree” to you want to exploit the US Constitution?
———————–
It looks like American_Way wants to become a well-armed “militia”, and buy a bunch of the “special” kind of Tomahawk cruise missiles to install in his back yard? Good luck, American_Way! /sarcasm OFF
P.S. Strategic, also!
BlueJay, Yes, it’s very absurd. I’ll even take it further, trying to make stricter gun laws might even be just as absurd. It seems the best remedy for everything, is to let people have what they want, but with strict oversight, and laws. The same with drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, guns, whatever, all those things are always going to exist. So I say we not make criminals of the people who are willing to stay in the boundaries of the law for the many vices out there, and punish the ones peddling the illegal products outside the boundaries of the law with greater penalties. Case in point, make prostitution legal where it can be overlooked and made safe, and put stiffer penalties on the crack whores spreading disease on the streets. Yeah, I know I’m not politically correct with that, but screw PC.
#
Rage
Posted November 8, 2008 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
Nuclear, of course, Hank! Can you get me a bargain?
_______________________________________
Sorry, no bargains.
Shipping and handling, extra.
Rage, thanks for your feedback, your points are well taken. I really don’t want this to evolve into a marriage-rights thing, but I will say this. There is no written constitutional right to marriage, privacy, or abortion. What decisions have been made in those areas are strictly because of judicial interpretation. The 2nd Amendment is however, right there in black and white! Just imagine if the “right to (any of the above) shall not be infringed” were actually in the Bill of Rights! Things would (and thus should) be a lot different, wouldn’t they?
mxyzptlk, I am in agreement with most of the gun laws in the US, especially here in KS. I am, however, against any further (and needless) restrictions.
Barnie, no matter how busy Mr Obama will be, drastic changes to gun laws ARE on his agenda, see his own website I quoted earlier.
BlueJay, your trip into the theater of the absurd was a fantasy. As I mentioned earlier, we gun owners feel that the only practical way to disarm America will be slowly, through gradual steps. Each of which will be spun into something that sounds acceptable by the masses.
MartyG. Why do you stand for ANY gun control when the Constitution clearly says that there should be NONE?
MartyG says >>>>
“No where else in this free country do we decide whether someone “needs” something before they are allowed to purchase it.”
Ummm…. WRONG…. Plenty of places… Prescription drugs is the first to come to mind… e.g., I cant just waltz in to a pharmacy and buy my INSULIN without a LEGAL prescription…. Same with my wife and her Prescription narcotics for her severe back/neck pains, from the screws they put in here….
The Government requires a LEGAL prescription for purchasing those items… And without it, we cannot get them LEGALLY…
Please think before you pontificate….
Thank you.
MartyG?
Iraq is a nation of maybe 20 million people distributed among various loyalties.
(I know, there WERE 26 million. I’m guessing as to how many have left vs. arrived)
With the full might of the most powerful armed forces on the planet, Iraq cannot be controlled without a constant garrison of well armed troops.
America is a significantly larger place in area and has a population of over 300 million.
The type of control you fear is not POSSIBLE within your lifetime through measures drastic OR subtle.
It IS possible in controlling a nation’s wealth and prosperity.
If you want to worry? Worry about what big money and business are doing to this country’s freedoms.
I don’t get them for you. I know where YOU can get them.
On an interesting note, At a gun show once I found a restored Gatlin gun for sale. Pretty reasonable actually.
It turns out that it’s legal for me to own a Gatlin gun! Also, if a private citizen wished to own a civil war canon, fully operational, that’s perfectly legal also.
The purpose of the Second Amendment does, in my opinion, give private citizens the right to own every kind of arms that a government might own. Of course this is a little outlandish considering the state of war these days but not in revolutionary times.
Most of the heavy cannons initially used in the revolutionary war by the Colonists were in fact privately owned. Many times the rank of a newly commissioned officer was not determined by his education and military experience but by the armament that he could bring to the cause.
Just imagine if the “right to (any of the above) shall not be infringed” were actually in the Bill of Rights! Things would (and thus should) be a lot different, wouldn’t they?
Indeed. Authoritarians would be able to argue (successfully) that anything not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights was not protected. And they’d be right.
In fact, during the debate on several provisions eventually producing the First Amendment, one Congressman argued against such provisions, saying that one might as well “declare that a man should have a right to wear a hat when pleased.” The obvious response: that there had been in circumstances wherein the government, by law, had indeed forced people to remove their hats.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nC4KbZVBeYgC&pg=RA1-PA113&lpg=RA1-PA113&dq=1789+speech+%22wear+his+hat%22&source=web&ots=OiMNGJv_Cw&sig=C8kdjIzD1RScP51s2avfI9TFaO8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
That’s why we have a Ninth Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
BlueJay,
You purposefully distort my past comments and make claims on my motivations which you can’t prove to be true and I have repeatedly told you were not true.
That is a lie. You continue to say things which are not true about me.
You are a liar.
Well, I think the fact of the matter is, if any person or group of people wish to own any type of explosives or firearms, they can find the means to attain it, legal or not. Not that surface to air missiles should be legal to own, but if some nut cases have the drive to attain them, there’s not much anybody can do, and the best to hope for is that the nut cases are the paranoid defensive survivalists types, and not the religious extremists, anti-establishment, kill the infidels or minority types.
The purpose of the Second Amendment does, in my opinion, give private citizens the right to own every kind of arms that a government might own.
Actually, I think it had more to do with protecting the militia against federal abolishment. That’s what the language and legislative history suggests anyway.
I’d be curious to know if there was ever any legal attempt to disarm the colonists. Yes, I’m aware of altercations between soldiers and minutemen and whatnot–but that’s not the same thing as a law that says “you will not own guns.”
“It looks like American_Way wants to become a well-armed “militia”, and buy a bunch of the “special” kind of Tomahawk cruise missiles to install in his back yard? Good luck, American_Way! /sarcasm OFF”
Cosmos, you are amazing! From my one line post, you got all that?
Wow! No wonder they got you fooled on global warming.
AW, cosmos was sarcastically riffing off of this post:
“Everyone on this blog (with the exception of myself) agrees with some sort of arms control/laws.”
I don’t. You should try to post only for yourself.
So Hank/AW, let’s assume all arms controls laws are unconstitutional. What then?
Incidently, even an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment doesn’t necessarily forbid reasonable regulations on their sale–which is kinda the point that keeps getting shuffled to the side. But what if it did?
Tactical nukes on the open market? How could we possibly lecture Iran when we allow anyone to buy a warhead?
So Hank/AW, let’s assume all arms controls laws are unconstitutional. What then?
========================
You forgot me…Hank/AW/ANTI, BlueJay.
Peace out.
Really son,
I don’t think J R is a liar, he is Pathological Liar. The following is from Wikipedia, J R fits it to a tee!
_________________________________________
Identifying a Pathological Liar
Pathological liars, or “mythomaniacs,” may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.
Some characteristics:
1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.
2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how lovingly and well-intentioned you might be – this will probably not be effective. It’s threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there’s anything wrong with them.
3. They “construct” a reality around themselves. They don’t value the truth, especially if they don’t see it as hurting anyone. If you call them on a lie and they are backed into a corner, they will act very defensively and say ugly things (most likely but depends on personality), but they may eventually start to act like, “Well, what’s the difference? You’re making a big deal out of nothing!” (again, to refocus the conversation to your wrongdoing instead of theirs).
4. Because these people don’t value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whomever is in their favor at the moment.
5. They may be somewhat of a hypochondriac. This can come in especially useful when caught in a lie, for example, they can claim that they have been sick, or that there’s some mysteriously “illness” that has them all stressed out. It’s another excuse tool for their behavior.
6. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren’t smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).
Here are some ways to tell someone is a pathological liar contributed by another WikiAnswers Contributor:
* They lie about even the smallest things. For example, saying “I brushed my teeth today,” when they didn’t.
* They add exaggerations to every sentence.
* They change their story all the time.
* They act very defensively when you question their statements.
* They believe what they say is true, when everyone else knows it isn’t.
Here’s an alternate “checklist”:
* Lies when it is very easy to tell the truth.
* Lies to get sympathy, to look beter, to save their butt, etc.
* Fools people at first but once they get to know him, no one believes anything they ever say.
* May have a personality disorder.
* Extremely manipulative.
* Has been caught in lies repeatedly.
* Never fesses up to the lies.
* Is a legend in their own mind.
______________________________________
Look especially on the ‘alternate checklist’. Classic J R!
He’s harmless enough, he’s just mentally ill.
3. They “construct” a reality around themselves.
==============================
‘That one’ describes mr. BJ the best….Ok, I’m done. Ya’ll take care now, ya hear!!
American_Way,
So you are claiming that the “special” kind of Tomahawk cruise missiles are NOT “arms”?
Thank you for clarifying that point, American_Way!
You forgot me…Hank/AW/ANTI, BlueJay.
Uhmm. . .okaaay.
Ever hear of “context,” ANTI?
P.S. Or was that just an extremely lame joke?
8 yr. old boy kills father and friend with .22.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_re_us/child_charged_20
Very sad story, Phantom…
But… hey, the boy was 8 yrs. old, and SOMEbody taught him how to use the weapon!!
So, shoot, who would want to prevent that??
Perhaps they forgot to tell him not to shoot PEOPLE… Hmmmm???
Well, the sock puppets have commenced, night all.
All that being said, and from the content of the article(link), it seems poor judgment to charge an 8 year old as an Adult… even if the law allows for it.
Well, the sock puppets have commenced, night all.
???? Anyone else know what Hank’s talking about?
Nope, no idea at all, Rage!! NONE!! LOL
I can catch Hank and Nathan in any number of lies.
I invite both of them to catch me in even one.
My take? Nathan is trying very hard to live up to his very unworthy, and mostly absent father.
Hank continues to hope for more from his socially inept son. Even though the dysfunction is largely his own fault.
Hey Hank? I bet I have grandkids before you do.
Well, after the Change.gov quote I reported earlier, and verified by the NRA’s response (i.e. I wasn’t the only one who saw it),
the Obama team has pulled the page from it’s agenda. Go to the website, and you will only find a short, non-descriptive paragraph about the agenda. It seems either someone got overzealous about the agenda, or someone realized this was gathering more heat than they wanted.
Either way, it is typical of Mr Doublespeak. Another case, like “spreading the wealth around,” where his true agenda gets in the way of what he wants people to hear.
BTW, I know it is tricky referring to a website that is no longer there. I was not the only one who saw it. In fact, the NRA has already devoted a full page response, and that is on their website here: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4227
“BTW, I know it is tricky referring to a website that is no longer there. I was not the only one who saw it. In fact, the NRA has already devoted a full page response, and that is on their website here:
That sounds an awful lot like you made up a story.
Or rather you bought into and posted here on a made up story.
THEN your source works further at making up the story.
You are not doing well here “MartyG”
Obama does NOT promote the “taking away” of guns… as woefully predicted by the voices of doom and gloom!! Rather, he projects “some” restrictions — note: SOME restrictions….
Read: http://www.barackobama.com/issues click on “additional issues” READ for yourselves!!
Let’s leave the GOP and the assorted cons to fight amongst themselves.
THEY have to figure out what is most important for them to bring to debate.
Gold, God, and Guns is where they are.
Where the majority in this country is is more interested in GOOD and GO.
The right must find their voice amongst themselves. They need to sort that out before they presume to power again.
Ya don’t put a disagreeable mob in charge. We tried that with bush.
Don’t ban guns.
Ban ammunition.
Geez, this is the only thing I can find in Obama’s plans that has to do anything with guns. http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf
Please if somebody else finds something else, then please share. If not, what the hell are gun enthusiasts getting their pantyhose up in a bunch for.
What laws / rules do gun owners think should be used to keep guns out of the hands of those mentally uncapable or responsible enough to the use / sport of gun ownership?
We do have laws / rules / conventions that regulate driving, boating etc. So logic tells me there needs to be rules etc to govern gun ownership.
The run on guns and ammunitions could very well be a marketing ploy of gun and manufacturers, gun shop owners and teh like —
I wonder if Wal MArt sales of guns / ammo has seen an increase? If it’s good for Wal Mart it’s good for all of us right? –Wait that was GM in the 50s and we can see ..oh never mind
Here’s how to keep guns out of the hands of homicidal paranoids; in order to purchase a gun you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you don’t want it.
Well, ya see, Barnie, the gun nuts want you to drink the magic kool aide, that says Obama is just masking his Real intent…. and when you arent looking, or over a stretched out time frame, they WILL “Git Ya!!”
LOL
Just more evidence that every member of the family should be packing heat….never know when you might have to defend yourself against your own kids.
Looks like Obama scrubbed a whole bunch of stuff from his Change.gov web site.
Must have been taking some heat.
…but Google still has a cached copy.
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:IcYml6GIwSAJ:change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/+%22change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Heckler, thanks for finding that cached copy. Obamas long agenda, including the quote I used on guns, is in that copy. Like you said, he began feeling heat from those of us (including the NRA) who read it. This is another Obama “slip,” where he reveals his agenda, then pulls it or changes it as he sees fit. Just like the “spread the wealth around” quote.
The bottom line, in answer to the question at the top of this thread, is that gun owners DO feel he will take their guns, and this is NOT fearmongering. We are taking him at his word.
Sorry to say, you’re really not that important. I think Obama has much more pressing issues to deal with other than taking toys away from the gun nuts.
Get over yourself…no one cares…except the gun dealers who are cashing in on the paranoia and fear.
Geez…you guys are SO gullible.
Mary
Obama/Biden. Hard to find a duo in congress with a more anti-gun record. And their website spelled their plans out clearly, at least until it got scrubbed.
And you call us paranoid. sheesh.
I have a word for you. Naive.
Well, if you must believe what Obama says on his website, then you must believe what God says on his.
“Exodus 20
13Thou shalt not kill.”
Killing babies then, is wrong. If you believe what you read in the bible.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/obama-and-the-guns-of-october/#comment-465009
Amazing how the Obama link Heckler posted above, now leads to a blank Obama page.
Obama said he was going to renew the Assault Weapons Ban PERMANENTLY, and repeal the Tiahrt Amendment. But now, for some reason even after the election, Obama is trying to hide his gun-ban agenda.
You Libs keep wearing your rose colored glasses though.
Watch me make Obama change his web site! QUICK, look fast before Obama deletes this too!
Obama, you forgot to delete this section:
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Mary,
Again, it doesn’t have to be Obama that cares. The Democrats do care and have passed gun control in the past and several of them tried to push it again only 2 years ago.
Obama will happily sign whatever gun control the Democrats give him to sign and never have to worry about it.
Thanks, Jim. Since you brought up the Bible, I’ll offer a quick quote. In biblical times, they didn’t have rifles, the lethal arm of choice then was the sword. To set the stage, Jesus and the Apostles are in the Garden of Gethsemene, and He was preparing them for troubled times ahead. He knew He would die on the cross, and for a while things would be tough for them. He said, “…one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.” Lk 22:36.
But the Libs are not bound to anything in the Bible or the US Constitution, IF it doesn’t fit into their agenda.
WOW! it’s great to see someone make sense on this blog jim. good work
Thanks Ford.
I’m a Dodge guy myself.
Most on this blog drive foreign cars, and complain about the loss of American jobs at the same time.
so was my father inlaw a dodge man, like i aways said to him, what he drives is his problem. i drive a ford i don’t have aproblem. lol
“Again, it doesn’t have to be Obama that cares. The Democrats do care and have passed gun control in the past and several of them tried to push it again only 2 years ago.
Obama will happily sign whatever gun control the Democrats give him to sign and never have to worry about it.”
Good!
“Obama said he was going to renew the Assault Weapons Ban PERMANENTLY, and repeal the Tiahrt Amendment. But now, for some reason even after the election, Obama is trying to hide his gun-ban agenda.
You Libs keep wearing your rose colored glasses though.”
Yes, I’m wearing my rose colored glasses hoping it’ll happen…..but I’m not holding my breath. Obama has made it clear that he has other priorities and has no intention of supporting any additonal gun control on the federal level.
He’s leaving it up to individual communities to decide how they want to handle the gun issue.
“Most on this blog drive foreign cars, and complain about the loss of American jobs at the same time.”
And just HOW do you know what cars people on this blog drive?
This is the only site that will pay you out daily.. So make 50 bucks your first night and you get paid it that night! Check em out its so easy to do you won’t believe you are getting paid to do it.. Oh ya and its completely free.
http://classofcashzprnsbofts.blogspot.com