Guns and ammo are flying off the shelves related to fears that President Obama and the Democratic Congress will try to curtail gun ownership. Meanwhile, nearly every gunman responsible for the rampage killings of 57 people in the past month was licensed to own firearms, according to Associated Press. Before Jiverly Wong died last week in the attack that also left 13 others dead in Binghamton, N.Y., he even mailed his gun permit and other materials to a TV station. “In retrospect, this is probably not a guy who should have had a gun,” said attorney Jeffrey Chamberlain, a former Rochester prosecutor and chief counsel to the New York State Police. You think?
Gun sales boom aside, Congress is unlikely to roll back gun rights. If guns aren’t part of the problem, what is the solution?
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
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
296 Comments
An IQ test, complete background check, and a mental competency test. Apparently, any moron out there can buy a gun and shoot anybody anytime he/she wants. Guns don’t kill-people do.
Have fun people.
An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S
How many of these licensed, reckless drivers are ticked off at their spouse, job or something else – speeding, driving erratically, putting other lives in danger?
If guns aren’t part of the problem, what is the solution?
Stop the sensationalizing by the MSM and left wing fear mongers on gun laws and the second amendment?
About 30,000 to 40,000 deaths occur due to the flu each year in the United States.
per munkyuk…….ban limbaugh
teach responsibility and accountability ……..instead of teaching that it is always somebody else’s fault or “something’s” fault.
Oh, geez…
This thread will spawn all sorts of “it’s not guns, it the crazies” posts from gun-nuts who are… too often… crazy.
I don’t know how you legislate against crazy.
I really don’t care what guns you feel compelled to own, as long as you’re not crazy.
I would think responsible gun owners would agree they don’t want crazy people owning and shooting guns at people.
Can we possibly broach the subject of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people without going into NRA propaganda boilerplate memes?
Nah.
Probably not….
“Regular” –
Drop the old car/gun canard.
Compare the people who routinely use and operate motor vehicles daily with no intention of killing people with those who — all the more routinely, lately — go out with guns with no other purpose than to shoot people.
I hate the fact there are people who sometimes drive drunk or careen through pedestrian malls because they’re incompetent drivers.
What’s the problem if someone simply expects gun-owners to be able to demonstrate competence, capability, and responsibility before gun ownership is acceptable to society?
M.N.,
I have no objection for all gun owners to go through training like the National Rifle Association offers. It’s a great program for all gun owners that teaches safety. Responsibility, however, lays in the hands of the individual owner.
As far as my statistics being a canard – well – deaths from sources other than guns state a hard fact. That is, wild arm flailing by the anti-gun faction is just that, wild arm flailing.
If death is used as a measuring tool for guns, then let’s compare that to other causes of death. That way, one can see where deaths can be cut down. To ignore the really huge causes of death in the U.S. is irresponsible and typically demonstrates the apathetic attitude of the liberal mind when it comes to reality.
M.N. = M.H.
I have yet to receive my caffeine stimulus package.
Y’know, “Regular” –
I’m gonna try and back away from this thread.
Not because there’s no validity in my position, but because it’s tiresome to deal with you CONs’ non sequitur analogies.
Yeah, I guess “we should ban 40-story buildings because everyone who’s jumped off of one has died. Let’s not take into consideration that hundreds of people work and are productive in 40-story buildings”.
So you’ve apparently won the gun argument.
(sigh)
More wild arm flailing by M.H.
Their is a huge difference between a license and a permit; the only reason he had a permit was because he lived in an anti-gun state where you must obtain a permit just to validate your 2nd amendment rights; if even one of the victims had a CCW this might have been stopped at the beginning. Better outlaw bombs also since that is the weapon of choice in countries with gun control.
When you have people like beck getting crazies stirred up about psychotic delusions of facism/gun confisication, it’s logical the crazies will get their guns and set things right!
None of the responses so far deal with the level of *fear* espoused by those hording ammo and buying more guns. If you do that with booze (always fearing you can’t get more; stashing bottles around the house) you get called an alcoholic…
What I find particularly telling is that President Obama hasn’t said a darn thing about gun control. It’s also disingenuous to think all Democrats are anti-gun; this Democrat is an avid shooter and gun owner.
If you’re a gun/ammo hoarder, you should seek professional help before it’s too late.
Every day obesity and cardio vascular disease takes the lives of women that are too young. Do we need a ban on spoons?
What is really funny about all of this is that most of those guns will end up in the pawn shop and 90 percent of the ammo will rot. Through these actions, gun nuts are almost guaranteeing a partial collapse of the industry.
I have some shotgun shells 4/10 that are decades old, what’s a good way to dispose of them?
Shoot them at doves. You won’t hit anything. Then throw the empties on the road. They make good dog whistles.
#
Phantom
Posted April 10, 2009 at 8:12 am | Permalink
I have some shotgun shells 4/10 that are decades old, what’s a good way to dispose of them?
__________________________________
If it’s a couple of boxes, throw them in the trash. They won’t cause any problem in the landfill. Or check with your local cop shop. The police dispose of stuff like that, IIRC.
Phantom
“what’s a good way to dispose of them?”
Bust some clay targets with them. Or cans. (relieving stress at the same time)
As long as they’ve been kept dry they should be fine.
Phantom,
If you don’t want to try shooting them then I would put them in a bucket of soapy water over night and then throw them away.
Rhonda
Rather convoluted commentary don’t you think?
anyhow….
….yes guns and ammo are flying off the shelf. Look at Obama’s past as it relates to guns.
Look at the Democrat party leaderships past as it relates to guns.
Look at the efforts to ban guns and encode ammunition in the various state legislatures(driven nearly exclusively by the Democrat party.)
(the cost of ammo “encoding” would drive most people out the shooting sports; but that’s the goal).
Look at the economy.
It’s not paranoia, it’s logical to buy the stuff up.
Nut jobs get their hands on guns. How do you prevent that without placing an inordinate burden on the tens of millions of responsible gun owners? I don’t know, sounds like mission impossible.
Phantom:
Send them to me. Problem solved.
MH has a point with the “keep the crazies” away from guns. The problem, of course, is that he doesn’t know of any practical way to do that. Neither do I.
I most states, there is no permit needed to own a gun, just the background check (the Brady check) when it’s purchased. That checks for criminal convictions and obvious red flags like mental commitments, but it does not weed out the “crazies.”
If you can predict, with any sort of reliability, when a guy is about to go postal, let me know. And write a book; you’re about to be very rich. I suspect, MH, you don’t know that any more than anyone else does.
BTW – if you can presume when a driver is about to go ballistic, I assume you’d want the same info . . . . . .
Monkeyspumk- “gun-nuts who are… too often… crazy.”
Do you have any statistics that would support your statement? Is the percentage of “gun nuts” that are “crazy” higher than the general population? (non gun owning citizens?)
“I don’t know how you legislate against crazy.”
…..or stupid.
“Wednesday I was not crazy, Thursday not so sane and today I not so insane!”, such is the mind of the human being. How can you test someone for a future act when it is only today?
To use Regular’s point, every licensed driver had to pass a test of his or her abilities to drive. Even those who later drink and drive or talk on a cell phone and cause an accident.
“Guns do not kill people, People kill people” is valid, as a gun is incapable of deciding to do anything.
Neither is a 40 story building to M.H. point, to that point other then the on the face of it examples there is not a need or use for a firearm. I have several which means more then one firearm, one or two are here in that odd chance I have a need to defend life. Others are there from the days I used them to go hunting or I simply wanted them. But the reality is that any one of them can be used to kill. On the chances of one day having to kill in the defense of life. Here is the breakdown of how many Law enforcement officers in their 20-year careers use their weapon.
90 % other then on the firing range never fire their weapon in the line of duty.
10 % have fired their weapon in the line of duty, but only 1 % of those who fire their weapon ever takes a life.
These are the individuals whose job involve carrying a weapon on the street and through their jobs go into a situations where they’re maybe a need to use it. Unlike an armed citizen who would have to wait for the situation to come to them. (Here maybe the definition of insanity, I am trying to give some logic and reason to this topic. Yet I seem to be scroll-over material. Logic involves details but details take too long to read)
Two points made in the past history, one of the first things that Hitler did in his effort to become supreme leader of Germany. He orders the disarming of the populace so there could be no armed resistance to him.
A quote from our history is: “ a disarmed people are a pliable people!”. True this falls into the realm of the armed citizens having to wait for the situation to come to them. Do we have cause to think that day might come when “WE THE PEOPLE” have a need to defend our freedoms from our own Government?
In our recent past we had our right to a fair and speedy trial suspended and our right to privacy violated.
The President of the United States declared he had sole and unchecked powers to do whatever he seen fit. All in the name of fighting a foreign and small group that is not in this country? If that does not give you cause for a concern about your own Government what should?
DO I BELIEVE THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS? So far other then a few Me-Me’s
about returning to the Assault weapons ban. I am not feeling any concern, I try not to fall into the old hubbub of “The Democrats are wanting to take my guns away!”. The truth is that some of the most restrictive regulations came about under President Reagan and G.H. Bush.
Only a President that would want an armed insurrection would try to disarm the American people.
Do I think that President Obama is that stupid? The simple answer is No, if I am wrong then the few bullets and the several firearms I have would be there for the defense of our freedoms.
BTW – since MH brings up “boilerplate memes,” how about this incredibly tiresome one:
. . . gun-nuts who are… too often… crazy.
No, MH, we just often disagree with you. But since you are so narrowminded that you cannot imagine a reasonable person disagreeing with you, you assume that anyone who does so must be per se unreasonable; i.e. a “nut.”
It’s a common liberal problem.
That, in fact, is pretty nutty.
Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people.
monkey.then you are all for teaching gun safety and competence in schools?
beber
Posted April 10, 2009 at 9:31 am | Permalink
Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people.
====================
Cancer kills people.
Ban Cancer.
People with rope kill people.
Ban rope.
monkey….assuming you didn’t “backed away” (i.e. run away)……….you need to talk to phantom ..he is blaming it on beck……not limbaugh
aw beber……..you should open up a pawn shop then………wow 90%
So…
How exactly does any law or restriction stop someone from taking a gun and killing someone whether they had a license/permit to own that gun or not?
At the time I am sure all these men would have passed any of these IQ or mental exams etc…etc…etc… (Or just assume they would have)
Then what?
The simple fact is that over 80 million Americans legally own over 280 million guns.
There are going to be a few crazies.
There are going to be those who at some point choose to kill themselves.
There are going to be those who choose to kill someone else.
How exactly do any of the proposed gun control laws stop that?
The answer: They don’t.
Lets see…
Nearly 3 million viewers turn into watch Glen Beck
Nearly 20 million listeners with Rush Limbaugh
Millions of listeners to the various other radio shows:
Bortz, Ingram, Hannity, Levin, Savage…etc…etc…
You would think that, statistically speaking, if even half the crap you liberals were saying about “hate” on the air from the above that there would be far more violence and people out there killing others than there are.
However, you liberals have never let facts get in your way.
One or two anecdotal samples is all you need to form your biased and stupid opinions that “hate” radio or Glen Beck is causing this.
If you really believed that you would be hiding under your bed wetting your pants in fear from the millions of people who listen to the above.
Idiots.
Nathan, you are absolutely correct.
“GMC70″ –
You totally misrepresent opinions I’ve offered to this forum regarding firearms.
Problem seems to be, I don’t toe the NRA marketing line and anything else I express is attacked as apostasy.
It’s pretty easy to be tagged a “Lib” in Kansas. You Kansas CONs (KONs?) fling that diatribe out at anyone who disagree with you about anything.
Even you, “GMC70,” catch flak when you occasionally agree with a point I make in this forum.
My most recent posts regarding the gun issue have been deliberately questioning. I admit I don’t have all the answers. But I do have questions. Most of what I get in response are attacks from… well, people who tend to get crazy about guns.
For example, friends of Richard Poplawski were pretty much unsurprised when, in response to his Mother objecting to his dog peeing on the carpet, strapped on body armor and started shooting and killing Pittsburgh cops.
Why didn’t they do something?
Probably because crazies are so mainstream these days when it comes to the issue of guns. We see it all the time here on WE Blog.
Several years ago I bought a varmint gun and the guy behind the counter handed me the toothless Brady questionnaire and said, “Fill this out. Mark ‘No’ to all the questions.” He, as is the NRA, was interested only in selling guns.
My opinions regarding firearms are constantly so moderate I frustrate liberals and still outrage CONs.
I wish you would pay attention and realize that.
Several years ago I bought a varmint gun
======================================
That surprises me.
I never would have taken you for a varmint eliminator.
80 million people might own guns, but I wonder how many actually fire a weapon each year? I’ve got a bunch of guns too. The only time I ever use one is to kill a dying pet. I’ve fired my pistol twice in five years. They are handy for that.
The only time I ever use one is to kill a dying pet. I’ve fired my pistol twice in five years. They are handy for that.
==================
What? No skunks, badgers, or coyotes, badly injured cow/calf?
I thought you were a farmer?
beber
Posted April 10, 2009 at 10:17 am | Permalink
80 million people might own guns, but I wonder how many actually fire a weapon each year?
=====================================
To be honest, probably not many. I used to shoot several hundred if not thousand or rounds when I was in SW KS. (prairie dogs/coyotes). Also many rounds during bird season, a few during deer season.
Now that I have switched to bow hunting and have moved to Wichita, I’ve only shot about 50 rounds of pistol ammo this year.
Many of my friends who have large collection shot far less than I did and now do..
There were times I wanted to shoot the Deere, ANTI. When I did farm, I left the wildlife alone. I’m retired except for work on rentals.
beber
Posted April 10, 2009 at 10:56 am | Permalink
There were times I wanted to shoot the Deere, ANTI.
==================
HA!
Been there, only it was a Ford.
I do a lot of bow-fishing.
(But keeping the bait on the arrowhead is tricky.)
Monkeyhawk
Posted April 10, 2009 at 11:02 am | Permalink
I do a lot of bow-fishing.
(But keeping the bait on the arrowhead is tricky.)
==================
LMFAO!
Leave it to Monkeyhawk to haul out the same old addled-minded cliches like “gun nuts”, “NRA this or that..”
Hanky-twiting bedwetters like Monkeyhawk are always quick to demonize somebody without a clue as to what they’re really about.
Pathetic.
bow-fishing
================
Monkeyhawk,
Have you ever seen them ole’ boys go after +6′ alligator gar with a bow?
I think it must takes a touch a madness and a few 12oz. curls to do that.
Nasty looking critters.
“Hanky-twiting bedwetters like Monkeyhawk are always quick to demonize somebody without a clue as to what they’re really about.” — Mitlander
What you are about is cliches, apparently.
“Drop the old car/gun canard.”
What’s the matter? Too good an argument to refute?
“Compare the people who routinely use and operate motor vehicles daily with no intention of killing people with those who — all the more routinely, lately — go out with guns with no other purpose than to shoot people.”
Really? You have a cite to back up your assertion? Can do? Will do?
“I hate the fact there are people who sometimes drive drunk or careen through pedestrian malls because they’re incompetent drivers. ”
There are far more people driving drunk and irresponsibly than abusing firearms and the DoJ statistics bear that out…so do the insurance companies.
“What’s the problem if someone simply expects gun-owners to be able to demonstrate competence, capability, and responsibility before gun ownership is acceptable to society?”
What other rights do you demand require a demonstrated competence? Should we have to register all computers, pens, and telephomes before free expression is allowed?
beber,
Gee, don’t refute the points though.
“Apparently, any moron out there can buy a gun and shoot anybody anytime he/she wants.”
Two separate things JMWalker.
The Constitution has no provisions in writing regarding it’s entire contents not being applicable to moron’s.
Shooting anybody, anytime they want to is against the law.
But if you want to define moron’s in relation to guns, I believe I can justify defining moron’s and the right to vote too.
“What is really funny about all of this is that most of those guns will end up in the pawn shop and 90 percent of the ammo will rot.”
Got proof?
” Through these actions, gun nuts are almost guaranteeing a partial collapse of the industry.”
Yeah, I thought so.
Apparently, any moron out there can buy a car and drink beer killing someone anytime he/she wants.
“If guns aren’t part of the problem, what is the solution?”
Well Duh. The problem is Moral failure of our fellow citizens.
The solution?
There is no solution without acknowledging the need for moral values in the public square. This of course requires people to follow certain ideas that are rooted in the idea of there being a God who has instituted a system of absolute rights and wrongs for all of humanity.
Moral failure has permeated throughout are culture. The passing of decisions like Roe v. Wade has naturally resulted in a public without a moral conscience regarding human life. The taking of life when it pleases someone is no different than a legal abortion.
Human life is now only valued in the eyes of the beholder instead of regarding as a valued by God. Our Government can at least act as if life is a self evident right given to us by our Creator. This policy if inacted by our government would have a small influence over the moral compass of every citizen resulting in fewer killings.
The real answer is for people to understand that they will have to answer to their Creator God someday.
“Apparently, any moron out there can buy a car and drink beer killing someone anytime he/she wants.”
Yup, and they do it at a higher rate than accidental firearm discharges.
“Midlander” shows up with a post against –
“…competence, capability, and responsibility….”
Is that a personal issue for you?
RFL claims that “morality, simple morality” is the answer to gun rampages.
Funny thing, a lot of the killers do so precisely BECAUSE of their morality–Adkisson who wanted to kill liberals and did so at a Universalist Church was motivated by people telling him in so many words that liberals weren’t fit to live.
The 9-11 terrorists no less truly believed they were doing God’s will by attacking the infidel who was occupying the land of the two holies. (They succeeded, btw.)
Ban hate speech, not guns.
The car = gun analogy is fine when the CONs want to use it to show that cars kill more than guns do.
However the car = gun analogy violates the 2nd Amendment in their eyes when one suggests that just as cars are licensed and regulated, so should guns be.
As a gun owner, I fully support the idea of ballistic testing all guns–including mine–and registering all guns–including mine.
Law enforcement has their hands tied by gun nuts who believe they shouldn’t have to register their gun even though we routinely register such unimportant things as bicycles and dogs.
Serial killers like Son of Sam and John Malvo (DC-Maryland sniper) could have been tracked down quickly with ballistics tracking and registration.
Capn’A,
The Gov’t already know what guns I have, I had to register them when I purchased them.
Also, any gun’s I purchased or sold privately, I went to the court house to get them transferred.
I don’t what someone else’s history on my hands.
CapnAmerica,
How would gun registration and “ballistic testing” do anything to stop these mass shootings?
Typcial anti-gun crap. Bring a solution which has nothing to do with any problem nor does it solve anything.
Serial Killers like Son of Sam and John Malvo could easily have not registered their firearms or altered the ballistics.
Liberals…
They sit at home and watch CSI and forget it is just a TV show.
ANTI,
Why did you “have” to regester your firearms?
Where did you do this?
Nathaniel
Posted April 10, 2009 at 11:41 am | Permalink
ANTI,
Why did you “have” to regester your firearms?
Where did you do this?
=========================
Because it is the LAW.
Place of purchase- Gun shop/Gun Show.
If I was a criminal, I would have bought one off the street.
ANTI,
That is not regestration. That is a record of sales.
Why would you go to the court house to change that / how could you?
I have never heard of such a thing.
The Gov’t has my SS#, Serial # of the gun, date purchased, Name/Address/Birth Place/Driver’s License, ect.
Lots of Info required to purchase a weapon legally.
Good point, Nathan. They wouldn’t.
However they’d do a heckofalot to stop all other gun crime, including almost unsolvable random serial killings.
It is not true that Son of Sam and John Malvo could “easily” have not registered their firearms. That would mean they would have had to buy them illegally, and neither did.
Also, ballistics could be altered, but not easily by the average person.
Why would you go to the court house to change that / how could you?
I have never heard of such a thing.
===================
You just go there, ask for a firearm transfer form.
Why? Because I don’t want to deal with law enforcement if someone kills with a gun with my name on it.
MH –
I understand your frustration. I do not believe, however, I have misrepresented your position at all; nor would I describe the vast majority of conservatives who write on gun issues on this blog as “crazies.”
By ascribing them as same, in fact, you make my point for me. You appear to ascribe to anyone who disagrees with you on this issue the label of “crazies,” refusing to concede even that reasonable persons may in fact disagree with you.
And many firearm owners are extremely touchy on the subject, because your party seems so bent on continuing to chip away at that 2nd amendment you claim to support until it’s a dead letter. The “slippery slope” is in fact the stated strategy of the Brady bunch; the same Brady bunch that responded to the recent tragedies with a “people died, send money” fund-raising campaign. Heartless thugs.
Many gun owners, including this one, have had it. We’re tired of being portrayed as, in your words, “crazies,” and tired of the media, leaders in your own party (Holder, Clinton, Obama) and those who oppose gun ownership of continuing to lie, time and again, about basic facts. Ms. Clinton recently advocated reviving an assault weapon ban to bar the sale of “automatic” weapons, and stem the flow of weapons to Mexico (I heard same, out of her own mouth). Yet she knows full well that the “assault” weapons ban did not did bar automatic weapons at all, and automatic weapons are already highly restricted; either she’s a liar or an idiot, pick your poison. Plus there’s another lie tucked conveniently in there – the “supplying Mexican cartels” lie.
The fact is, the “mexican cartel supplied by the US” story is a provable and proven lie. The “Tiahrt amendment bars LEO gun traces” meme has been shown to be a lie, time and again, on this forum. The “gun show loophole” has been shown, here, to be a myth. Yet the leadership in your party, and it’s compliant media lapdogs, continue to spout these blantant falsehoods in support of what is quite obviously their agenda.
No more. We have, and have long gone past “reasonable” gun regulation. Many gun owners, this one included, will not compromise any more. one more little bit.
Also, ballistics could be altered, but not easily by the average person.
===========================
Small file meet rifling.
Correction: Malvo stole his Bushmaster.
No more. We have, and have long gone past “reasonable” gun regulation. Many gun owners, this one included, will not compromise any more. one more little bit.
==============
Agreed.
CapnAmerica,
Onec again, registration wouldn’t have stopped or helped to solve any of those crimes.
How EXACTLY would it?
On top of that, ballistics are very easily altered.
Maryland does ballistic fingerprinting. How many gun crimes have they solved because of it?
ANTI,
Those records are destroyed at the National level a short time after the purchase approval.
The fact is, the “mexican cartel supplied by the US” story is a provable and proven lie.
However, it’s not a lie that Mexican drug criminals get their guns from US suppliers.
I heard a news report on the violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico just last night that made this assertion.
Nathaniel
Posted April 10, 2009 at 11:55 am | Permalink
ANTI,
Those records are destroyed at the National level a short time after the purchase approval.
============================
I didn’t know that.
Doesn’t Gun retailer have to keep the records?
Doesn’t the Gun retailer have to keep the records?
They get audited randomly.
ANTI,
Yes, a gun retailer has to keep the record of sales. Those are kept with the gun dealer though.
Well, Nathan, since there is no national registry that can trace the owner of the weapon to the ballistic fingerprint of the weapon, I would say it’s probably not too effective so far . . .
Ban hate speech, not guns. – Capn
Ah, gotta appreciate that love of the Constitution. There is that pesky 1st amendment, however. Just like that pesky 2nd amendment. And BTW – thank the 2nd for the 1st; without the 2nd amendment, the 1st would not be long for this world.
Folks like Capn would see to that.
CapnAmerica,
Just in the state Capn… the state… Has ballistic fingerprinting helped Maryland at all in solving gun crime?
Nope.
It is a joke.
It is either some CSI wet dream of the left that they actually think a “ballistic test” will help solve crime or little more than another aim at round about regestration and errotion of 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners.
It won’t help solve gun crime though…
“Many gun owners, this one included, will not compromise any more. one more little bit.”
Well I guess you will obey the law or you won’t.
Your statement seems to indicate a determination to obey only laws you agree with.
The ready availability of guns in this county is unacceptable. Given the sentiments of SOME posters here, it would seem that even the strictest standards and qualifications STILL let through people who I would rather not have walking around armed. I have had to make a determined effort to prevent my son being exposed to guns.
GMC70,
With the way the left here labels anything and everything that merely disagrees with them as “hate speech” it would be little more than an attack on dissenting opinion guised as stopping what they call “hate” speech.
Example: Homosexual marriage.
Regardless of the fact that I don’t hate gays the mere disagreement with homosexual marriage is enough for most of them to say I am being hateful.
Then there is the notion that you must have faith in Christ to be saved. How many on the left think that is “hate speech?”
Absurd.
ANTI, if you live in Kansas, there is no gun registration, aside from the dealer’s records for a sale through a dealer. There is no requirement that one go to the courthouse and register anything.
Further, there is no justification for registration unless one seeks, at some point, to use that registration for confiscation.
BTW – if you believe BATF really destroys those records, as required, I have a bridge to sell you . . . .
I heard a news report on the violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico just last night that made this assertion.
That’s just it, Capn. It’s an assertion, not a fact. There are no facts to back it up; in fact, the facts show otherwise. As has been shown in this blog not long ago. Look it up; Google is your friend.
upthread, Nathanial wrote:
How exactly do any of the proposed gun control laws stop that?
The answer: They don’t.
Proof of that is Mexico…it is illegal for anyone but the military/police to own weapons in Mexico. Yet, there have been hundreds if not thousands of killings there in the recent past. Of course, some people point at the US and claim it is our ‘fault’…but, many of those guns used are AK47’s…not made in or imported from this country.
Mexico is proof of how ineffective gun laws really are. All a gun law does is disarm the law abiding citizenry.
Interesting.
What do the Son of Sam, John Muhammed, Lee Harvey Oswald, and BTK have in common?
They were all in the US military.
BTW, NYPD were able to solve the Son of Sam killing by the distinctive ballistics of his .44 caliber Charter Arms Bulldog.
BlueJay,
Patriotism… responsibility… work ethic… morals… values… a color guard ceremony…
Yep, adding guns to the list of things you don’t want to expose your son to doesn’t surprise me.
I have had to make a determined effort to prevent my son being exposed to guns. -JR
And he is in his teens, I understand? Then you are a fool. It’s the equivalent of the “abstinence only” sex education that is often rightly ridiculed as unrealistic. You owe your son, at the very least, enough knowledge that if he is at some point faced with a firearm, he understands enough of how it works to prevent killing himself or someone else.
Anything else in pure irresponsibility, clothed in self-rightous piddle.
There is that pesky 1st amendment, however.
Didn’t stop Bush from putting protestors in cages.
From the right: zero complaints.
Well Nathaniel,
I don’t think I’d be adding anything new by saying that you are among the people that I am very uneasy about being allowed to go about armed. Certainly we have seen evidence that I am far from alone in that opinion.
SOME of you gun people are the very worst advocates for your own cause.
Further, there is no justification for registration unless one seeks, at some point, to use that registration for confiscation.
How can a prosecuting attorney believe this?
Are dogs registered so that they can be confiscated? Are cars? Are boats? Are bicycles? Are MARRIAGES, fer gosh sakes?
How are you surprised Capn?
We have “responsible” gun owners all the time posting how they have or will break the law. They even brag about it.
A healthy mind would be the best prevention. There’s a stigma, or so it seems in America, when a person is associated with a mental illness or disorder. But really, the only way people should look at it, as if someone is depressed, has a disorder, then that’s all it is, is an illness like the cold, flu, tuberculosis, or HIV. Like someone can have a mental flu, where they are depressed for a good week or two. Or someone can have a chronic emotional/mental disorder that could be the equivalent to tuberculosis or HIV which is chronic, and can never really be cured, but can be managed to where the person is functional and somewhat happy at least. With these rampage shooters, they are most like a pot of boiling water with an air tight lid. They probably have a number of unresolved issues with no outlets. Overbearing family, Narcissism, Low Self Esteem, too much Pride, and probably a point of no return, figuratively, and literally. They most likley need professional help a year before they start fantasizing about going on a rampage, not a week or two weeks before, by then it’s still probably still too late.
But you’ve offered, JR, nothing that Nathanial has done which would justify such unease. The “unease” of which you speak is your problem, not Nathanial’s.
And yes, I’ve heard the story, from both sides, ad infinitum. Don’t bother to tell me again. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that your version is the correct one (and there’s not that much difference in the essential facts of the story) you have no justification for your stated fear, aside from your own prejudices. Nathanial has even offered his (quite unnecessary) apologies, which you refuse and throw in his face.
He’s been much more the man about it than you, JR.
But that’s not surprising.
Capn,
At the end of the day, a person who decides to kill innocent people has weak or non-existent set of moral values. The person who kills and excuses himself buy claiming religion. Is this person being honest? Did his religion really authorize him to kill or did he just make something up to justify his evil actions? A person who does evil, is not someone who has faith. His works reveal that he has no real faith not matter what his mouth says.
If I say that I believe in God of the Bible and I refuse to obey the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”
How much faith do I really have?
Moral values are necessary if one truly believes in a God.
In the case of Adkisson, you haven’t made the case that he killed because of his faith. He could have killed people who he thought were obnoxious for all you know. You are simply making up stuff on this point.
No, Capn, they’re registered so they can be taxed. I know it; so do you. Duh.
And with that, off for the haircut. Enjoy.
“I have had to make a determined effort to prevent my son being exposed to guns.’
BJ will let the gang-bangers do it for him.
RFL–
I am not making up the suicide note that Adkisson wrote prior to killing as many people as possible at the Unitarian Congregation:
The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I’d like to encourage other like minded people to do what I’ve done. If life aint worth living anymore don’t just Kill yourself. Do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals!
He also wrote: “Liberals are evil, they embrace the tenets of Karl Marx, they’re Marxist, socialist, communists.” Adkisson seethed over the way liberals were “trying to turn this country into a communist state” and couldn’t comprehend why they would “embrace Marxism.”
Here’s the problem: When you purchase a gun, the BATF form asks if you have any mental health issues. Of course, anybody can deny that, and sign a fraudulant form. HOWEVER, the NICS background check is supposed to have access to those identified by medical authorities as being a risk. BUT BUT BUT, the mental health authorities will not allow that information outside of their own medical records, for privacy reasons. This is EXACTLY what happened to Cho in the VA shootings. What good are laws if the person is inclined to lie, and the mental health systems refuses to cooperate? Is the gun seller supposed to be clairvoyant? BTW, the right of privacy is a Supreme Court interpretation; the right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the Bill of Rights. So which right trumps the other? The real answer is to have more people legally armed, and get rid of those stupid “No guns here, come and do your mayhem as you will” signs.
#
Scooter_Abernacle_Cromboloski
Posted April 10, 2009 at 12:16 pm | Permalink
A healthy mind would be the best prevention. There’s a stigma, or so it seems in America, when a person is associated with a mental illness or disorder. But really, the only way people should look at it, as if someone is depressed, has a disorder, then that’s all it is, is an illness like the cold, flu, tuberculosis, or HIV. Like someone can have a mental flu, where they are depressed for a good week or two. Or someone can have a chronic emotional/mental disorder that could be the equivalent to tuberculosis or HIV which is chronic, and can never really be cured, but can be managed to where the person is functional and somewhat happy at least. With these rampage shooters, they are most like a pot of boiling water with an air tight lid. They probably have a number of unresolved issues with no outlets. Overbearing family, Narcissism, Low Self Esteem, too much Pride, and probably a point of no return, figuratively, and literally. They most likley need professional help a year before they start fantasizing about going on a rampage, not a week or two weeks before, by then it’s still probably still too late.
________________
Better not let scooter anywhere near a car and just in case keep the silverware hidden as well.
They’re registered so the chain of ownership can be followed, because this is necessary in enforcing laws.
I’m surprised I have to make that case to a prosecutor . . . isn’t your job hard enough without making it easier for criminals?
Note to GMC–
Don’t try ever running for an elected judge position–you’re disregard for the rule of law as expressed continually on the WEBlog would be your opponent’s best friend . . .
correction: your not you’re
#
CapnAmerica
Posted April 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
Note to GMC–
Don’t try ever running for an elected judge position–you’re disregard for the rule of law as expressed continually on the WEBlog would be your opponent’s best friend . . .
———————————
Ah, once again, the Capn uses an opinion blog to try and pistol whip people over the head.
The problem with leftist like the Capn, is they can’t distinguish between real life and a blog.
sad…
Capn,
Adkisson does not say that he killed liberals because God told him to do so. There is no reference to any particular faith whatsoever. Even if he said as much, why would you believe him?
Many people have been killed in conservative churches as well. I would never claim as you that that means that those people did it because they served their “liberal” God. It just means they have no moral values.
If life aint worth living anymore don’t just Kill yourself. Do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals
What kind of faith does this guy have if life is not worth living anymore?
Answer: NONE.
Nathan asks, Then there is the notion that you must have faith in Christ to be saved. How many on the left think that is “hate speech?”
I do actually. If you mean it that God loves and rewards with eternal life ONLY those people who profess with their mouths that Jesus is their Savior, then yes, it is hate speech.
Because it means that everyone who disagrees with you will go to hell.
And what a short step it is between determining who will go to hell and becoming God’s instrument to sending them there . . .
Many people have been killed in conservative churches as well.
Name one church.
The problem with leftists like the Capn, is they can’t distinguish between real life and a blog.
We can distinguish it quite clearly, Regular.
Words expressed on a Blog are part of real life too.
BTW, of all the post-ers here, the last one who should be talking about his involvement in RL vs. the Blog would be Regular.
Project much?
Don’t try ever running for an elected judge position–you’re disregard for the rule of law as expressed continually on the WEBlog would be your opponent’s best friend . . .
Cite for me, Capn, a single instance when I’ve EVER advocated “disregard for the rule of law.”
Go ahead. I dare you. I double dare you. With sugar.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted April 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
Many people have been killed in conservative churches as well.
Name one church.
————————–
Don’t remember the name of the Churches, was a Baptist Church in Texas (Dallas or Fort Worth?), one evangelical church in Colorado, one in Wisconsin…that’s just off the top of my head.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted April 10, 2009 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
The problem with leftists like the Capn, is they can’t distinguish between real life and a blog.
We can distinguish it quite clearly, Regular.
Words expressed on a Blog are part of real life too.
BTW, of all the post-ers here, the last one who should be talking about his involvement in RL vs. the Blog would be Regular.
Project much?
================================
No Capn,
You and B.J. are the ones always stating that this blog is reality and threatening people in real life by posting personal information.
If this was real life, you would be either (a)dead (b) or bankrupt from being sued for lander (c)put in prison for stalking
And that’s a fact, Brad – er Jack.
lander=slander
Yeah . . . how’s that lawsuit going, Regular?
#
CapnAmerica
Posted April 10, 2009 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
Yeah . . . how’s that lawsuit going, Regular?
==================================
How’s your daughter?
Or is that just a Blog lawsuit . . . not a real life lawsuit?
#
CapnAmerica
Posted April 10, 2009 at 12:59 pm | Permalink
Or is that just a Blog lawsuit . . . not a real life lawsuit?
=========================
So you going to answer GMC’s challenge?
Or, are you just going to sit there with your laptop and play pocket pool like you usually do?
GMC–
Claiming that the only reason that gov’t requires registration for legal ownership like cars or for legal relationships like marriage and divorce is so that gov’t can tax it is to willfully ignore the ability to enforce law that such registration provides.
You can’t be against registration unless you’re also against being able to enforce laws that are based on said registration.
So, yeah, I stand by my statement.
Don’t try ever running for an elected judge position–you’re disregard for the rule of law as expressed continually on the WEBlog would be your opponent’s best friend . . .
Cite for me, Capn, a single instance when I’ve EVER advocated “disregard for the rule of law.”
Go ahead. I dare you. I double dare you. With sugar.
A dare won’t get Capn to back this up; perhaps a few dollars will. Wanna put your dollars where your overreaching typing fingers went, Capn?
Cite my alleged “disregard for the rule of law as expressed continually.” Go ahead. How much will it take to pony up evidence for this assertion?
Or a public apology; I’d accept that.
My daughter is married to big rig truck driver who just got back from Iraq.
Keep it up, and I’ll tell him where you live, Regular.
He’d love to meet you, I’m sure . . .
#
CapnAmerica
Posted April 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm | Permalink
My daughter is married to big rig truck driver who just got back from Iraq.
Keep it up, and I’ll tell him where you live, Regular.
He’d love to meet you, I’m sure . . .
=========================================
Send him on by, I’ll show him my medals. :D
That’s it? I’m opposed to gun registration because it has historically, wherever imposed, been a first step to confiscation. I further recognize that the purpose of the registration of most, if not all, of the things we now register is for tax collection, not “tracing?”
And that’s “disregard for the rule of law?”
Really? REALLY??? REALLY!!!???
You are nearly as reading comprehension challenged as JR, it appears. Cite for me there, Capn, where I’ve advocated any person disobey any law. Be specific. Go ahead . . .
You know, try as I might, I can’t find it. We may disagree over the purpose of said law, but go ahead – tell me where I advocate ignoring or disobeying said law.
I didn’t think so.
I’ll be expecting that apology shortly. Or not. Capn isn’t man enough, I suspect.
It’s probably too early for the bass and crappie around here to be biting, but somebody has to go and see for sure.
I’m think I’m the guy to find out.
Adios, Blog . . .
monkkay…blaming people that listen to limbaugh for the killings is a “question”………wow you are really educating all of us
BTW – is that your best example? That’s it?
Let’s look at that assertion further. Let’s assume Capn’s assumption is correct; in effect, because I believe that the purpose of most, if not all, current registration is driven by tax collection. It follows, therefore, according to Capn, that I favor not enforcing laws based on registration.
Really? That’s his assertion, it seems. Does on follow from the other? Let’s see . . .
Well. Since thepurpose of the laws is tax collection anyway, would that make me opposed to collecting taxes on those items? Perhaps.
Let’s assume that’s true. Now the big step – where, Capn, is the advocacy for ignoring or disobeying the law? WHERE, OH WHERE?
Assuming your assertion is true (just arguendo mind you, not agreeing to same), does that require disobediance? Of course not. Or perhaps, in Capn’s world, one is not permitted to disagree with the law. That is more understandable, given his stated disregard for the 1st amendment.
You’re 0 for 1. Wanna try again, Capn? Double or nothing?
I didn’t think so, Capn.
I’ll expect you to have that apology up upon your return.
Tsk, tsk, GMC is awfully thin-skinned today.
I can’t apologize for something I believe.
Registration and a national data bank of all guns would help solve crime, just as the DMV helps solve crimes involving cars and identified by license plates and serial numbers.
People who refuse to see this are more worried about what might happen and could never happen here (confiscation) than what IS happening–gun crime that could be somewhat curtailed and punished with commonsense gun laws like registration.
Ridiculing registration of cars and marriage when it helps police and prosecutors do their jobs — simply out of a misguided fear of gun confiscation, one which is used to whip up anti-gov’t hysteria btw — is to ridicule effective enforcement of law, yes.
As they say in New York, GMC . . . I got your apology right here.
Have a nice day.
I’m fishing.
It floors me that people such as BJ and Capn’A are so ignorant as to the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
I mean, what course would you have if someone such as the Libs seem to hate so much was in power?
Let’s say Bush X 10, for example. Bush X 10 takes away guns from the people. Bush X 10 becomes a dictator. Your rights to Lib beliefs are removed and anyone expressing such beliefs are killed.
What do you do now?
People who refuse to see this are more worried about what might happen and could never happen here (confiscation)
=====================
Really?
It has happened time and time again across the world.
So – let’s assume, arguendo that I’ve ” ridiculed effective enforcement of law.”
You assert what cannot be proven, of course, and what has never shown to be true; i.e., that gun registration helps solve crime. I assert, with equal credibility, that is not the case.
And even if so, that is far from advocating disregard for the rule of law.
I’m not calling you out for what you believe, Capn. That’s attempting to shift the goal posts. It’s for what you said that I advocate. And you’re still called out.
Thin-skinned? Perhaps. One can only take so much. It should be simple enough to prove up your assertion, should there be evidenc to support same.
But there’s not. And Capn hasn’t even attempted to try; instead falling back on that chestnut that he can’t help what he “believes.”
Is there justification for that belief? Go ahead, show us . . . . . Will a quad dare help?
If any president tries to “take away our guns” then he or she wouldn’t be president anymore.
I know this, you know this.
And please don’t trot out the “assault weapons” ban–which I opposed btw.
Clinton made a mistake. It failed. Get over it.
That in no way was “trying to take our guns away” any more than outlawing a bazooka or a hand grenade is.
CapnAmerica
Posted April 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
If any president tries to “take away our guns” then he or she wouldn’t be president anymore.
I know this, you know this.
=======================
I certainly hope that would be the case, Capn’A but I do not know that.
You, yourself said Bush destroyed Constitutional rights and got away with it.
Why couldn’t some other leader do the same?
Also, GMC, if you don’t like my first explanation, try this one:
“Gov’t doesn’t solve problems–gov’t IS the problem.”
Since the law is by definition constructed and enforced by the government, how can one hold this CON tenant of faith and also believe in the rule of law?
He destroyed Constitutional rights, Anti, because the American people let him. They were more scared of “terra” than they were of their own gov’t illegally spying on them or engaging in “cruel and unusual punishment” against “terraists” or imprisoning them without charge.
That could never happen with confiscating guns. Not in a million years. Too many people like you and I wouldn’t stand for it.
Not in a million years. Too many people like you and I wouldn’t stand for it.
==============================
I certainly hope so.
But I will remained diligent to prevent the initiating steps that would lead to that scenario.
Enjoy the fishing and good luck.
I’m out.
Just out of curiousity, why aren’t the anti-gun banners” advocating for the right to own cruise missles and bazookas?
Do they agree that there is a line that should be drawn?
And if so, who decides where that line should be drawn?
And why do they keep talking about “liberals wetting their pants?”
No liberal that I know has ever “wet his pants” over a gun, so what gives?
Maybe some gun owners just have a phallic obsession.
Sounds right to me.
“Maybe some gun owners just have a phallic obsession.”
Sounds more like the libs who want different marriage laws are the ones with a “phallic obsession.” There’s the strap-on and/or lolly-pop models.
When I lived out in the country, during hunting season it became almost routine for bullets to hit the house and occasionally come right through it. The area swarmed with drunk hunters, even a couple with a fully automatic AK-47, who’d sit on a couple cases of beer and shoot at anything that moved in a hundred-yard radius. I doubt they often hit what they were aiming at, but you can be sure all those bullets hit something. Several of those upstanding all-American hunters thought it was really funny to shoot my dog. I left before they decided to shoot my children and moved to northeast Wichita, where we felt infinitely safer.
“There’s the strap-on and/or lolly-pop models”
Sounds like you are the one with an “obsession” Donny.
Perhaps you need a nice long sit-down with your therapist.
Take a few days and get control of yourself and pay a visit to Dr. Freud.
Jed
Posted April 10, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
When I lived out in the country, during hunting season it became almost routine for bullets to hit the house and occasionally come right through it. The area swarmed with drunk hunters, even a couple with a fully automatic AK-47, who’d sit on a couple cases of beer and shoot at anything that moved in a hundred-yard radius. I doubt they often hit what they were aiming at, but you can be sure all those bullets hit something. Several of those upstanding all-American hunters thought it was really funny to shoot my dog. I left before they decided to shoot my children and moved to northeast Wichita, where we felt infinitely safer.
===================================
Uh huh….
Hey, do we get milk and cookies after ‘Story Time’?
I’ve wondered how Democrats might embrace the gun issue if they were as disingenuous as the CONs are in their advocacy of illegal abortion.
Some “lib” should introduce a bill that would outlaw selling handguns out of vending machines in kindergartens or something.
Just like the “partial-birth abortion” canard, it would solve a problem that does not exist, but would force 2nd Amendment zealots to either vote for infringing the 2nd Amendment or advocate Shots for Tots.
Another enterprising Democrat should introduce a bill to enact Socialized Gun-Ownership. You pay your taxes; government owes you a Glock!
Perhaps we should make sure the NRA-approved government-administrated “re-education camps” required in many states before a Concealed Carry license is issued includes proof you’re not gay.
The point is as I have presented in the past. I have no problem with people owning firearms but am a bit diffident about those for whom gun ownership really, Really, REALLY!!! important.
Like the 3rd Amendment is anachronistic, relevant to real pertinent issues in 1789, the 2nd Amendment made perfect sense when state-of-the-art military weaponry involved smooth-bore muzzle-loaded flintlock muskets and the fledgling nation didn’t want a standing army.
Unless you really have a case for fearing President Obama will show up on your porch and demand you quarter troops.
(I wouldn’t put that past Glen Beck.)
DD,
As Sigmund Freud said, “The bigger the gun, the smaller the phallus.”
Jed
Posted April 10, 2009 at 2:30 pm | Permalink
DD,
As Sigmund Freud said, “The bigger the gun, the smaller the phallus.”
=======================
Perhaps you and XXX should have a discussion, Jed.
Changing the subject, Capn?
I’m still waiting. Cite any instance when I have advised that I ignore any law, or advised anyone to do same.
The “con tenant of faith” you cite is a philosophical position regarding the level of gov’t involvement in the society and the relative ability of gov’t to solve problems. You may disagree with it, that’s your right, and unlike you, I would not round you up in camps for doing so (you likely believe it’s “hate speech”).
But you assume a non-sequitor in assuming that position advocates disobeying law. One may well oppose gov’t actions without disobeying law.
Once again – cite any time, on any issue, I have advised, encouraged, or promoted disobediance of law. How much I have to get it up to, Capn?
No? You got nothing.
Would you like me to draft your apology for you, or are you man enough to pony up yourself?
Marty,
Maybe the solution is that a gun purchaser be required to present a current notarized statement attesting to his sanity, signed by an ATF-certified psychiatrist, a drug and alcohol counsellor and a trauma surgeon. Any gun seller who sold a gun without such statement would then be prosecuted as an accesory to any crimes committed by the purchaser.
“I left before they decided to shoot my children and moved to northeast Wichita, where we felt infinitely safer.”
___________________
Ol Jed.. “he loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly, Hills that is, swimming pools, movie stars….Yall come back now ya hear?”
Oh Donny Boy,
You have no idea how bored I am with that reference.
Jed
Posted April 10, 2009 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
Oh Donny Boy,
You have no idea how bored I am with that reference.
==========================
Try having a name like, ANTI.
With you world view, it fits you like a glove. I see why you’re so bored.
Laugh at Jed and his story all you want. Much of it happened during hunting seasons around here. It got to the point that we said no (politely) to anyone asking to hunt on our property. And even that didn’t help, because some very responsible hunters brought friends along who weren’t responsible.
Let’s get to the car/gun analogy. It’s truly fascinating from an outsider’s view.
Cars are manufactured for what purpose? Transportation, right? Yet people are killed. Granted, there are those crazies who have used a car with the intention to kill.
Guns–let’s go with handguns, specifically–are manufactured for what purpose? Would killing people be an over-the-top answer? Because when protecting your property/family/life, you’re not really likely to think, hmmmm, I’ll just shoot him in the foot.
I’m not saying one is worse than another, just pointing out that the analogy is a bit skewed.
Carry on.
It got to the point that we said no (politely) to anyone asking to hunt on our property. And even that didn’t help, because some very responsible hunters brought friends along who weren’t responsible.
========================
Of course there are irresponsible hunters.
I have dealt with some and I detest them. Cutting fences, poaching, and littering are things I can’t stand.
However, I feel Jed was exaggerating.
Jed said: “Maybe the solution is that a gun purchaser be required to present a current notarized statement attesting to his sanity, signed by an ATF-certified psychiatrist, a drug and alcohol counsellor and a trauma surgeon. Any gun seller who sold a gun without such statement would then be prosecuted as an accesory to any crimes committed by the purchaser.”
As absurd as that sounds I can only take it as satire. The Supreme Court has confirmed that people have a right to own a gun. Does any other right require such scrutiny? Sounds like the Jim Crow voting laws.
BUT, even if such draconian impositions were made at the time of purchase, what would keep someone who owns a gun for years, then later flips, from doing it? Or does your proposal include annual re-certifications? Now it gets even more ridiculous.
You’re trying to restrict freedoms to prevent people from being able to commit a crime. I favor being able to stop them dead in their tracks during their mayhem, and locking up the ones that live for life. I also would tear those signs down that tell crazies “this place is a good one to pick, nobody will fire back.”
In my attempt to start a guide service, I found the ‘hunters’ that showed up from back east, driving Escalades, were the biggest share of the problem.
I got sick of dealing with these types of people that had no respect and quit my business.
I now only organize hunts/fishing with well known friends and acquaintances.
These bad apples are a disgrace to the overwhelming number of decent hunters who do far more for game preservation than any environmental group.
There is no crazy like gun nut crazy.
DA GUBMENT WANTZ TO TAKE MAH GUNZ!!1!!1!!
Dale Gribbles of the world, UNITE!!! The only thing you have to lose are your tin-foil tricorn hats.
Daniel
Posted April 10, 2009 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
There is no crazy like gun nut crazy.
DA GUBMENT WANTZ TO TAKE MAH GUNZ!!1!!1!!
Dale Gribbles of the world, UNITE!!! The only thing you have to lose are your tin-foil tricorn hats.
=================
Another true visionary from the Left.
Capn.
Oh Capn . . . . .
Ready with that apology yet?
No? Perhaps you’re still looking . . . . . go ahead; I’ve plenty to do. I’ll wait.
For now.
“game preservation than any environmental group.”
The environment contains animals and plants which are not “game.”
The environment contains animals and plants which are not “game.”
==============
No schitt?
Will the Friday night ABC 20/20 special, “If I Only Had a Gun,” dismiss and deride the concept of using firearms to defend oneself and stop a
potential massacre? Leftist “journalists” have decided that the voters, exasperatingly and repeatedly defeating Democrats’ gun control laws, must be reeducated to learn that gun ownership for self defense (never mind defense against a malevolent federal government running amok, as the Second Amendment intended) is a bad idea that cannot protect private citizens.
Only big government can protect private citizens. Resistance to gun control laws (and eventual confiscation) is unreasonable and futile, as you will be indoctrinated.
Ant,
Exaggerating? No, not a bit. Maybe Harper County attracts the worst from town, and maybe some of it had to do with the popularity of amphetamines among the farmboys, or because we weren’t far from the only liquor store in the county at that time.
The worst offenders were a couple of dumber-than-stumps bachelor farmers who loved to hunt squirrels along the creek behind us with a souvenir AK-47 their nephew brought from Vietnam. When we heard “Hey Clarence, git that sucker!” everybody hit the deck, because Clarence would be following some unfortunate squirrel along a branch a full automatic, with no apparent notion that a 7.68 round doesn’t stop at the squirrel. There were a lot of lurid stories circulating about those two, and I learned to believe at least some.
We got a lot of townie hunters too, and while a very few actually asked, most just tromped through. The cut fences and beer cans were the least of the problem. Our neighbors who had livestock learned to keep them penned up during hunting season. Sometimes even that didn’t help. A woman who lived a couple farms down the road came home and found all her cattle shot in her corral.
We were a lot safer living in Wichita in the middle of gang territory than we were with the gun nuts of Harper County.
Why didn’t you call the Sheriff?
Naw, can’t call the Sheriff – Libs love to whine too much.
They need something to whine about.
They love to have something to whine about.
Uh, Troyboy,
I hate to break it to ya, but the Founding Fathers had no intention of having another revolution on their hands. Their response to the Whiskey Rebellion proved that. The intention of the Second Amendment was to have a pool of potential soldiers w/guns to draw on in times of war, as we had no standing army at the time, something totally irrelevant to today’s military.
Ant,
“Why didn’t you call the Sheriff?”
Did. Numerous times. He was their nephew.
The Whiskey Rebellion proves no such thing.
Actually, Jed, the preservation of a viable limitation on gov’t was exactly what the founders had in mind. A thorough reading of the writings of the Founders, and the history and purposes of the predecessor of the 2nd amendment, the English Bill of Rights, makes that clear.
It’s not about hunting. And while it serves the purposes of a citizen militia, it’s ultimately not about that either (though gov’ts are understandably squeemish about that one). It’s ultimately about being able to preserve the right to revolution, exactly what the Declaration of Independence declared.
And the best guarantee that we will never need it is that we have it. May it always stay that way.
Capn.
Capn?
Give up? I don’t blame you. You put yourself out on quite a ledge, one there’s no way to step off of short of admission of your error.
It’s not that hard, really. Try. Grownups can do it . . .
#
Jed
Posted April 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
Ant,
“Why didn’t you call the Sheriff?”
Did. Numerous times. He was their nephew.
==============================
I suppose I should have seen that coming.
Jed
Posted April 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
Ant,
“Why didn’t you call the Sheriff?”
Did. Numerous times. He was their nephew.
————————————–
Then call the Patrol, District Attorney, ATF, local Ranger…
“Cite my alleged “disregard for the rule of law as expressed continually.” Go ahead. ”
Easy.
Just upthread, you say that you will tolerate no further restrictions on your guns. That’s basically a declarative statement that you intend to break any laws you choose to should you see them as inconvenient.
I BELIEVE, but cannot specifically cite where you posted about wanting to take a shot at red light cameras. But I have only my memory for that one.
You have shown a tendency also toward temper childlike as it is volcanic. I do not rest easy that you walk about armed. I think it would take very little provocation for you to act very irresponsibly with a gun.
People like you will be with us for a long time. But I think Americans by and large are growing less and less interested in guns. Not that there is anything wrong with a healthy interest in guns.
I just see so little of that represented here.
That last of mine should be addressed to GMC.
GMC
“It’s not that hard, really. Try. Grownups can do it . . .”
Give it up man. Capn isn’t capable. He lives under the illusion of too many demonstrable falsehoods to mention. To expect him to admit one of his own faults [when he can't even get over the fact that Bush didn't "steal the election"] is folly.
….on second thought, never mind, give him helll. Maybe his head will finally explode with the pressure from all of that delusion.
B.J. the psyche expert. Just damn. What must your dreams be like?
Maybe you don’t even sleep.
I sleep very well heckler.
And I don’t even have a gun under my pillow!
I know, that must be hard for you to imagine.
BlueJay,
Would you consider my interest in guns unhealthy?
I am curious.
BlueJay, your malignant thought process intrigues me.
Consider my question a scientific one.
BJ
” And I don’t even have a gun under my pillow!
I know, that must be hard for you to imagine.”
No, that’s not hard to imagine.
That you wouldn’t take the most basic of measures to ensure your own families safety does not surprise me. After all, if something “bad” happens you can always call other men, men with guns, to come deal with the problem
After all, if something “bad” happens you can always call other men, men with guns, to come deal with the problem
========================
BURN!
Heckler,
I like your style.
Not enough information ANTI.
I don’t think it is wise to argue against reasonable regulations as some posters here do.
I SUPPOSE there are a small minority of people who would like to unreasonably ( I know that reasonable is an arguably subjective term) restrict firearms. I’m not one of them. But I would say that such folk are only aided in their cause by sentiments as expressed by some posters here.
Reg,
It was during the mid ’70’s and the ATF was only mildly interested; they seemed overwhelmed with reports of souvenir weapons/munitions from Vietnam.
The DA? He and the rest of the local gummint were too busy being corrupted to bother with anything short of mass murder. At the time the county was a distribution center from Mexico to all points north. Lots of trucks on back roads late at night. I hear that’s still somewhat of a problem there.
I never even heard of the other agencies.
I find a locked door and reasonable precautions comforting enough heckler.
BJ says- Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
just another burden on society
You know BlueJay, most of my firearms are technologically from the late 1800’s.
I have one bolt action rifle and one handgun that are not from that era(design wise).
I use my single action revolvers and lever action rifles mostly. And probably the weapon I use most or practice with most is my bow (that one takes arrows).
No scary black guns here…Although if I could afford one I would by the Springfield M21, which isn’t even black.
“After all, if something “bad” happens…”
There it is again. That constant phobia.
I don’t find myself constantly afraid I am about to be attacked heckler. I honestly rarely think of it at all.
PROBABLY, I am a better candidate for gun ownership than many people who do have guns. I just don’t presently see or feel a need for them.
I know that reasonable is an arguably subjective term
================
Yes, it is.
That sounds like a reasonably health interest ANTI.
I suppose some people are interested in guns like others are interested in coins or antiques.
Now heckler on the other hand.
It’s a burden on society not to have a gun?
I don’t have any interest in guns.
But as with most things, I don’t like it when a minority of bad apples ruins it for everyone else.
I’m not much for irrational thought either.
Irrational thoughts toward guns like total confiscation and such are only encouraged by irrational thoughts from the other side about vast stores of ammunition or how reasonable regulation is a slippery slope to confiscation.
You will NEVER see me post that all guns should be banned. Even though I was just told I am a burden on society because I choose not to have one.
Easy.
Just upthread, you say that you will tolerate no further restrictions on your guns. That’s basically a declarative statement that you intend to break any laws you choose to should you see them as inconvenient.
—
Wrong again, JR, and easily demonstrably so. Don’t you ever get tired of having your ass handed to you?
I wrote – pay attention, words matter:
“No more. We have, and have long gone past “reasonable” gun regulation. Many gun owners, this one included, will not compromise any more.”
Exact quote. It’s at 11:48 above, readers. Check it out yourself. And read the rest for context. I’ve misrepresented nothing.
It’s simple.
Politics is compromise. Gun laws, like any others, are also compromise. And gun owners have compromised, repeatedly, to accept “reasonable” regulations. And every time we give on a “reasonable” regulation, the gun banners move the bar. The fact is, of course, they don’t seek “reasonable” regulations, they seek banning. HCI, the predecessor to the Brady bunch, admitted as much. The result is that the regulations just keep coming and now reach to, and past, any regulations that can be seen, in my opinion and that of many gun owners, as “reasonable.”
So there will be no more political compromises. Any attempt to further restrict gun rights will be fought. Every one. No exceptions. And there will be a political price to be paid for same. That is entirely within context of the conversation with MH.
You, however, not only took the statement out of context, you misquoted it; you’re 0 for 2. And at no time did I state or imply any intent to, or encouragement of, violation of law. Show me otherwise – I dare you.
Once again, you project the straw man you want me to be rather than what I am. You’re just too easy, JR.
BTW – tell me just what I have ever said or done to justify the statement that there would be “very little provocation for [me] to act irresponsibly.” Back it up, little man.
First, there is the usual liberal/GFW tendancy to ascribe their own lack of self-control to others – JR’s projecting again.
But in any case, I’ll put it to the blog. Who leads this blog (all political persuasions) in outrageous, over the top expressions of not just disagreement, but bitter hate?
That’s easy: JR/BlueJay. And you do so repeatedly.
You reminded us yourself just yesterday of your proposal to mine the border to prevent illegal immigration. You once advocated – your words – “manning the barricades.” You routinely go on, generally to Hank, about hating “you and yours.” Your tirades against Nathional, who long ago apologized (though he had done nothing to apologize for), are legendary here, and cause the rest of us to just roll our eyes (and yes, Nathan walks into them unnecessarily). Yesterday, you announced your solution to Mexican immigration was to bottle up Mexicans in their own nation hoping to ferment bloody revolution. Criminee, JR, you don’t just spout hate, you nurture it. You parade it out like a favorite child. You’ve even bragged that you pass it on to your son (who it appears will be lucky to leave the nest without serious issues).
Wanna tell me again who is likely to snap from “a little provocation?” LOL!!!! That’s not even a close call.
I’d do the ROFLMAO, but there are serious issues here. Many here, on both sides, have urged you to get help. I urge same again.
And for the record, JR, I’ve never stated here whether or not I “walk about armed;” I state uncategorically here and now, for the record, if it’s not clear, that I will not say. I don’t believe I’ve never stated whether or not I hold a CC permit, or carry a weapon. My position on advocating making same legal is no secret; whether or not I actual do same will remain, as the law says, concealed.
BJ says- “There it is again. That constant phobia.”
It’s not like that JR. It’s an acknowledgment that bad shiitte can happen. People die of heart attacks in their thirties, fires happen, children die too young, airplanes crash, lightning does strike.
I don’t live in a state of paranoia. I live in a state of preparedness. It’s kind of like living in a house with a couple of toddlers. You don’t hover over them, because you can’t. But you become in tune with the way things should sound, or not sound, or not sound for too long. You learn that some things will be eternally out of place, but you notice THE thing that shouldn’t be out of place. And when shiitte happens you don’t panic because you know that it will happen. You deal with it.
It beats living with a false sense of security, like about 90 percent of the people in this country live. You see them with their hands over their face in disbelief when the car crashes or the house burns. The other 10 percent are the ones applying the tourniquet or manning the fire extinguisher.
How absurd…
On one hand BlueJay says those of us who carry guns are afraid or paranoid while he then claims to lock his front door.
Why?
What are you afraid of BlueJay? Paranoid?
It is almost pointless to even bother making a logical point with you BlueJay.
I wear my seatbelt, have a smoke alarm, and fire extinguishers too, along with carrying a gun.
Not because I live my life in fear or because I am paranoid. It is because I choose to be prepared.
A point you are either too stupid to understand or are merely willfully ignorant of for the sake of argument.
I got no problem with reasonable regulation. But the phrase is itself loaded. Those who propose additional regulation, characterizing them as “reasonable,” necessarily characterize those who oppose same regulations as “unreasonable.”
But of course reasonable people can differ about what regulations are reasonable, and do. It’s just that those who propose those additional “reasonable” regulations don’t advocate them with reason; generally, if we thought about the proposed regs, we’d realize how much do not do what they are ostensibly supposed to do. Instead, those who propose registration, or microstamping, or any number of pointless and, in my opinion, entirely UNreasonable regulations simply demonize the opposition as “gun nuts;” it’s easier than actually engaging in reason. My suspicion is that those regs serve another agenda, though those who advocate those reasonable laws won’t say so. Not publicly, anyway.
For the record, reasonable to me means that any person not otherwise prohibited (not a felon, etc) should be able to own, legally, any weaponry the police in your jurisdiction can own.
Seems reasonable to me.
Rant much GMC?
I think that substantial tirade demonstrates pretty well what I concluded about you.
“Many gun owners, this one included, will not compromise any more.”
You should have qualified that statement when you made it and not after the fact. Calls for speculation, you know. MY opinion, and it was not singular, was that it was a declarative statement that you would not respect the law. IF there is an error, it is with you, not me.
Before I sign off for the evening, Capn, wanna give it one last try?
No? I mean, given JR’s dismal failure to pull your fat out of the fire, I’m not surprised . . . .
You should have qualified that statement when you made it and not after the fact.
I don’t have to “qualify” it. It speaks, both alone and fully in context, for itself. You’re just wrong. Get over it.
Heckler
Posted April 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
==================
That and GMC’s post drive the point home.
If you put a pin hole in a dam, the dam will burst sooner or later.
It is in the nation’s best interest not to poke the dam, Libs.
I am out for a bit.
You don’t want to call me some more names do you GMC?
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen you so…animated.
We lose freedom when some people do not exercise it responsibly. I’m just one person, but my opinion (and again it was NOT alone)is that SOME posters here who would protect the right to own guns actually endanger that right with their sentiments and their actions. Ironically, my efforts to moderate them are answered with hostility. IF I bring out the worst in them, perhaps they can use that to better examine themselves.
“It beats living with a false sense of security, like about 90 percent of the people in this country live.”
Now I’ve never been a “go along with the crowd” kinda guy.
But if you feel one way and you say 90% of people feel differently?
It probably does not add to your argument to assume AND state that there is something wrong with the other 90%.
Remember, I’m not in favor of banning guns. But if you give me and other people the either or given what SOME gun….enthusiasts post here?
Just sayin’.
Even more protected than Abortion Rights, the second amendment is a Constitutional provision put in place by our founding fathers.
Deal with it Libs.
“It’s ultimately about being able to preserve the right to revolution,”
GMC
“Yesterday, you announced your solution to Mexican immigration was to bottle up Mexicans in their own nation hoping to ferment bloody revolution. ”
GMC -a little later that same day
SO GMC revolution= good
BlueJay revolution= bad!
Imagine that.
Oh and I said NOTHING about the revolution being bloody.
What is that you are always trying to assign to me? Projection?
Note the rest of what I wrote about revolution, both yesterday and today.
C’mon, JR, if you’re gonna try to tell the truth, tell the whole truth.
No I get you well enough GMC.
Mexican revolution against corrupt, broken government = bad
GMC revolution against the government for restrictions on guns= good
Or, do you have some more qualifying to do?
“It’s ultimately about being able to preserve the right to revolution,”
GMC
=========================
Yes it is, as it should be.
The Mexican’s needed a revolt years ago.
The drug dealers are no different than their government.
Anyone who has spent any time down south knows that.
Unfortunately the law abiding citizens of Mexico have no guns.
Because they were outlawed.
Hmmm.
#
Nathaniel
Posted April 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
I wear my seatbelt, have a smoke alarm, and fire extinguishers too, along with carrying a gun.
Not because I live my life in fear or because I am paranoid. It is because I choose to be prepared.
==========================================
Prepared for what? Having four clips holding ten rounds each, instead of thirteen rounds each is being less prepared? I’ll tell you what, Nathan: if it ever came down to having to protect myself to the extent I would need forty rounds of ammo, I wouldn’t want any part of this civilization, because the civilization as I know it would be over, and you can have all the ammo you can live with, and whatever “civilization” emerged or was left. Good luck with that.
The joke about the ‘t.esticle-biting’ dog comes to mind when needing 40 rounds. :)
JMWalker
Posted April 10, 2009 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
======================================
Well, if you wish to be dead and give up so easily….have at it…
Some of us aren’t pu$$ies.
In fact, just give up now…Let us move on.
I didn’t read all the other responces, because I’m sure it’s the usual far left rhetoric, however, I do feel that the solution is this, MORE GUNS.
Think if someone had a gun in that immigration aid facility. They could have defended themselves and every one else there. It’s the same case in virtually all of these incidences, whether the shooter was a legal licenced gun owner, or not.
The danger exists because of how one sides the fight is, and bad guys will get guns regardless of their legality.
Great Britian started out by taking away all handguns. Over the years it progressed into takeing away ALL guns, even hunting rifles. Violent crime rose 40%. When the gun bans started going into effect, the Bobbys did not carry a firearm, now they do, in a time all guns are outlawed.
On ABC right now: 2020
Special on gun owners: Does owning a gun save your life – self defense?
Sunday on CBS 60 minutes:
Gun Shows: People buying guns because of Obama.
Both will probably be leftist views.
But it is important to know your enemy. What are they saying?
“Unfortunately the law abiding citizens of Mexico have no guns.”
Shoal bit: you see peasants all the time walking along carrying shotguns.
Mexico has a long tradition of sport shooting.
“The Mexican’s needed a revolt years ago.”
They had one.
People in favor of reasonable gun regulations are not “the enemy”. Not most of them.
As I say upthread, the “enemy” of responsible gun owners are the gun zealots who stockpile ammunition and say things about breaking gun laws, “I carry a gun in case I need to kill someone”, etc.
ABC 2020 evaluation of first 10 minutes of report:
This is the Obama show.
It is as lib as you can get.
Guns bad.
Guns for self-protection = bad.
I don’t think that is a fair take on the show so far.
They showed that even someone constantly trained with a gun can freeze up in a crisis situation.
This is good!
I remember 10 years ago and they reference that broadcast tonight.
Little kids were just THRILLED when left alone and finding a gun.
Ten years later, teenagers were mostly afraid of guns found unexpectedly.
ABC 2020 evaluation of second 10 minutes of report:
Mix up Columbine (intentional murder) with accidental deaths by kids with guns.
Show a 14 year old who killed a friend years ago with a gun: Begging Obama to DO SOMETHING!!!
Yep, Obama show all the way….
Mix up Columbine (intentional murder)=easy access to guns.
with accidental deaths by kids with guns.= easy access to guns.
SURELY you are not arguing against properly securing guns from children “American way”.
This is the weekend Big Brother has chosen to “teach” the American People about bad guns.
This is all prearranged. Imagine. Two independent television companies. Two independent television REPORTER type shows.
Both have shows this weekend.
We are being brainwashed.
Sad, sad stories. Guns are baaaaaaad!
In other news, 27,000 Americans are killed by DRUNK DRIVERS each and every year.
Sad stories too. But not a constitutional item Obama wants to end.
Far, far fewer are killed in accidental gun deaths.
But this show, will bring you to tears.
SOMEONE MUST DOOOO SOMETHING!!!!!
Obama is the answer.
Ban the bad guns.
JR –
In all sincerity, the one thing you shoould take away from this 20/20, and I’m speaking to you specifically here, is that ignorance kills. Every young person should be thoroughtly gun trained.
Not to make them gun owners; that is their choice. But to save their own life, or that of a friend. Like it or not, given the reality of firearms in this society, your son may well come into contact with a firearm. Will he understand that if he removes the magazine, it may still fire? Will he understand that, unlike in the movies, bullets go through most walls or furniture? He should.
I have every confidence that my three, from their early teens, can safely handle and unload a firearm without killing themselves or someone else. Whether they choose to own one, or carry one, is an individual choice. Making sure they understand how a firearm works, and can safely handle one, is my responsibility, just as it it my responsibility to teach them to safely do any number of potentially dangerous things in this society.
We ridicule “abstinence only” sex education as unrealistic, and for good reason. Pretending that “don’t touch” is sufficient gun education is equally unrealistic.
And BTW, JR – why is it you won’t tell the whole truth? This is why I say, without hesitation, that honesty is not your strong suit.
I’m watching the same show as the other poster.
I have not once heard anyone say “ban guns”.
And Capn is still conspicuous by his absence. Not surprising.
Working on that apology, Capn?
I find you also less than honest GMC.
I don’t have any wish for my son to become interested in guns. I believe your motive here would be to estrange my son from his father.
YOu didn’t see that sad crying boy in the ghetto?
His poor, poor daddy died in a gun fight.
Sniffle sniffle. Make America feel sad. Make us feel guilty.
SOMEONE MUST DOOO SOMETTHING?
Obama our Savior must ban the dirty bad guns.
Of course, no one mentions the father had a criminal record. No one mentions the number of children – black children in the ghettos without a father.
No personal responsibility.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Now the LOOPHOLE. Those EVIL gun shows!!
No one is breaking the law INSIDE the gunshow.
The purchases are being made ILLEGALLY OUTSIDE the gun show.
This is illegal ANYWHERE.
So: WHERE THE FU*K is LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OUTSIDE THE DOORS OF THE SHOW???????
It’s not the gun dealers inside legally selling guns: IT’S THE CRIMINALS OUTSIDE.
Happens in alleys in downtowns all across the nation.
But the NEWSSSSS REPORTERS decide to set it up outside the legal gunshows.
More from the special…
A very young man buys 10 guns at a gun show in less than an hour.
WHO needs 10 guns in less than an hour?
Listen to the oh so sad background music?
Mood setting.
Sniffle sniffle.
Now time for them to MAKE US MAD!!!
I offer the question to any gun enthusiast.
WHO needs 10 guns in less than an hour?
Oh now the reporter says, Something has to be done about “assualt weapons”.
Yet not one shred of reporting on just what the heck an assault weapon is.
Nor ANY (zero, nada) reporting on “assault weapons”.
Just a statement.
You can’t get any more one sided reporting.
“A very young man buys 10 guns at a gun show in less than an hour.”
Did he buy them INSIDE the gun show? Inside the gun show, legitimate legal gun dealers require you to complete forms AND submit your information to the government computer to perform the legal background check.
Clearly the gun show loop hole is a problem.
It is perfectly legal to drink 10 beers in less than an hour.
It is perfectly legal to LEGALLY buy 10 firearms in less than one hour.
It is not a matter of “need”. It is your constitutional right.
Remember what I posted upthread about people who deny others freedom by abusing it?
“American way” now fits the role.
So a trained and prepared instructor comes in like an “intruder” and everyone is AMAZED that he makes lot’s of kills – before the surprised inexperienced students can react.
Proves nothing.
In a real event: The bad guy has just as much adrenilin flowing, and is probably just as afraid, if confronted by an armed home owner.
“It is perfectly legal to LEGALLY buy 10 firearms in less than one hour.
It is not a matter of “need”. It is your constitutional right.”
I do not WANT that right or need that right.
Why do you?
Final review: 2020 If I only had a gun
No facts. No figures. No information on the cases of self defense which resulted in preventing death to innocent lives, preventing armed robbery, and resulted in the intruder being killed or wounded.
Not even numbers on deaths by guns: accidental.
Not even numbers on intentional deaths by guns.
This is not worthy of being called a “report”.
This is just biased reporting on evil guns in America.
Because it is in our constitution.
The constitution is worth fighting for.
Rights abused end up being rights taken away.
Criminee, JR. Why would I have any wish to “estrange” a son from a father.
I told you my motive, JR. Same as with any parent, and any child. It’s quite simple. You see what you choose to see. You’re a sad little man.
BTW – you wanna supply the dollars, I’ll be more than happy to buy as many guns as possible. My choices might suprise you (or maybe not). I’m interested in historical arms, in significant firearms, in interesting guns. And shooters; I have no interest in collecting just to sit on the shelves.
First choice, probably an M1 Garrand.
The gun show “loophole” is a myth. It’s got nothing to do with gun shows, it is simply the buying and selling of firearms person to person without going through a licensed dealer. That has nothing to do with gun shows; calling it a “gun show loophole” is just a way to demonize the gun shows.
One can make a case to bar transfers outside going through an FFL; I can understand that position. But it’s not enforcable. There is simply no way to keep people from buying and selling guns.
Thank you for reminding me about the 20/20 special so that I could provide a balanced commentary “American way”.
Guns are tools. But they are dangerous tools. While I do not seek to ban them, I cannot understand those who are irresponsible gun owners and encourage the same. There is maybe ONE poster here who is a gun enthusiast who I would trust to teach my son about guns. I choose to tell my son that guns are tools that we do not need at this time.
“No more. We have, and have long gone past “reasonable” gun regulation. Many gun owners, this one included, will not compromise any more.”
===============================================
GMC doesnt see anything in this statement that shows an intent to either ignore, or break laws…. “will not compromise anymore”
How much more of a definitive statement can be made here??
“I offer the question to any gun enthusiast.
WHO needs 10 guns in less than an hour?”—the big BlowJ
That is absolutely none of your business.
So how’s that ‘hope and change’ working out for you BlowJ? Not much has changed yet for you, now has it.
You can have that kind of ‘change’, I’ll keep my freedom, my guns, and my money.
Instead of waiting for someone to ’spread the wealth’ why don’t you develop a little work ethic and acquire some of your own.
““I offer the question to any gun enthusiast.
WHO needs 10 guns in less than an hour?”—the big BlowJ
That is absolutely none of your business.”
Oh I do indeed think it is my business bawks.
While I am not opposed to reasonable gun ownership, this blog has shown me that many, maybe even most gun owners are not reasonable people.
If you are pushing me toward the banning of all guns? Why not just say so?
Speaking of unreasonable people – Bluejay is once again spending all of his time on the blog, ignoring his son.
I look for the day when the younger Remil will be on a police blotter.
“Bluejay is once again spending all of his time on the blog, ignoring his son.”
My son is 4 feet away James McCluer.
Do you have something to add to this topic or do you just want some attention?
No more. We have, and have long gone past “reasonable” gun regulation. Many gun owners, this one included, will not compromise any more.”
There is nothing in that statement which states or implies violating any laws. You see it? Spell it out, Chas. Don’t dance around, say what you mean, mean what you say. Exactly. I have. Read the entire thread and tell me I’ve said or implied any such thing.
Saying so makes you either an idiot or a liar. Choose your poison.
And Capn is still avoiding this thread. Wonder why . . . . .
Coward.
Your performance, and that IS what it was today GMC, is frankly embarrassing for you and your cause.
Good night.
#
ANTI
Posted April 10, 2009 at 8:43 pm | Permalink
JMWalker
Posted April 10, 2009 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
======================================
Well, if you wish to be dead and give up so easily….have at it…
Some of us aren’t pu$$ies.
==========================================
Simply stated: the reason I seldom post here anymore. Give an opinion, and be called a pu$$ies. It’s fairly obvious, when guns are the subject, intelligence and reason fly out the window faster than a 50 cal slug. What a frikin moron.
“JMWalker” –
I lurked through last night’s little shoot-from-the-hip party mostly because the gunners were mostly proving my earlier point. When your opponents are committing suicide, why should anyone interfere?
For “an inanimate tool” a gun sure spurs a lot of emotional vitriol among NRA-duped pantywaists.
aw monknud………lurkin, backing away…….i.e. running away……..same o, same o
“While I am not opposed to reasonable gun ownership, this blog has shown me that many, maybe even most gun owners are not reasonable people.”—BlowJ
You spend spend most of your waking time on this blog BlowJ, and if you are the example I would totally agree.
“I look for the day when the younger Remil will be on a police blotter.”–Reg.
And that is what is really sad and unfortunately, probably inevitable.
“For “an inanimate tool” a gun sure spurs a lot of emotional vitriol among NRA-duped pantywaists.”—the monkey
It represents American freedom….dimwit.
It represents the whole of the Constitution and it’s Amendments guarantying our freedom from an increasingly oppressive expansive government.
JM Walker,
I always find it funny seeing you completely distort my comments and then go on to complain when people call you a pu$$y.
“Prepared for what?”
Prepared to defend myself or others from those that would do us harm.
“Having four clips holding ten rounds each, instead of thirteen rounds each is being less prepared?”
I have never claimed any such thing. You take a comment of mine complaining about having 10 round magazines made in a different thread and then interject it into a comment of mine on being prepared here. I carry one spare magazine with my pistol I carry. Most of the time I don’t even carry it, rather just have it accesable in the truck.
Is that reasonable enough for you? What EXACTLY is a reasonable amount of ammo to have on hand if you are carrying concealed before you start mocking someone?
GMC70,
This is what liberals do. They did it to Trent Lott and other Republicans when they say the slightest thing which could be construed as racist.
You could live your entire life having never said one racist thing or even hinted at being a racist, but one day you say something off hand which was not even meant to be racist and the liberals will call you a racist and act like you have always been one.
No matter how much you apologize or point out that it is not what you meant they don’t care.
It is exactly what BlueJay, WS Clark, and Linda do to me with that comment I made 2 years ago about them wetting their pants.
No matter how many times you try to explain yourself, apologize, or reason with them they will hang onto that one line and keep beating the dead horse.
I know and you know exactly what you meant by what you said, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how many times you clarify yourself. Chas, BlueJay, CapnAmerica, and the other liberal idiots don’t use logic or reason. They simply drone on and on using it as a stick to beat you over the head with like a bunch of mindless ret@rds.
The virgin prophet “Nathaniel” starts today as a typical whiny victimized CON –
It’s like that punchline from the old joke –
“Ya live your life and pay your taxes… but (boink) one sheep and for the rest of your life you’re ‘Nathaniel the sheep(boinker).”
Every single one of you packers, if happening on a scene in which an armed man was killing innocent strangers, would, if given the opportunity, creep around the corner and hide, like the cowards you are. That’s the problem with concealed carry. You carry because you are gutless and afraid of your own shawdows. You might risk a back shot.
If you could take it from under cover.
beber –
I really try not to write this kind of stuff, but I guess you just bring it out of me. The one thing that’s obvious about you is that you know not a damn thing.
But it never prevents you from opening your mouth (or the keyboard, as the case may be) and proving it.
You know absolutely nothing about “every single one of those packers,” yet you claim to know what would happen if, God forbid, your little scenario played out.
You don’t even know enough to know you’re a fool.
#
Nathaniel
Posted April 11, 2009 at 8:29 am | Permalink
JM Walker,
I always find it funny seeing you completely distort my comments and then go on to complain when people call you a pu$$y.
“Prepared for what?”
Prepared to defend myself or others from those that would do us harm.
“Having four clips holding ten rounds each, instead of thirteen rounds each is being less prepared?”
I have never claimed any such thing. You take a comment of mine complaining about having 10 round magazines made in a different thread and then interject it into a comment of mine on being prepared here. I carry one spare magazine with my pistol I carry. Most of the time I don’t even carry it, rather just have it accesable in the truck.
Is that reasonable enough for you? What EXACTLY is a reasonable amount of ammo to have on hand if you are carrying concealed before you start mocking someone?
============================================
Nothing distorted about my view of you or your comments. You are the one calling Liberals out because you can only have ten rounds instead of thirteen in your pistol clip. Nothing strawman, as you like to say, about using that bit of info in defining your belief in being “prepared” for whatever it you need preparation for.
I find very little reasonable about you. In fact, fanatic comes to mind. You’re fanatical in your religious stance, and fanatical in your gun stance. By your own words, gun laws don’t work. So why don’t we drop em all? Hell, they don’t work, so let anybody buy one. Use one in commission of a crime? Big deal, gun laws don’t work, Nathan says so, so drop them charges.
“Not because I live my life in fear or because I am paranoid. It is because I choose to be prepared.”
As I stated earlier, prepared for what? What, in this country, could possibly make you think, under any circumstances, a thirteen round clip as opposed to a ten round clip is, a) caused by Liberals (and even if true, so what), and b)going to keep you from being prepared for whatever it is you think you need to be prepared for? Is the Taliban/ Al Qaida/North Koreans/ space aliens on their way to our shores? Are you fundies going to take over the government?
Being prepared for emergencies is one thing. Radicalizing gun rights to the extent your prepared for an all out invasion strikes me as fanatical. I neither need nor want any part of that, and if that makes me a p***y, so be it. Better that than a freakin nut case.
JM Walker,
“Nothing distorted about my view of you or your comments.”
Actually, yes. You take a comment on a completely different subject and interject it into this one. Nothing about my being prepared or my statements on such had to do with the difference between having a 10 round magazine or 13 round magazine let alone 4 of them.
That was a comment I made about the stupidity of the Assault Weapons ban the other day and how I think it is annoying that I am stuck with 4 10 round magazines which should and could actually hold 13.
“I find very little reasonable about you. In fact, fanatic comes to mind. You’re fanatical in your religious stance, and fanatical in your gun stance.”
And I think you are a Hypocritical cry baby idiot.
“By your own words, gun laws don’t work.”
I have never made any such simplistic comment. I have argued that most, if not all, of the gun laws proposed by the left and other various anti-gun groups don’t work.
“So why don’t we drop em all? Hell, they don’t work, so let anybody buy one. Use one in commission of a crime? Big deal, gun laws don’t work, Nathan says so, so drop them charges.”
Nathan has never made any such argument. Thus your strawman argument falls apart.
“As I stated earlier, prepared for what? What, in this country, could possibly make you think, under any circumstances, a thirteen round clip as opposed to a ten round clip is, a) caused by Liberals (and even if true, so what), and b)going to keep you from being prepared for whatever it is you think you need to be prepared for?”
Are you stupid or just playing ignorant? I just got done telling you that the difference between a 10 round magazine and a 13 round magazine has nothing to do with my being prepared.
However, now that you keep bringing it up…
There is a slight tactical disadvantage to only having 10 rounds as opposed to 13 in your magazine.
In many gun battles, especially involving more than one bad guy, you are going to go through more than 10 rounds. Having those extra 3 before needing a magazine change does make a difference.
I digress…
You seem to have a problem with my being prepared. So, do you think carrying concealed at all is absurd? Paranoia?
Forget the difference between 10 round magazines and 13 round magazines or having 4 magazines on hand…
Do you even agree with the notion of carrying concealed to be prepared at all?
“Being prepared for emergencies is one thing. Radicalizing gun rights to the extent your prepared for an all out invasion strikes me as fanatical. I neither need nor want any part of that, and if that makes me a p***y, so be it. Better that than a freakin nut case.”
No, it makes you an intellectual fraud. You are unable to have a discussion with me on this subject without constantly distorting my stance and mocking me with said distortions.
You don’t have to know a thing. Without serious training, there is not one man in a thousand who can face fire for the first time without his knees going to jelly. Knowing how to fire the weapon doesn’t prepare anyone for knowing how to fire the weapon in a life or death situation. Faced with it, most packers would act like everyone else. They’d cower on the floor. Those who can face it are natural cold-blooded killers. They’re the ones shooting at you. They dont give a damn about their own lives, or yours.
And I do know a lot about many of the people who claim to pack, although I suspect most of them seldom do. They’ve left trails. Little bits of personal information which allow me to make educated guesses. I diss you off GMC 70 because I know where to stick the needle.
What kind of man in a safe Wichita suburb huddles in bed with a pistol to protect himself from marauders? What kind of man arms himself to go to the convenience store? That’s not life. It’s all a fantasy driven by fear. Old men know at heart they are no matches for young men in their prime. But most of us rely on the social conventions to protect us. Our faith or courage sustains us, not an anger and fear-filled fantasy, and a 38 near the bed.
And what kind of person would drive a 70 GMC? Everyone knows the classic model was the Chevy.
Actually beber it is you that is the coward.
Too coward to accept the responsibility of protecting yourself and your family with a weapon. Like most liberals you would rather someone else be made to accept a responsibility that ultimately is yours.
Oh….and that’s a fact!!!
JMWalker
Posted April 10, 2009 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
#
Nathaniel
Posted April 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
I wear my seatbelt, have a smoke alarm, and fire extinguishers too, along with carrying a gun.
Not because I live my life in fear or because I am paranoid. It is because I choose to be prepared.
==========================================
Prepared for what? Having four clips holding ten rounds each, instead of thirteen rounds each is being less prepared? I’ll tell you what, Nathan: if it ever came down to having to protect myself to the extent I would need forty rounds of ammo, I wouldn’t want any part of this civilization, because the civilization as I know it would be over, and you can have all the ammo you can live with, and whatever “civilization” emerged or was left. Good luck with that.
——————————————–
People believe what they see from Hollywood movies. One shot one kill. In real life, it doesn’t happen that way.
-People are not paper targets. Targets don’t move around, people do.
-Most people are not expert marksman.
-Adrenalin and emotion in this situation is at max levels, which translates to even less accuracy.
-Reports indicate police fire 7 to 10 shots for EACH perp in a battle. Even police MISS their target on most shots. (Remember, the target is moving)
Thus the need for higher capacity arms to ensure your safety in a self defense situation. If two criminals attack you on the street or in your home, you would need 14 to 20 rounds to stop the attack and defend yourself.
In one shooting with multiple criminal attackers, it’s not uncommon for 100 or more total rounds to be fired.
So needing forty rounds of ammo to DEFEND yourself, is not uncommon at all.
**
OH, and BTW, you are really describing Magazines, and NOT Clips.
(Just another giveaway that you know nothing about the subject you are talking about JM)
Boxlock20
Posted April 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
Actually beber it is you that is the coward.
Too coward to accept the responsibility of protecting yourself and your family with a weapon. Like most liberals you would rather someone else be made to accept a responsibility that ultimately is yours.
=====================================
THEY can dial 911 and wait. And Hope.
I choose to do more then that.
Boxlock20
Posted April 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
Actually beber it is you that is the coward.
Too coward to accept the responsibility of protecting yourself and your family with a weapon. Like most liberals you would rather someone else be made to accept a responsibility that ultimately is yours.
========================================
He posted some crap the other day about the only manly way to fight was hand to hand.
Fine.
But for women, the elderly, the handicapped, and even normal sized guys who are attacked by MULTIPLE CRIMINALS, it’s our Natural right and Constitutional right to be able to defend ourselves using the best tools available to the average person – the gun.
Beber would have the strongest, biggest thug punks take over and do whatever they want. That’s manly, ain’t it?
CASE IN POINT:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE53A1KT20090411
Teen mother, 2 children shot dead near New Orleans
Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:06pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) – A teenage mother, her 23-month-old son and a 6-year-old boy were found shot to death in an apartment in a crime-ridden neighborhood near New Orleans early on Saturday, police officials said.
A fourth victim, an 11-year-old girl, underwent surgery for multiple gunshot wounds, said Colonel John Fortunato, a spokesman for the Jefferson Parish sheriff’s office.
The two children were shot in the head.
Witnesses told police that two men opened fire after kicking in the door of the apartment in Terrytown, a suburb of New Orleans on the west bank of the Mississippi River.
Police responded to a 3:43 a.m. (4:43 a.m. EDT) report of gunshots and found Domonique Sterling, 19, lying on the floor in the living room with a gunshot wound to the back. Her toddler son, Robert Claiborne, and 6-year-old Four Overstreet were found in a bedroom.
Sterling and her son were apparently staying with the Overstreet family, Fortunato said.
Regarding the last posts by nathan and jj: I rest my case. If my remarks make me an idiot, a pansy, or an intellectual fraud in their minds, so be it. Obviously. our differences are on a completely basic level, so any kind of discussion is out. Have fun shootin’ them bad guys up. I’ll watch it on the evening news, assuming of course, we’re invaded by whatever bad guy you’re preparing for. I guess I never will understand, or want to understand, the militant mind, which is okay with me.
You have no idea how hard it is to keep from laughing at all this. You two really are funny. Good thing I have a sense of humor, huh?
Now you Libs, I’m sure, would make moral judgements against this Mother and her children who were shot dead in a home invasion.
Does she not have the right to defend herself and her own children? Even in her own home?
And JJ, what’s the point of your post. Are you trying to tell people if the girl had a gun, none of it would have happened? How stupid do you think people are? If she had a gun, the killers would have added it to their collection. I would make a safe bet the over 98% of gun owners would have been killed under the same conditions. The other 2% probably watch tv with their guns in their laps. What a freakin moron.
JM Walker,
I posted a point by point response to you. I answered your questions. I clearly pointed out how you distorted my comments and made straw man arguments.
And the only response you can come up with is that you are calling us militants who you will never be able to understand.
The reason you are unable to understand is because you refuse to take the time and read what I write instead of just making up whatever load of BS you want to instead.
I suppose it is good for someone as dumb as you to have a sense of humor. One would have to if they were as stupid as you are.
I resort to responding in kind to your petty name calling since you refuse to answer my questions or even attempt to make a rational argument with me beyond your straw man ones.
Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg
(Attacked by same rapist, a 2nd time)
Nathaniel
Posted April 11, 2009 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
I posted a point by point response to you. I answered your questions. I clearly pointed out how you distorted my comments and made straw man arguments.
And the only response you can come up with is that you are calling us militants who you will never be able to understand.
=============================
Name Calling, that’s all he’s got.
Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg
(Attacked by same rapist, a 2nd time)
OH, BTW, this 57-YEAR-OLD Woman WAS ABLE TO VERY SUCCESSFULLY defend herself by using a shot gun.
(For those who do not understand how guns are used in self-defense)
Armed Woman Defends Herself Against 3 Home Invaders
Saturday, January 17th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
As reported, a woman from Dumfries, VA was not feeling well, and ended up staying home sick from work. Her home security alarm suddenly went off, and she found 3 men breaking in to her home. Luckily for this woman, she was a gun owner, and the three criminals fled upon seeing her. Amazingly, one of the criminals returned a moment later. The woman shot the criminal in self defense, and the criminal was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries. Police caught the second home invader, and are searching for the third.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/01/17/armed-woman-defends-herself-against-3-home-invaders/
Firearms Rights are a Gender Equality Issue too
I believe that firearms rights are a gender equality issue as well, and bans on firearms (especially handgun bans) are discriminatory against women. Allow me to explain why:
Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them. This is certainly not a new revelation on my part: the Colt revolver was nicknamed “the great equalizer” for its ability to put those who carried it on a level playing field, despite differences in physical strength.
Guns allow the 5?2?, 95 lb. woman to fend off a 6?5? 300 lb. attacker. They allow the little old grandma to defend herself as well. The same is true for the handicapped. Banning firearms, especially when the ban is targeted at handguns only, has a disproportionate effect upon the members of our society who are less physically strong. As a simple matter of biology, most women are physically less strong then most men. This means that taking away “the great equalizer” from them puts these women at a disadvantage, relative to men. Now consider that a relatively minor weapons possession charge is not going to deter someone who would face many years or life in prison if caught for rape, robbery, etc., you can see that firearms bans will leave the law abiding women defenseless, and their potential attackers armed.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/
Woman Beheaded after Order of Protection Fails to Stop Alleged Kiler
It should also be clear that a domestic violence situation in which no one has a gun is a situation in which the criminal generally wins and the victim generally loses. Most domestic violence offenders are males, and most domestic violence victims are females. As a matter of biology and possibly cultural norms, men tend to be physically stronger then women, which means that an unarmed man can often murder an unarmed woman. In short, guns are the great equalizer which put all humans on a level playing field, while a lack of guns creates a situation in which the physically strong prevail.
However, when women are armed, things often turn out better. This armed woman used her gun to stop violent ex who broke into her home and cornered her in her bedroom. This ill but armed woman was able to fend off 3 home invaders, including one who came back to attack her again. This armed woman was able to defend herself against a rapist who came back to rape her for a second time in a week. This 85 year old armed woman held a young burglar at gunpoint and made the burglar call the police on himself. This armed woman stopped an attacker who tried to ambush her. This armed pregnant woman used a shotgun to scare away two home invaders. This armed female school teacher used a gun to save herself from a convicted felon who broke into her home. I could go on to name more examples, but the point should be clear: gun ownership saves lives.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/14/woman-beheaded-after-order-of-protection-fails-to-stop-alleged-kiler/
Tragic Proof that Guns are Often Needed for Effective Self Defense
Back on October 20th, 2008, KATV anchorwoman Anne Pressly was found unconscious and severely beaten in her home. Days later, she died without ever regaining consciousness. New information has arisen in this case, showing that despite the unarmed young woman’s best efforts to defend herself, she was unable to do so.
The new information
The parents of the television anchorwoman who was beaten to death said there is evidence their daughter also was sexually assaulted, and that she broke her hand while trying to fight off her attacker. Every bone in Anne Pressly’s face was broken during the attack. The police are said to believe that the woman suffered the attack during the course of a random robbery, while others seem to believe it may have been a stalker. A man by the name of Curtis Lavelle Vance was reportedly linked to the crime by DNA evidence, and is also reportedly charged with the rape of a school teacher from April of 2008.
Lessons to be learned
This murder, and indeed all murders, is tragic. A promising young life has been cut short, and a family is in mourning. However learning from tragedies such as this are the only way that they can be prevented in the future.
1. The first lesson that I see here is that having a gun for self defense could have saved Anne Pressly’s life. Here, a physically small woman seems to have tried her very best to fight off an attacker, and even managed to break her hand in the process. But despite her commendable efforts, a physically stronger criminal was able to rob her, rape her, and beat her to death. Compare this to cases where armed women have been attacked, and the benefits of gun ownership become apparent. This woman was able to shoot the rapist who broke in to her home for a second time. This woman was able to defend herself against a home invading stalker. This 85 year old woman was able to stop a burglar in her home. This pregnant woman was able to save herself from two home invaders.
2. The second lesson that I see here is that unarmed criminals are deadly too, meaning that we wouldn’t be better off with no guns in society. Those who wish to ban guns will often erroneously suggest that gun bans will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. [This is plainly untrue because criminals don't obey gun bans any more than they obey the laws against murder or robbery, which is why cities like Chicago and D.C. have had handgun bans yet have multiple handgun shootings just about every day.] But, for the sake of argument, lets assume that gun bans really would keep guns out of the hands of everyone, including criminals. In that hypothetical world, people like Anne Pressly would continue to be beaten to death by physically stronger criminals, as gun bans have a disproportionate effect upon the physically weaker members of society. Since violent criminals tend to be young males who are stronger than their victims, taking away “the great equalizer” would be a surefire way to help criminals and harm their victims.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/12/02/tragic-proof-that-guns-are-often-needed-for-effective-self-defense/
The gun-banners would have women remain defenseless.
In the time it took you to type all that crap I just scrolled over, Mr. Johnson, I caught a five-pound striper and two nice white bass. Har, har, har.
JJ,
“-Reports indicate police fire 7 to 10 shots for EACH perp in a battle. Even police MISS their target on most shots. (Remember, the target is moving)
Oh wow! The opportunity to nail 6-9 innocent bystanders per crook must have you salivating!
In responce to the comment “Rights abused end up being rights taken away”
WRONG, our “rights” are neither granted, nor taken away by the government, only PROTECTED. It’s clearly mapped out in the U.S. Constitution. You end the Constitution, you end the United States of America. Personally I think it exists in name only in todays day and age.