‘Common Sense Gun Laws’: Obama’s Attack on the Second Amendment
Throughout the 2008 election cycle, Barack Obama espoused support for the Second Amendment. He said he agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case against the D.C. gun ban, professed that “there is an individual right to bear arms,” and appeared in campaign commercials shaking hands with hunters in the field down here in Texas. Yet he simultaneously espoused support for stricter gun control measures, because the truth is that he shares the Brady Center’s conviction that the Second Amendment “is not absolute.” This was evident to anyone who took the time to investigate Obama’s voting record. Even the fruit-loopers on democraticunderground.com worried that Obama’s “anti-gun stand” would undo him.
But Obama won. And now, as president, almost all the emphasis in his rhetoric seems to have shifted from professing individual rights to promoting “common sense gun laws” as the Trojan horse from which he and his minions plan to launch a crippling attack on the Second Amendment. This was evident during his inauguration, when he put the handshakes with hunters in Texas behind him and posted the following “urban policy” on his website:
Obama and Biden … favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Throughout the election campaign both the NRA and Gun Owners of America warned that Obama’s pro-gun talk was all a sham, but Obama laughed off their concerns. Then, the moment he was sworn into office he posted an urban policy that proved them right and proved that those of us who love liberty have a fight on our hands. Adding insult to injury, Obama followed this up by appointing Eric Holder and Rahm Emmanuel to his cabinet. Gun Owners of America strongly opposed Holder’s nomination, and Emmanuel shares Obama’s deep dislike of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
How will Obama use the “common sense gun laws” approach to undercut the Second Amendment? If the past is any indication, he will use tragedy to justify further regulation as he did in early 2008 in the wake of the deadly shootings on the campus of Northern Illinois University. Just days after those shootings, the president expressed support for California’s “common sense gun law” that requires all semi-automatic handguns to be manufactured with “micro-stamping” capability. This law, which goes into effect in California in 2010, mandates that every semi-automatic sold in the state be equipped with a special firing mechanism that makes a distinctive mark — a “fingerprint” — on every bullet casing fired.
The POTUS for Life Hussein Obama wil have his way with the Constitition like a rapist does with his victim.
His Marxist Agenda will destroy America as we know it.
And most people are so starstruck that they can’t or wont see it happening
Everybody better start getting ready for the One World Government
ACORN and the U.N. have thier foot in the door and they are now am welcomed
guest
Every firearm in existence that uses a metallic cartridge case already leaves a “fingerprint” on the case. It’s called the firing-pin imprint on the primer and, in the case of a firearm which ejects its cases after each shot (self-loaders, bolt-action, lever-action, single-shot, etc.), the mark of the extractor and/or ejector on the cartridge rim.
I know tracing firearms by this method works. I used to put people behind bars by using it.
Demanding a “special mechanism” in a firearm to do what the mechanism’s ordinary operation already does only betrays the average “anti-gun” legislator’s astounding ignorance of the things they so despise.
As for The One and his minions, anyone who is surprised by their hostility toward civilian gun ownership and their determination to disarm law-abiding citizens must have slept through both the Clinton Administration and The One’s tenure in office prior to becoming Teleprompter of the United States. Speaking of him, the only time he ever told the truth about his hatred for Americans he deems less “enlightened” than his own Messianic self was in the famous “bitter clingers” remark he made in front of an audience of like-minded “enlightened elitists” in San Francisco. The rest of the time, he just lied through his teeth on the subject. Now that he’s in power, he doesn’t have to lie anymore. (Whether or not he can actually remember what he was going to say without The All-Powerful Teleprompter to remind him is another thing entirely.)
If you want to kniow what “progressives” like The One really think, on any subject, the only way to find out is to learn what they say when they’re sure that only “the faithful” are listening.
clear ether
eon
Five words for all gun grabbers: “From My Cold Dead Hands”
No suprise here fools.
I’d like to know more about this:
http://www.bradenton.com/politics/story/1303992.html
It’s encouraging. But the common sense angle is not. Members of Congress show time and time again they have no sense of any kind. Being lawmakers they believe making laws will solve our problems despite obvious examples like the recent and tragic Oakland shootings that show these laws to be of little use.
So what are they going to do about revolvers that don’t eject casings?
The rifling in the barrel marks the projectile and is traceable to the gun that fired the bullet, even revolvers can be traced by bullet matches. Bad guys have found ways of retaining the spent carttridges so the the forensics guys can’t pick them up to trace. The common sense gun laws crowd have no idea of which they speak.
Plus there are tens of millions of guns in the US now, how are they going to get criminals to buy new “traceable” guns when the already holds thousands of old ones?
Jeff: “Five words for all gun grabbers: “From My Cold Dead Hands”
That’s funny, because they also had to pry an Uzi submachine gun from the cold dead hands of an eight year old kid who accidentally shot himself with the loaded weapon at a gun show.
I agree that the problem is not the guns. The problem is that stupid people love guns, and unfortunately stupid people don’t have the ability to think critically or abstractly about the consequences of bringing an 8 year old to a gun show putting a loaded Uzi in his hand.
The really ironic part about gun ownership is that the people who really are qualified to buy and store firearms safely and responsibly are the intelligent folks who only purchase a handgun or decide not own a gun at all, having logically reasoned that the chances of a home invasion are way too slim to justify having loaded assault rifles and SMGs in the basement.
The stupid people, i.e., the folks who watch way too much 24 and Fox News, who fantasize about a race war, who bring their little kids to gun shows and make videos of themselves shooting stuff in the backyard, always seem to own the most guns and seem to be the most vehement about preserving their right to own the Uzi that their stupid kid will eventually shoot himself or a friend with.
No wonder everybody is buying guns and ammo like crazy right now! Better get ‘em before the gubmint outlaws ‘em!
3. Jeff: I’m with you!
regards
e: firing pins and interior cylinder scrapes as the shell is extracted (after expansion due to firing) also leave unique marks. Fortunately, states like Tennessee are actually enacting legislation to make microstamping of ammunition and firearms illegal (SB1908). We are on the road to tyranny folks…it can’t get more obvious.
What should really scare people is House Joint Resolution 5 (H.J.RES 5) to repeal the 22nd article of the Constitutional amendment that limits presidential terms. Yes…Obma could serve indefinitely.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.5:
Steve P. – There are so many incorrct assumptions in your comments I can’t be bothered with all of them. Please just go to gunshop and tell them you want to buy a full-auto UZI or other SMG. You will be laughed out of the shop.
Sure, no need for a gun in a home until this is you: http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20285429&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
And nobody ever uses a gun for self-defense except all these people: http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
We need common sense voting laws, because it’s obvious that too many tax consumers are using it to the detriment of those who pay the taxes.
Liberals will no doubt find this an outrageous proposal. Their votes cause more harm than my guns ever did.
First off – Great article. I’ve thought of this same angle and worried myself that we’ll accept my freedom limitations in the name of “common sense.” Or, as the comment by Steve P. proves, that we’ll accept limits on freedom for “the children.”
Steve P. says gun deaths are caused in part by people fanticizing about 24. Hmmm…I wonder if car deaths are caused in part by people fanticizing about the Dukes of Hazzard? What follows Steve? Do we need “common sense car laws” now?
Great but frightening piece. I am more afraid of my fellow citizens allowing Obama to take guns under the guise of “common sense” than I am of Obama actually taking them. Someone has to enable him to do so – he has to smell weakness. And I’m scared our quick submission to the phrase “common sense gun laws” is the enabler he’s looking for.
At least you can purchase a gun. It is almost impossible to get one in Canada, unless of course you are a gang member. I am in the process of obtaining a license here but was told it could take up to one year. The Socialist mayor of Toronto has closed down all the firing ranges. It’s time Canadians started arming themselves.
Laura, we will end up just like you (in Canada) in a very short time if we do not draw a line in the sand. Gun control, whether in the name of “common sense” or whatever is not acceptable and we have to let our politicians here know that. I believe it was George Washington who said “a free people ought to be armed.”
Obama has not told the truth about anything since elected to office! I took my CPL class 3/21 and getting on board stocking up. By the way the class was full. Does that tell anyone anything?
In spite of California’s intent, there is no functioning micro-stamping of bullets and shell cases technology available today. The entire micro-stamping bill introduction effort is as a result of 1 company that can’t make their own product function reliably and have been searching for a number of years for a Congressional supporter so that they could receive earmarks to continue their efforts.
Not that Barry and his team don’t want to restrict our right of self protection, because they do and will if citizens don’t stand up to them.
Great article – again. There is nothing “common sense’ in any
newgun laws. No innovative law will prevent criminal use of a firearm. Take the criminal away from the equation and all crimes stop. And, firearm is used only in few percent of violent crime.If memory serves, CA just decided to let bunch of criminals free, due to politicians calculations that only 150 murders and x-number of rapes entail, compared to millions the state salvages in the process.
Nope, new gun laws have nothing to with preventing crime. I think over 80% of the murders are committed by gang-bangers killing other gang-bangers … and most at the age of 18!
As to “micro-stamping” and other ridiculous measures – how long does it take to exchange a part? File it a bit?
Cars kill what … 40,000 people, hospitals over 100,000, swimming pools … pens …
I’m quite convinced and afraid that the gun-banners will go too far this time.
Wow, Steve P. hits all the standard leftist talking points… Fox News, 24, race wars. Any other cliches you want to hit us with, Steve?
8. Steve P. wrote:
That’s funny, because they also had to pry an Uzi submachine gun from the cold dead hands of an eight year old kid who accidentally shot himself with the loaded weapon at a gun show.
Peter writes: Please, Oh genius of geniuses, explain to us plebocites how further draconian gun laws would have averted that admitted tragedy? Please make sure to explain, since it was all being conducted under the authority of a law enforcement officer, what current laws were broken that must be corrected?
Here’s a deal for you: Keep the gun laws we have now. Keep the abortion laws we have now. Anybody got a problem with that?
Actually when a population is allowed to carry concealed weapons, shootings go down since the gun man can’t be sure someone will pull out a gun and start shooting him. When Israel allowed their citizens to carry concealed weapons, terrorist stopped shooting people in the streets.
I also read that the Soviet Union had plans to invade all countries but the US because too many of its citizens had guns.
Gun Sales are up thanks to Uncle Barack.
If he tries to take the guns there will be blood in the streets.
Are Steven P. and David S. the same boob?
Steve P enjoys using the tired old tactics of lefties–attempting to impugn the intelligence of those who disagree with him, smearing with associations to put people on the defensive, and–the favorite tactic of all–mischaracterizing a story to fit his agenda (without even a citation). All to be expected.
But many reactions to folks like Steve P does demonstrate–yet again–that while the Democrats are the evil party, Republicans are the stupid party. Yet again, we play defense to their offense. Leave us alone! Respect the Constitution and individual rights!
The Steve P’s of this world will never do any of that. No matter how many of their moronic laws and regulations they pass, it will not be enough to change human nature. So they will need more of our freedoms for their utopian crap. The Constitution is toilet paper to them and anyone who supports individual rights (now called a conservative–we used to be called liberals) must be defamed and destroyed so their lust for control can be fed.
Instead of being defensive and appealing to better judgment (they have none), we need to attack and either destroy or conquer the institutions that foster the Steve P’s of this country. One at a time until the Steve P’s are either as cowed as conservatives have been for the last 20 years, are converted to real liberals, or have emigrated to some welfare-state hellhole like Canada.
Anything else is just appeasement. And we know how well appeasement works….
btw, does anyone know what a child proof gun looks like? If it means that it must be kept in a safe or with a trigger lock, that is just insane.
Steve P. is a stone liar who has obviously never been to a gun show. Steve: you can’t buy uzis at a gun show. Every gun show is crawling with police. Anyone who even tried to load any weapon at any gun show would be pummelled by the nearest hundred people. The incident you mention here not only never happened; it can’t happen.
Here’s why people like Steve P and Obama want to confiscate guns: An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject.
- Are Steven P. and David S. the same boob?
Not likely. But it’s a safe bet they’re both being paid, per post, by the same OFA- or ACORN-backed group.
#8 STEVE PUS: Six words for a stalinist,gun-hating cretin:”Drain the pus out of your brain.”
@24. rdkng07:
Nope. I’m guessing the second amendment is one area we may disagree on.
In my opinion, guns do need to be widely available for the population to be safe from tyranny. I’m not necessarily opposed to all gun regulation, and when the government gets truly out of hand, I’d like to have arms at the ready.
Peace.
DS
Steve P. provide a link to your story. Is this an urban myth?
Surely a troll. But unfortunately, his ignorance and projection lay bare the mind of a bigot: One who enjoys the attention, you lavish on him. There is no reasoning with him. Why bother. Go on to discuss other aspects of the story: For example, obvious use of the Mexican crisis to front misinformation that is easily countered. The activist groups using this tactic are clear. Who in government is promoting it?
I just went to a gun show on this past Sunday and know what the rules are. No loose ammo, no magazine in any gun except those that are rifles with their bolts blocked. , no operational bolt or cylinder, ie; vinyl tie through the works and no sales from any vendor without a background check. Now any one of these rules,(laws), can be broken but so can any rule or law. If the One thinks that making gun ownership more difficult and that new laws will make us safe then he should be happy with the laws we have now. Only the law abiding people honor them anyway. Crooks don’t care what this fool proposes.
one of my own
I actually agree with you. There must be something wrong with me.
Steven P
You’ve already been called out on your stupid blog. These people are right about your story.
Here is something else. Most uses of guns go unrecorded because a trigger is never pulled. Usually just seeing a gun will deter any perb.
The old salami slicing tactic has reappeared. If they can’t take the guns away in one fell swoop, they will legislate a slice here and a slice there. Eventually the whole salami is consumed. The real Obama has come out.
Why does the left fear our gun ownership so much?
The story about the UZI he referenced is true but occurred at a range not a gun show – happened in Massachusetts I believe. He left out the fact that the adults involved used incredibly poor judgment and are now being prosecuted and sued.
I don’t know what Obama will support, but if we can save one life, I would favor more restrictivd gun laws. The rest of you don’t seem to give a damn how many lives the loose guns laws cause!
Wow, shocking that I *mostly* agree with “oneofmyown.” He has only one thing wrong: the 2nd Amendment does not limit our right to own and use weapons for self-defense, hunting, and, yes, even limiting government or overthrowing it. That means a grandfather clause on weapons’ buying will not cut it.
And while I am personally/spiritually/ethically opposed to most abortions, I believe in leaving it legal to do so.
May I recommend a very scholarly book:
“The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms” by Stephen P. Halbrook
The opening chapter describes how King George III sent Gen. Thomas Gage to Massachusetts to attempt to disarm the population. It is very clear that the founders intended the 2nd Amendment as an individual right that makes possible a collective ability of a free people to let government know who’s boss.
I’ve heard ALL the “liberal”/Leftist arguments against the 2nd Amendment. None of them hold water against the correct and proper arguments that are based upon the Constitution and the Founders’ intentions.
This is why they pursue “the living Constitution” school of thought in their law schools. That’s code for “the U.S. Constitution is an anachronistic, flawed document that we have to get beyond.” And that they are the enlightened ones to tell us how we are to live our lives. Folks, this has been building for decades: we are on a collision course with the entire Marxist tradition as it has taken root in our country. Whether we do it peacefully through the ballot box or through civil war/rebellion, WE HAVE TO HAVE IT OUT WITH THESE PEOPLE. This is a can we cannot kick down the road much longer. This conflict is building to a climax and we had better be organized to defeat them, whatever the means.
Here’s the link, geniuses: http://i.abcnews.com/TheLaw/story?id=6393527&page=1
Peter writes: Please, Oh genius of geniuses, explain to us plebocites how further draconian gun laws would have averted that admitted tragedy? Please make sure to explain, since it was all being conducted under the authority of a law enforcement officer, what current laws were broken that must be corrected?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s not the gun laws that are the problem. It’s education. It’s the thousands of slack-jawed morons who are ignorant of the laws and don’t possess enough brains to safely supervise a minor with a firearm. My question is, if there are individuals out there who do not possess the level of cognitive functioning necessary to practice firearm safety, and there clearly are plenty, who does it benefit that they are allowed to own and operate guns?
Laws are supposed to protect everyone, not just a fringe group of morons who are infatuated with assault rifles. And you can have as many laws on the books you want, but once you put a deadly weapon in the hands of a barely literate grade school dropout, you’re just asking for another Knoxville church shooting.
#8, please learn your facts. i suggest going to the pink pistols web site, for your edification. citizen gun ownership saves far more lives than it ever takes. private ownership of automobiles is far more dangerous. the reason i have a loaded gun, in a holster, on my person, is not for home invasion, nor is it for duck hunting, although these might be secondary uses. i have a gun, because it is my right, and that right represents the teeth of liberty. i was once attacked by gang bangers, while walking home , these fellows removed my teeth, so i had to live with out them, for quite a while. i did not like it much, and i’m sure you wouldn’t have liked it either, so when it comes to my teeth be they for eating steak, and venison, or for ensuring the protection of all my inalienable rights, i will fight to keep them. one last suggestion. get a gun, learn to shoot it, allow the transformation of liberty to take place within you. then perhaps you will see, oh yes, you will see. it’s worth a shot any way
One of My Own and Oscar TG: Now you’re talking:
Both of you please run for office so we can go back to making babies, money, fixing the freeways, preserving parks, locking up violent criminals, and enhancing the schools etc., instead of endlessly resisting candidates who want to take away guns, abortion, free speech and what’s left of my income under the guise of our “best interests.” PS: One of my Own: you are a republican and don’t know it yet.
Wake up America and arm yourselves before it is too late. Protect your family in the war that is coming.
37. The Shadow wrote:
I don’t know what Obama will support, but if we can save one life, I would favor more restrictivd gun laws. The rest of you don’t seem to give a damn how many lives the loose guns laws cause!
Peter writes: And cite for me one life that was cost by the gun laws already in place that wouldn’t have been lost with newer, more restrictive laws?
As was stated earlier in this thread, only the law-abiding gun owners are the ones effected by this nonsense. The criminals don’t care about the laws we already have, why should they give a flying fig about any other laws that are proposed or passed.
As the infamous bumper sticker says, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
And while you’re at it, Shaddy, mind telling us what further constitutional rights you are willing to let go of. Because that is the direction we are heading in here. First we lose the second amendment. Then the govenment takes away our rights to free press and free assembly. Feel like having to pay for a permit so you can invite more than three people to your back yard BBQ? How about when you are told you can only watch MSNBC as your news source? And forget the internet. First the internet permits become too expensive, then the government bans it entirely “in the interests of protecting the children” because all sorts of bad things can be found there. How about when the government decrees you can only own a car that can travel 50 miles to a tank of gas, and are only allowed to buy gas once a week, to save the environment and cut down on that evil Carbon Dioxide. Where does it stop, Shaddy? Please, tell me where it stops?
and again to #8, the semi-auto rifle, and ammo in the basement is for militia use. which is the responsibility of citizens living in a constitutional republic. please educate yourself. we tire of trying to do so.
Right you are, Old Soldier.
Steve P, if you knew the difference between a gun show and a machine gun shoot, you might have a clue how stupid your original assertion was.
The ‘slack-jawed moron’ and ‘barely literate grade school dropout’ found responsible for this tragedy was… a government employee – one responsible for enforcing existing firearms laws: the Pelham, MA Chief of Police, Edward Fluery. He allowed an unlicensed 15-year-old to ‘supervise’ the child who shot himself.
Functionally, this incident was no different from going off to get a beer while you let some inexperienced teenager watch your kid in the pool. When your kid drowns because he can’t swim, it’s a tragedy. By your ‘reasoning’, more swimming pool regulations will solve this sort of problem.
Drawing erroneous sweeping generalizations from this one tragedy is exactly the sort of thing that leads to overweening government. The regulations and restrictions that result don’t solve anything, they don’t protect anyone, they just penalize the law-abiding.
The Kenyan has already beat us to the punch. The D.O.D. is grinding up brass casings instead of recycling them. Its an 80% loss to the government…but it matters little. They win. You can’t get ammo.
41. Steve P. wrote:
This is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s not the gun laws that are the problem. It’s education. It’s the thousands of slack-jawed morons who are ignorant of the laws and don’t possess enough brains to safely supervise a minor with a firearm.
Peter writes: First he says we don’t have enough gun laws, then claims he said the laws aren’t the problem. Steve P is obviously a member of the Obama cabinet, because he is an expert at talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Read your own story. The incident in question was under the overall supervision of a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Yes, mistakes were made, and the result was tragic, but the point of this entire article and threat is the fact that NOT A SINGLE LAW IN PLACE or one that has BEEN PROPOSED were either broken or could have prevented this tragedy. So why propose more draconian, useless, subversive laws whose aim is to remove guns from responsible gun owners. Enforce the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS and get the guns out of the hands of the criminals and felons!
Steve P, if people are too “slack-jawed” to own a gun, they are also clearly not fit to vote either. From the results of last election, there is obviously a real jaw problem in America. BTW, if a “barely literate grade school dropout” wants to try a mass shooting in my neighborhood, he won’t have a very long career, and it won’t be the police that fix the problem.
#40, i know the site. abcnews…..america’s bitter communist news. org
BTW, something this article might have mentioned was this:
Typo: That last sentence should not have been blockquoted.
Can SOMEONE PLEASE add a comment preview function to this site?
we really aught to stop answering the trolls, it’s just too easy, kinda like hunting over bait. but i guess that’s good too, when one is hungry.
Here – this one works fine, plus it’s easy to update.
37. The Shadow@Mar 24, 2009 – 10:28 am
but if we can save one life, I would favor more restrictivd gun laws. The rest of you don’t seem to give a damn how many lives the loose guns laws cause!
Please don’t laugh at The Shadow (too hard). It/he/her is SINCERE!
To extend the analogy, if we can save ONE life (by banning meat, donuts, candy, anything), these guys would be all favor the restrictions.
The rest of us will just have to suffer the banning to all population, for a good cause! Otherwise, we just don’t give a damn to the human lives!
For steve p. you said ” I agree that the problem is not the guns. The problem is that stupid people love guns, and unfortunately stupid people don’t have the ability to think critically or abstractly about the consequences of bringing an 8 year old to a gun show putting a loaded Uzi in his hand.”
Lets outlaw stupidity , problem solved and every one gets what they want.
Steve P: So, you’re reasoning is that failure of education and demonstrated lack of responsibility on the part of users resulting in death or injury, is grounds for . . . what, exactly? It’s already been pointed out that automobiles and many other examples fit your criteria for attack. In other words, yours is an argument at best in bad faith. The link you provided makes clear that laws, and _norms_ for the shows you malign were broken.
Apart from cheap insults grounded in a lack of knowledge both of the subject and of the people you attack, I see, as I wrote before, nothing more in your posts here and in past threads in which you’ve participated, than the overactive and malignant mind of a bigot.
You have every right to post here or anywhere anything you like. I’ve observed your antics here and earlier without much comment. But, frankly, I see no particular reason why anyone should engaged you now or in the future.
The question is: why the totalitarians want to disarm The People ? (Note, “The People” is obviously a ref. to “We the People…”).
We all know the answer, and the anti-gun crowd cannot hide the truth: disarming The People is the first NECESSARY step of the process of ENSLAVING The People (a.k.a. “socialist revolution”).
It is well known, at least to those who have a brain and can read the – disgusting – commie propaganda published by our “universities”, that the subversives have considered the gangs and the criminals in general their ally and their ARMY for the last thirty years.
The project is very clear.
If you need a reference, try “Empire” by Antonio Negri, one of the chiefs of the italian Red Brigades, published by (I don’t remember) MIT UP or some other big commie college.
The motto of the anti-gun movement is
CRIMINALS OF THE WORLD, UNITE !
From reading these posts I get the idea the best course of action would be to outlaw “common sense.”
@37 The Shadow: First, there many restrictions already in place on firearms and ammunition. Enforcement of existing regulations is hampered less by the folks you seem to fear than by bureaucratic and systemic inadequacy. Second, you too will be arguing in bad faith if you apply the “one life” rule to firearms, but not also autos, medical care, and any of a host of other examples that one could dream up.
I only wish I was in the firearms business right now. Those people are raking it in.. I’ve bought four guns and $500 in ammo since Nov. 4th.. and like the old saying goes, ‘cold, dead fingers’…
everywhere I shop, it’s crowded. Every range I shoot at, I wait in line. Here in Texas it’s like we’re arming for invasion or something. And as wacky as a gunshow crowd can look, I’d rather be on a ranch with them when the fight comes than in a newspaper office with a bunch of journalists.
Nobody would have suspected I would become an enthusiast at 48 after a lifetime of indifference to firearms, but then a LOT of things since Nov. 4th have been unanticipated….
I’m surprised there seems to be no mention of the latest (as of 10 +/- days ago) out of the DoD. http://www.theshootist.net/2009/03/dod-ends-sale-of-expended-military.html Prohibiting sales of spent brass military casings to remanufacturers (who sell to private citizens as well as local police depts) will drive up ammunition costs. Guns are no good if they have no bullets.
I also am from Canada and no one can own handguns here unless you are strictly registered to shoot in a club. OR you belong to one of the hundreds of different gangs. So basically only the bad guys get to carry guns. And the courts too, if you use a gun in a crime, you might get an extra 6 months – or not, these bad boys had childhood problems you know. You are correct, our rights have been chipped away since our Obama (Pierre Eliot Trudeau) and yours will be too, although it sounds like not so slowly……
17. karlstro2u:
Obama has not told the truth about anything since elected to office!
~~~~~~~~
Are you implying he told the truth before the election? As far as I was aware, he has always lied. (well, the bitter-clingers and guns was what he really thought, or distributing wealth – but he thought he was speaking to his friends and no one else would know.)
28. goy:
- Are Steven P. and David S. the same boob?
Not likely. But it’s a safe bet they’re both being paid, per post, by the same OFA- or ACORN-backed group.
~~~~~
My, what high ideals they have. so capitalist. Makes you wonder why they’d support a marxist.
Why does the left fear our gun ownership so much?
~~~~~~~
same reason PETA won’t attack Hell’s Angels for wearing leather. They’re S.C.A.R.E.D it might be used against them for their bully tactics.
- As far as I was aware, he has always lied.
So far. But that’s ‘Change’, right?
Sherab Zangpo @59 has it exactly right. Those of us who used to be in the Marxist fold years ago know how these people think. Plus, there is ample evidence from history to support our contention as to the real motive behind controlling weapons, banning weapons, and then seizing weapons. They realize that they cannot ultimately win their socialist revolution if we are armed. That’s the bottom line. We win, they lose. Even if they have the criminal gangs and some small, praetorian elements of the military, they lose big time. If we are armed and most of the military comes over to our side, they get slaughtered.
We hold the advantage right now, and they know it.
Review the history of failure on the part of Gen. Thomas Gage’s attempts to disarm the colonials in New England prior to April 1775. The British only succeeded in seizing some of the powder stores and interdicting some arms’ sales and traffic via the ports. The colonists simply hid their arms and moved their powder and shot stores farther inland, away from the capabilities of the Redcoat patrols. Gage had extensive correspondence with other British officials about his realistic assessment of his capabilities to carry out his mission. He knew he was going to lose. There were just way too many armed colonials, militias, arms, and hidden caches. He said he would need an army much larger than the one he possessed. Very much larger. His meager force of about 1,700 men faced an impossible task. In fact, his posture was mainly defensive, as they were garrisoned within fortified positions just outside of Boston at Fort William.
Gentlemen, refuting our critics on this thread is an impossible task. They are not here with open minds. Only to harrass, run up the colors for their side, and then mock our intelligent replies. I prefer not to engage them at all. I left their side over twenty years ago, so I know what rattles around inside their brains and their organizations. You can find such people and their organizations on any college and university campus in the country and in most of the dense, urban areas of the country.
Boy, 4, Killed by Baseball to Chest
IF ONLY ONE LIFE CAN BE SAVED THEN ALL BASEBALL SHOULD BE BANDED.
BASEBALL SERVES NO PURPOSE IN A MODERN WORLD.
Hey time to charge people at the ball park and ban baseball would make just as much sense.
how dare they let a 4 year old so near some thing so dangers those are bad bad parents to think taking a 4 year old to a ball park.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/03/national/a155707D57.DTL
more laws to get that killer game out of our lives.
Steve P. go after this one lest it is not written in to the constitution to be protected for the greater good of the whole population.
oh and I have lost two different kids that where god kids to me in the same year both where 10 years old to stupid traffic accidents and feel very sorry for any one that losses a child.
I also have known 4 people that have been killed personally three from home invaders and one that was stupid. The first one was a sweet old lady she was beaten to death with a snow shovel,two a nice lady that someone broke in raped and stabbed her to death third was a con just out of jail two months kicked in the door taped up and suffocated a very good man while his wife watched to get more money he thought they should have the first three the people where unarmed and last was trying was a guy I grew up with who was set to kill someone over a girl and got him self shot in self defense am I up set that he got killed because the man defended him self while the person I grew up with would have killed him with anything he had at hand.
The answer to last guy he had it coming the first three very bad I get a little sick thinking what they went thru with out a chance to protect self’s when society failed them.
accidents happen
I am sorry to have to make a point this way but hope gets people thinking.
@fred, I’m curious. As someone who has also grown out of the morally adolescent mindset of the left, I wonder if there’s a particular issue or event that opened your eyes.
#30 David S – OMG! I had a minor heart attack when I read your post! With all the Leftist positions you espouse, you have a sensible position on the 2nd Amendment? Gravity has just been repealed!
Good for you! You just earned a bit of respect from me, not because of your agreeing with me on an issue, but because you are not simply swallowing every radical Left policy position whole.
I’m with goy on many points including adding preview and spell checker buttons to this site.
#69 Fred
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. (That BTW reminds me that I have to study the American Revolution A LOT BETTER…)
I agree that the trolls are applying to this site their usual tactics of invasion/pollution of the debate: the voices of reason should carefully avoid the debate with people who come here just to add another territory to their conquests (after the schools, the universities, the media…).
I am particularly offended by those who speak “in such delicate terms” of respect of life…… and do support abortion, late term abortion, murder of terminally sick people who can’t defend themselves and other nazi-commie horrors.
Let’s not debate with the trolls.
There is no “difference of opinions” with supporters of MURDER, there is an abyss and a wall, let’s not kill ourselves jumping into such an abyss.
And I forgot to write:
THANK YOU for the opportunity to comment.
I am for mandatory gun ownership by all citizens and teaching children from the youngest age about how to use them properly and safely.
There, that fits all necessary liberal concerns about guns, their use and abuse, plus teaches the necessity of free people to be armed and why that is important.
We used to teach about self-restraint of speech and good manners, but that was back in the day you could expect someone who took offense to let you know about it and give you a chance to back down. Really we need good manners in society and we must learn that they are the least costly proposition… and a well armed society teaches good manners very, very quickly.
If guns kill people, then spoons are what make Rosie O’Donnell fat.
goy @71
There was no particular incident or person that is responsible for me leaving the Left. It was complicated and involved a lot of factors, people, and incidents. However, mostly it was where my intellectual journey took me. It would take a very long post to explain it, and I think it would be an intrusion on the topic of this thread. Very briefly, my entrance into the Left in 1977 and my exit from it in 1987 involved the way my Catholic faith and passion for the poor expressed itself. However, I was not an activist. Rather, as an undergraduate student, then as a Jesuit seminarian and graduate student, it was mainly an intellectual journey that took me down a particular path. I chose that path in response to the critiques of socialism coming from Michael Novak and other traditional theologians. As a budding young academic Marxist picking up on Frankfurt School thought and Liberation Theology currents, I decided to conduct a long investigation into the issues of utopian thought and human nature. What I discovered is that socialism will always be a failure because it is not compatible with human nature. Evil and evil people will always – ALWAYS – disrupt the attempts to bring heaven to earth. We have already seen this in history. The results have been devastating. Horrific. I found out, by doing a lot of investigation into psychology, neuroscience, and genetics that evil itself does have an organic basis as well as a human choice component. Once I realized this, I saw the handwriting on the wall. Furthermore, the fact that other Marxist intellectuals could not or refused to see this told me that something was seriously wrong with them. I also experienced and witnessed, in subtle ways and in very ordinary incidents, the degree of corruption and selfishness of these people. The depths of deceit they are willing to submit to in order to further their aims.
Not all on the Left are personally corrupt. There are many good people who are just fools. They don’t have malevolent motives, but intellectually they are lacking rigorous curiosity about the ideology that governs their worldview.
However, the leaders of the Gramscian Marxist movement are not simpletons. Be very afraid of them, and never let down your guard with them. This is why we must keep our wits about us and wage this war vigorously on the political/ideological front, while being prepared if the worst should be forced on us.
Notice how some cities that have the highest murder/violent crime rate have the strictest gun laws….
Just sayin
Guns and education go hand in hand. America is slack on both.
LIBERALS LACK LOGIC & COMMON SENSE
Liberal thinking stops at feel good.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/liberal-thinking-contradiction-in-terms.html
@Войска ПВО: I’m using Firefox 3.x – it has a built-in spell checker. But the Preview function would be VERY much appreciated here. The one I use on my WordPress site took about 3 minutes to install and configure. I believe it’s compatible with the (way) outdated version of WP they’re using here, although there might be performance issues on a site with this much traffic.
@fred: Thanks for that account. It was fascinating. Some folks are raised to have sense of moral maturity, others develop it on their own, and some simply never get it. I’m always especially interested in the stories of those who’ve made (or who can at least look back and see) their own shift out of that blighted mindset. Apropos this article, for me the trigger was … firearms and, specifically, the intellectual dishonesty of Clinton’s AWB. So maybe there’s hope for Dave S.
78–
Trinidadians don’t have the right to bear arms, yet have one of the highest murder rates by gun per capita in the world.
Hey guys, I believe it is in Switzerland (someone correct me if I’m wrong…I read it several weeks ago) they ensure that all (law abiding – kinda like us…) adults own a gun and are properly trained in its useage.
I agree with all those who recommend not trying to debate the trolls. They don’t want real honest debate. They want to call names and throw erroneous tales on the wall that don’t stick. They want to rule even if they don’t know what it will “cost” to have it their way – and it is not “they” who will have it in any event at the end of the day – it is the elitists…not the stage hands.
I’m sure many of you normal folks have seen that email that’s been going around for awhile that discusses history and the what happens to civilizations in various countries and regimes who have disarmed the people. It ain’t pretty.
In closing if you leftists/statists hate this country so bad cuz us gun clingers are so stupid, get the heck out and leave us alone! Go someplace where they already HAVE your utopian really cool ideas that don’t work; and stop trying to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY!
If the crap were to hit the fan…you cry babies would be the first to run to someone you knew would be able to protect you.
BTW – love the spoon/rosie clip. Did you know that steel doesn’t melt! Huh…that’s weird, I wonder how they bend it into all those funny shapes. Maybe it’s Obama’s magic stick. Geez….what dolts these statists are.
Arm up my friends!
goy,
Karl Marx said that socialism would create a New Moral Man. Not only is this ontologically and teleologically impossible, based upon sound reasoning and medical evidence, but also that the evidence of history strongly suggests that the opposite result happened. In every current and formerly socialist and Communist country the populations exhibit very high incidence of amorality, nihilism, and sociopathy.
Now, for the post-modern version of Marxist, he would say that Marx’s claim is irrelevant: they are not interested in making a New Moral Man. They would say that they are only interested in “social justice” and “progressive reform.” All visions of society have implied ethical norms. If you have an ethical norm (whatever it is) then you have a truth claim to make and a demand upon the human being. So, the post-modernist, cultural Marxist who follows Gramsci is lying to you, or is very stupid.
fred,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Your points of “Evil and evil people will always – ALWAYS – disrupt the attempts to bring heaven to earth” and “[t]he depths of deceit they [Marxist intellectuals] are willing to submit to in order to further their aims” need to become mantras.
I would love to buy you a beer and discuss this further – Belgian monk ale, of course.
Stephen P’s story of a eight year old with a machine gun reminds me of the fools I knew who would take their girl friends shooting. Instead of emphasizing safety and starting them with a 22, they hand their girlfriend a 12 gauge shotgun. The result is one anti-gun female. Who in their right mind hands a loaded submachine gun to an eight year old who barely has the strength to hold such a weapon yet control it.
I guess the answer is more gun control. Right?
fred,
If you haven’t read his work, it sounds like you’d be interested in Jon Haidt’s research, which provides a cognitive / developmental psychology perspective on the phenomenon of ideological differences. I’ve written some on this here, but I highly recommend finding and directly perusing Haidt’s and his colleagues’ work in this area. A good primer is here, which concludes:
Pretty enlightened for a self-described liberal, IMHO. Kind of the antithesis of the “I Won” attitude.
I’ve always wondered what would lead a so-called “intellectual” to buy wholesale into the utterly flawed philosophy Marx espoused, which either completely ignores basic human nature or assumes it can be molded through social engineering. Haidt’s research hints at a clear explanation, which I believe conservatives would do well to leverage.
The only places where socialist principles MOSTLY work is monasteries. And that is because the monks and priests take a voluntary vow of poverty (which means communal ownership of property). They are places where human beings are striving mightily to grow spiritually and in imitation of Jesus Christ and the order’s founders. And even those communities are not perfect. You will still find sin among those men. Most often the most practiced one is that of backstabbing and subtle manipulations. Even in the Church you will find bad characters.
Lastly, the only system I know of (I’m no longer a Jesuit; I’m married and an investment professional) that creates wealth and improves the standard of living of most of the people is capitalism. Free markets work. Socialism brings economic stagnation at best. Occasionally, as has happened in Europe sometimes, it does a little better than stagnation. But if you look at the long-term structural unemployment in Europe you will see that even in good times over there their unemployment rates are at levels we would not find acceptable.
Finally, I would like to say to those who are critics of those of us who own guns and defend the 2nd Amendment: you have set up ridiculous straw men about who gun owners are. I know guys who, right now, own assault rifles (I don’t because I have other priorities for my money and my family comes first. I have other rifles and guns). Not one of these guys is a wild-eyed, slack jawed hayseed. They are all educated professionals who are airline pilots, salesmen, and engineers. Most, but not all, are military veterans. They are deeply conservative and very cautious people about firearms. They all share my view that we must energetically exhaust the political process before even considering something more drastic. They all love their country. And you would be surprised to know that they are charitable men too, who do what they can to help those in need. All are church going men who recoil at murderous acts. You would never, ever find such as them using their guns for nefarious purposes. The only people who need fear them are criminals and tyrants.
Oscar, I’ve seen the analog of your “12 gauge intro” in backpacking and climbing. Common sense does not come naturally to all folks.
I’m a texan. My dad owned several guns growing up, one of which was armed and under his bed. I don’t know how (maybe it’s his ex-marines-ness) but looking, much less touching, never crossed my mind. I got my concealed carry liscense at 21. I sold my .40 when I had kids. My reasoning was it’s no use locked up, and can’t be unlocked and loaded around kids. We just bought another pistol, and are getting a shotgun. Even kept locked up, there’ll be useful if the worst happens.
My old-southern mom bought my twin girls BB guns when they were 2. Not to use then, but because she wanted them to have them. She and her husband live on a farm, with a loaded shotgun over the door of their log cabin. It’s just a necessary fact of life. In fact we have a running joke, if my mom ever throws coffee on you you’d best disappear. She gives snakes a chance by tossing coffee first, then gets the gun
If they outlaw guns, I’ll be an outlaw. I will not give it up.
I appreciate Fred’s point above! Tyrants fear
citizens with weapons. Tyrants are folks who
distrust citizens. tyrants are lawyers become
congressmen/woMen who write more laws to protect
themselves from citizens. Suddenly everyone is encouraged to obtain a “Carry/conceal” permit–
thus providing a complete profile of these hapless sheep gun owners; who voluntarily mark themselves for gun confiscation? –That is how tyrants operate, liars are tyrants and tyrants are liars! The 2nd. Amendment was designed to protect citizens against tyranical government.
I carried hunting guns as a kid in Ohio farm country, as an adult during 65-71 in RVN and
in nuclear weapons duty and over a 21-year period as a USArmy professional soldier. I have
total respect for people and firearms but can no longer posess firearms due to a conviction that has nothing to do with firearms. This is what tyranny looks like: (branding, disarmanent by
law, demonizing.) Our government is oppressive and freedom of press has become freedom to oppress. Tyranny is manifested by disarming as many as possible then identifying every gun owner for later removal. Your local paper (media) is probably a tool of your state!
If you think guns are dangerous, don’t own one.
Leave the rest of us alone.
How many people has Roe v Wade killed since the 70s, as opposed to legal firearms in the hands of law abiding Americans?
Exactly right, Jones. Too bad one of the abortions was not that evil, amoral guy out in Oakland who killed four police officers and was also found to be a serial rapist. Not that I’m for abortion as a means of birth control. Just that a lot of these animals are born to “parents” who have no business being parents in the first place.
I for one believe that this in fact his ploy to force someone/something to take an action, which will show the “need” to the American people how this is in fact “needed” to save the country. Dictators are more than happy or willing to “sacrifice a few”, for the “good of the many”.
For a “crack head”, I am sure his handlers are moving his strings where they want him.
Case in point, Napalitano on Fox today talking about how to “stem” the flow of weapons into Mexico, which of course is what is causing all the violence there..umm..sure.. Same thing/mindset is used in New York and New Jersey to berate Virgina and outlying states for “illegal” guns coming into their states.
This is not rocket science, as I, a lowly farm boy can see right through it. Now, one day, we will see where all the bravado I read about concerning this subject will actually be acted upon. Me, I am betting on what transpired in all other countries of the world, roll over and capitulate..
Stephen P
Thank you for conceding that the your story was a common sense issue. I’ll concede something also. I don’t see the necessity of owning or firing a machine gun, submachine gun, or machine pistol unless we are invaded by a foreign power.
Personally I like hitting something my first shot and hope its the only shot I have to make.
Sleep well tonight. Believe it or not these conservative boys probably would protect you with their lives. That might not mean anything to you, but it means a hell of a lot to us.
Stephen P
The common sense I was referring to is not Obama’s version of it.
Haven’t read all of the posts, but reviewed enough to skip over the remaining “anti-marxist” rants.
To the surprise of many of you, there are many of us Obama supporters that support second amendment rights. I certainly do, as do others. Yet, I’m anti-NRA or any other organization that lobbies on behalf of an industry and uses a populist/constitutional facade to justify their cause. This is just pure BS.
“Common Sense Gun Laws” do not equate to gun confiscation. Something must be done to insure that the mentally unstable, criminally inelgible and other undesirable categories in society do not obtain weapons. If these common sense gun laws become waiting periods and other measures solely designed to protect public safety, then I think that it is foolish to fight back. You may find that attempts to work with this administration on this issue may yield more positive results than fighting. The people, by slight majority still generally approve of the second amendment. Obama and the democrats know this well. I don’t think that Senate and House dems will ever forget 1994 and their gun control policies enacted in the crime bill of that year that significantly contributed to their loss of congress. I used to be a fervent NRA supporter. I know the cause well and the policy position of the organization, yet I find their recent meddling in regards to this issue to be self-destructive for gun owners. The general position of the organization is that any yielding of position (giving ground) – even background checks or other attempts to regulate the industry – will produce a snowball effect of further erosion of second amendment rights. I concur that the fears are justified, but the excessive paranoia produced by recent NRA produced propaganda is not justified. Gun owners need a partnership with government. We have a great right in the USA to own firearms. This concept doesn’t exist in much of the globe. Let’s not blow it people. It is worthy to at least attempt to work with the current administration to maintain a right that can only be guaranteed by our government. The constitution is the government. So many people have sold themselves on the belief that they somehow know Obama’s character and belief system and that it’s all commie-marxist-lennist-socialist, etc… This is all BS. It’s a false narrative, just as false as similar accusations from the left that conservativism is simply a front for xenophobic-rascism. I used to believe this stuff about prez Clinton and I look back and can’t help but realize that I was a fool. Gun owners do have an option with this administration to voice their concerns. Obama will listen. Attempts to voice concerns with logic and reason will yield a response that is logical and reasonable and respects fundamental constitutional rights. Of this, I’m absolutely certain.
It’s always well and good to be aware what the gun banners are doing, but the news in this article is old. Obama didn’t wear a mask, and 740 million will buy you an election.
California’s micro-stamping law that was amended in to the “not unsafe” approved handgun roster will not be implementable in 2010. It may take a decade or more, and it will surely not prevent handguns from entering California.
This law has many patent requirements that will not work, but again this is an indication of the people who would put such a law on the books in the first place. These are the same people who are priviledged to serve in a state that has the 8th largest economy in the world, but can’t help themselves from running it in to the ground.
California gun owners have already found a legal way to circumvent the roster of approved handguns, meaning it’s a moot point anyway. Power mongering leftists are turning out to be their own worst enemies.
Heck, it gets even better. There is a very good chance that the 9th Circuit panel who are currently deciding Nordyke vs. King will incorporate the Heller decision. All of these laws in California are based on the collective rights model which will be thrown out when incorporation happens. Good bye California gun laws.
HR45 is most likely not going anywhere. There are too many sensible Democrats who aren’t going to let that happen.
The talk and concern relating to Mexican crime is pretty much a sign that Obama and friends know that Americans are smarter having one failed “assault weapon” ban behind us. There was nothing to show for it while we had it, thus proving that gun control is pretty much a failure. They need a new excuse, but its turning out to be a poor one. The notion of having our rights curtailed because of crime in a failed state is absurd. They’re coming up with stupid reasons since their tired old lies have been debunked.
@ajacksonian #75: In all seriousness, I do believe that firearms education ought to occur in K-12 with an emphasis on safety, as well as the history, the rights, and the responsibilities inherent to the 2nd Amendment. I remain surprised that this hasn’t been championed at least in some parts of the country. It would even seem an appropriate response to the concerns expressed in this and other threads, I’ve recently read.
Don’t more kids drown in 5 gallon buckets than accidentally shoot themselves?
It’s time to outlaw buckets….
#22. one of my own:
“Here’s a deal for you: Keep the gun laws we have now. Keep the abortion laws we have now. Anybody got a problem with that?”
How about “harmonizing” those two constitutionally protected rights?
A minor can then get a taxpayer-subsidized gun without parental consent. And no-one could harass that minor or retaliate against the exercise of these rights without being prosecuted and being liable to civil penalties.
How’s that grab you?
No Amendment is as important as the 2nd becuase the 2nd allows the people to keep government from going all out tyrannical. I know our current government is getting close, but even now they know people have a means to defend themselves and their property. As Walter E. Williams says, “Never give up your guns.”
@28. goy:
You really are a sad puppy. It’s not the grassroots left that runs on greed, my friend.
Peace.
DS
PS – How much do you want to bet I’m being paid to post here?
@72. Marc Malone:
I’ve done some pretty extensive homework on political philosophy – and I’m glad to hear that the heart attack was minor. I’m not here to hurt anybody!
I’ve found myself supporting positions all along the political spectrum, but my primary interests are civil liberties and social justice. Balancing these concerns is a tall order, but it is the basic tension created by our nation’s founders. Ain’t representative government a hoot?
Peace.
DS
@81. goy:
The trouble is, moral maturity means different things to different people. That’s the beauty of a free society, and a topic I expect we will disagree on for some time to come.
We’ve not seen eye to eye on a number of topics here, but on firearms it seems we’re not too far apart. On broader issues, don’t expect me to adopt your mindset anytime soon – my philosophy is not so narrow as you might suppose. Then again, that would be boring, wouldn’t it?
Peace.
DS
So, Steve P., we gun are stupid and eager for the race war? How about the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms ownership? http://www.jpfo.org? Race war? Idiot.
102. Bilgeman: . . .writes “How about “harmonizing” those two constitutionally protected rights (abortion and gun ownership)? A minor can then get a taxpayer-subsidized gun without parental consent. And no-one could harass that minor or retaliate against the exercise of these rights without being prosecuted and being liable to civil penalties. How’s that grab you?”
Wow, quite the conflated straw fetus you’ve constructed, Glory Boy! I’ll go you one better – How about women can go to their local Abortion and Knife Show and pick their choice of unlicensed, undocumented abortionists to perform an unregulated medical procedure right there next to the hot dog stand. No IDs required, no background check performed – just a bunch of good ole boys and girls waving their forceps in the air and yelling, “From My Cold Dead Vagina!”
How’s that grab you?
e,
“So what are they going to do about revolvers that don’t eject casings?”
They’ll ban them next. If they opposed them now along with all the other things being opposed, it would be much harder to maintain the “reasonable” pretense.
Anton, I think you’re low by a full order of magnitude.
- …on firearms it seems we’re not too far apart.
David, that only just barely implies that you might, eventually, accrue enough actual life experience to get the rest of it. Maybe. Until you do, you’ll remain a very small part of what’s flushing America down the crapper. This is made clear by your own words, which demonstrate your confusion about what the Second Amendment really means.
You claim “guns do need to be widely available for the population to be safe from tyranny.” Really? What good are these guns when you insist on ignoring the history of actual tyranny, as practiced by by leftist ideologues throughout the 20th Century? Answer: none.
You ignore the glaring parallels between the current federal government and every tyranny of the last 100 years. And no amount of instruction or cajoling here or anywhere else is going to make you see it at this point. Your mind is simply snapped too tightly shut to acknowledge all the facts. Much easier for you to cling to rainbow-and-unicorn fantasies and defend a serial liar whose single-minded, lifelong goal has been the implementation of marxist-socialism – as demonstrated by his actions, not his prepackaged, deceitful public rhetoric. That makes you pretty much the textbook definition of ‘useful idiot’.
So when you write, “I’d like to have arms at the ready,” one can only laugh out loud. Really. The notion of you doing anything other than meekly handing those arms over to the authorities – when they tell you it’s for “your own good” or “for the greater good” or some other bogus excuse – simply strains credibility.
And yes, the grassroots left does indeed run on greed: variously, the desire for retribution, for restitution, for redistribution of wealth, for reparations, for political power, and for the chance to impose their notion of “social justice” on others. Don’t kid yourself.
Just a note, but the CA microstamping law contains a technicality having to do with patent law which renders it next-to-impossible to implement in the forseeable future.
See, especially, Gene Hoffman’s comment at the end of this post:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/10/california_micr.php
Steve,
How would closing the “gun show loophole” have prevented that tragedy? It would not have, because it didn’t occur at a gun show. As others have mentioned, gun shows don’t allow loaded guns on the premises, and anyone carrying a gun into a gun show is checked and it is locked open with a tie before you’re allowed in with in. Even people with concealed handgun permits are checked and required to unload before entering.
The “loophole” says that a private citizen can sell their property to another private citizen. What those who support the closure of the loophole are saying is that a private citizen should not be allowed to sell a gun to another private citizen. It doesn’t matter if it occurs at a gun show or their backyard.
In this case, the private property sale happens to be a gun. It is also illegal for someone to sell a gun to a felon or someone who is insane. We already have those laws. Shall we pass them again?
The same tragedy could occur at a tools/hardware event, where some kid could be killed with a chain saw. Putting child safety locks on a chain saw, or requiring that they be kept in locked safe, will only catch people after the fact, when they don’t safely handle them. The law won’t prevent tragedy. It only provides the mechanism and definition of the punishment.
It is delusional to think that a law will prevent an action from occurring. We have laws against murder. Does that PREVENT murder? Only an idiot thinks that. Laws aren’t talismans or magic shields. They don’t stop people from doing stupid or evil things.
We have laws that punish parents (or others ) who recklessly endanger children. That applies to putting a chain saw, gun, or bottle of aspirin in their hands, or allowing them to go into a swimming pool without supervision. We don’t need special laws, pertaining to any appliance, toy, or tool that a child might handle that could hurt them. You can’t recklessly endanger a child, regardless of what tool or intangible object they could use to do it.
More children die in drowning accidents in buckets of water than die with mishandling of guns, but we label those as tragically irresponsible actions of the parents, and we don’t find it necessary to register buckets or imprint serial numbers on them, or have special laws for their safe handling.
In the past week I joined the NRA, took our local firearms course, and am well on my way to getting my CCW permit.
During the next month (Zerobama permitting) I’m joining our local range, getting a Ruger LCP for carry, an evil black Keltec SU-15CA for zombies, and plenty of magazines to fill with appropriate ammunition.
I’m doing this all for my children.
Thank you Obama for forcing me to get off my arse and choose liberty.
IIRC a sad number of children are killed in swimming pool accidents every year. But more than that, I would wager more children are killed in alcohol induced car accidents, more teen agers, including college kids, are killed while under the influence, or by someone under the influence ….
I haven’t read all the comments here, but how about a push back on the alcohol, as that will nail the politicians just as much as the guy in the local Friday night bar.
After all, there is NO constitutionally guaranteed right to alcoholic beveraqes which lead to THOUSANDS of deaths every year.
If it really is about the children: Repeal the repeal of prohibition (21st amendment).
Yeah. See how well THAT worked?
108. one of my own wrote:
…No IDs required, no background check performed – just a bunch of good ole boys and girls waving their forceps in the air and yelling, “From My Cold Dead Vagina!”
How’s that grab you?
Peter writes: Just going further to prove how out in left field Mr One (as opposed to The One) really is.
Never been to a gun show, have you?
Believe it or not, you can’t just go into a gun show and buy a gun off the table and walk out with it, no ID check, no background check.
Your comparison, while also blatently disgusting, is totally off point and beyond reality.
Now, back to the real world…
And for all those gun control addicts who keep harping on the whole militia definition, here it is for you, right out of the US Code;
The U.S. Militia
Guide Extra: 08/31/99
Gun control debates often focus on the relevance of the Second Amendment’s call for a “well regulated militia” in light of our modern organized military.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” – The Second Amendment to Constitution of the United States.
Specifically, the argument is made that the US either no longer has a militia, or that the National Guard now serves as the militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers. But, in fact, Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.
United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.
While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.
So, Steve P, Davy S, One of Your Own, if you are under the age of 45, welcome to the Militia!
#98 Stephen R.
Forget the partnership with government crap. The present denizens of D.C are deceitful in all they do. Any such overtures of partnership means the nongovernment party rolls over and plays dead, OR ELSE.
See below, that is all.
OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012′
(the terrorist choice)
-It’s never to early to campaign-
#98 Oops! Sorry Anthony R.
@110. goy:
If you’re going to ask me a question, don’t pretend it is rhetorical. And if you want to talk about the history of actual tyranny, you’ll need to open your eyes – leftist ≠ authoritarian. If you keep pretending that tyranny comes from the left, you will be blind to the authoritarians who swoop in from the far right to fill power-vacuums. Tyranny is, by nature, a right-wing, top-down system.
Hardly. I’ve observed our liberties under assault from the far right in the name of security, and have been consistent in protesting these abuses.
Really? I guess you don’t know me very well. I’m not exactly one to meekly accept the law as it is. I believe in and practice civil disobedience, and I understand that some laws are simply wrong, and should be disobeyed. You want to come claim my arms? Well, good luck with that. And to be blunt – any authority that wishes to abridge my fundamental liberties is going to get a fight.
Universal health care, organized labor and a social safety net are not manifestations of “greed”. Social justice is necessary to the proper functioning of representative government. Greed is what drives a capitalist to alter the tax code, safety net and social justice for personal profit – don’t kid yourself.
Peace.
DS
The supposed justification for micro stamping is to make it easier for the police to solve crimes by checking the cartridge casing. How would this law have prevented the shootings at NIU (or any shooting, for that matter)? Apart from all the other reasons that micro stanping is an idiotic idea, when you know who the shooter is, micro stamping accomplishes nothing.
Gun Prohibition will work as well as Drug Prohibition.
We have two prohibition parties and they compliment each other. Violence induced by drug prohibition is used as an excuse for gun prohibition.
@122. M. Simon:
True enough. Time to legalize.
Peace.
DS
I was at a gun show in Richmond, Va and a gun was picked up from a table and fired. So the argument that there are too many cops, etc for that to happen is not true. Once the gun fired, about 20 police and gun show types literally ran to the booth. The vendor was immediatley shut down. Turns out that a bit of detective work was done and somebody had loaded the weapon ( a .308 rifle) and closed the bolt. Someone dry fired the weapon, they thought, (another no-no) and the gun went off. Some more investigation revealed that the culprits were anti gun people who were intentionally loading weapons in an attempt to get gun shows shut down. I followed this event closely afterwards because the round went right over my head. This just goes to show that some don’t care about the effects on their fellow man (someone could easily been killed) they just want to do whatever is necessary to make a point.
Fred @ 84, addressed to goy: Karl Marx said that socialism would create a New Moral Man. Not only is this ontologically and teleologically impossible, based upon sound reasoning and medical evidence, but also that the evidence of history strongly suggests that the opposite result happened. In every current and formerly socialist and Communist country the populations exhibit very high incidence of amorality, nihilism, and sociopathy.
True. It may also be noted that populations in formerly socialist and communist countries exhibited a very high rate of mortality at the hands of their own governments. During the 20th century the number of people murdered by their leftist totalitarian governments was orders of magnitude greater than the number of people murdered by rightist governments.
The more the government owns, the more it owns you.
- If you’re going to ask me a question, don’t pretend it is rhetorical.
I didn’t pretend any such thing. I even provided you with the answer.
- … leftist ≠ authoritarian.
Oops! You just used up the last little tiny, itty-bitty shred of credibility you had, Zippy. Leftists tyrants have been responsible for some 100-150M murders in the last 100 years.
And I’ll save you a response: pretending that leftist ideologues like Mao, Che, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Stalin or Pol Pot somehow magically become aligned with the “right-wing” as soon as they cross the line into tyranny and democide will only show how pathetically desperate you are to hang on the your utopian, leftist fantasy, which requires unreal perfection from a human nature that refuses to bend to your empty-headed, morally adolescent demands.
Jim @124 describes an incident that is an example of a bit of what I was explaining in one of my above posts. There are always going to be evil people doing evil things. Evil exists. You cannot will it away by some fantasy social experiment. The guy who secreted that round into the rifle did a wicked deed that could have killed someone. What point the guy was trying to make is irrelevant, but to people like him “the ends ALWAYS justify the means.”
Most Leftists are secular humanists who do not believe in a Creator and that Creator’s Opposite in the universe: Evil. Satan. The Father of Lies. I know this to be true because for ten years of my life I, a religious Roman Catholic revisionist Marxist, got to know these people. And I endured their snarky insults because I chose to remain a Christian and a Catholic. There was a time in my life when I did not believe in an entity called Satan, the Father of Lies. I resorted to psychological explanations for the existence of evil. Until I came face to face with it and it scared me like nothing else ever could. And I discovered it in my intellectual investigations into human nature. I discovered it in the evidence of history.
Right now I consider myself more countercultural than I’ve ever been in my life because I reject the secularism and physicalist reductionism (materialism) of much of mainstream culture. I see the path to perdition where current trends are leading us all, and I just don’t want to go there. The fact that some in this movement to destroy freedom and moral responsibility are joining forces with Islam should give everyone a clue as to the ugly, evil nature of this miasma.
No one should be surprised that Obama would lie about his position on the 2nd amendment. Everything about him is built on a lie. Any new gun control laws are to be expected, he has to keep his supporters pacified and who knows he might even achieve some compliance. It is my belief that if Obama can get control of the economy and truly destroys it, he would say turn in your guns and you can eat or you can have health care. You could just imagine how it would be with all those benevolent social programs in place what kind of leverage he would have over all of us. I also do not think that there will be very much enforcement until the Brute Squad(Obama Nazi youths)are trained. Everyone needs to prepare before the SHTF and not get caught off guard. p.s. Would someone tell me why I am unable to make paragraph breaks or what I am doing wrong. Thanks
The DoD is not requiring the mutilation of fired brass cases under 25mm.You can still buy .50 cal.,7.62,5.56,9mm,.45,etc.They rescinded the order the day after it came to light.It seems they were deluged with phone calls in protest of the mutilation requirement.
I don’t know what Obama will support, but if we can save one life, I would favor more restrictivd gun laws. The rest of you don’t seem to give a damn how many lives the loose guns laws cause!
I don’t know what Obama will support, but if we can save one life, I would favor Federal Government WebCams in every room of every house. The rest of you don’t seem to give a damn how many lives privacy costs!
Terry, neither I nor any one I know are afraid of a future Obama Brute Squad. I cannot see them having the skills and training we have, because so many of us are military veterans. That’s for starters. Next, not for one second do I doubt that the military would allow this kind of thing to happen. Sure, elements of it would remain loyal to the president, but remember that their oath (the same one I took years ago and am still bond by)is not to the President of the United States. It is to the Constitution of the United States and to defend the nation from enemies, foreign AND domestic.
Next, we are not going to make our weapons and stores of ammo easy to find. Put it this way, British Gen. Thomas Gage was sometimes successful in snatching weapons, powder and shot in New England, which is a lot more successful than these chuckleheads would be.
I believe we would win a rebellion/civil war. The Left knows it too, which is why they are desperate to disarm us any way they can get away with, which in the wake of Heller is going to be very difficult in most cases and impossible in many.
And let’s be honest. Our biggest enemy is not Barack Obama. It is the confederation of various Marxist and soft socialist groups and their useful idiot water carriers. One way or another, either through the ballot box or through the dogs of war we are going to have it out with these people.
I have read several of the comments and I would like to address Steve P(inhead). First of all I would like to you give actual proof of an 8 year old, shooting himself, with a loaded “uzi” or any other firearm at a gunshow.
I live in the Dakotas, and all firearms are checked at the front table first to see if they are loaded or not. Each firearm must also have a tie on it to prevent it from firing as well.
Next, an “uzi” is a fully auto firing gun. It requires a Class III Weapons permit and that is the only way to own it, buy it, or sell it. This was regulated in the 30′s by the first ever gun control legislation passed after the St. Valentines Day murders.
As for Assault Weapons, please explain to me what you call them. Is it my SEMI Auto AR 15 that fires a .223 cartridge, my Rem 7400 that shoots a 30-06, or my Ruger 10/22. Look them up Steve if you are wondering what each is. They all are semi auto loading firearms are no more or less dangerous than my bolt action or lever action rifles. I would bet you would choose my “evil looking black” rifle as an assault rifle, although it is a very good, effective, and accurate varmit gun on a dog town.
Steve, get some facts before you recite the rhetoric of CNN, MSNBC, Brady Campaign, DNC, or the UN. You talk of people watching 24 or FNC, but I bet you think that the liberal media I mentioned above is “objective and unbiased” which can clearly be proven otherwise with factual published studies.
My son will hopefully be a superior marksman by age 8 and hopefully with his skill in shooting and firearms he will also compete and hopefully be awarded a scholarship to college on the shooting team. I have been shooting since I was at least 7 or 8, with my grandfather. We used to plink with the .22 and hunt rabbits and prairie dogs. Funny how those of us that grew up hunting and shooting have never been in trouble, been in jail, done drugs or several of the other crimes that youth from urban areas commit who never went hunting or shooting in thier entire lives.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson
I have recently had a boating accident and I lost all my firearms. The number lost is, of course, classified. They are now at the bottom of a lake. I can’t remember the name of that lake, but it was in the Western part of the United States. I have given up the search. eh?
I hate to ask unrelated questions, but Jim, can you kindly give more details. I’d be interested in learning more specifics of these potential anti-gun murderers at the gun show.
134
It’s back to the basics. Open the breach, look for brass. Every gun is a loaded weapon unless you check it and make sure.
Mexico has gun control. Only cops and criminals have ‘em down there. Where do you feel safer to live, there or here?
Steve P and The Shadow are the type of person who would rather see a raped woman, lying dead in an alley, strangled by her panty hose, than see her explaining to the police how her deceased attempted rapist was cooling down to ambient.
Liberals including Obama hate guns and gun owner, not because they fear the power of the gun, but the mindset of those who own them.
BTW, societies that have experienced gun control also have experienced government paranoia over hidden and undisclosed firearms. That stage includes calls for voluntary turning-in of guns and a highly advertised call for snitches and confidential information. All, of course, vital to the disarming of the public.
Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for That One.
So; How many of you are looking down the barrel to see if it’s loaded?
Raise your hands.
115 Peter the Bobblehead . . . “Never been to a gun show, have you? Believe it or not, you can’t just go into a gun show and buy a gun off the table and walk out with it, no ID check, no background check.”
Well, Peter I just did it last weekend. Now tell me again how I can’t do what I just did.
Well, it is good to see a strong defense of the Bill of Rights, in this case the 2nd Amendment.
How refreshing it would have been if these same posters had been so strong and vocal in their defense of the 1st, 4th, 5th,and all the rest, during the debate about “keeping us safe from terrorists”! I wish someone had written “you can read my email when you pry it from my cold dead fingers” or “fear the government that fears your privacy”.
But during that debate, we libertarians were laughed off as paranoid and traitorious appeasers.
What I am referring to is the arguments made during the Bush Administration, that the President can have unlimited power during the war to do, well, pretty much anything he wanted, as long as it was done in the name of “national security”.
Under these legal theories of John Yoo and the other Bush legal counsels, President Obama does in fact have the right to confiscate your guns, and throw you into military custody without charges or trials, simply by saying he is concerned about you being a threat to the State.
- … I just did it last weekend.
Sure. In other news, I jumped 70′ in the air and stayed there for fifteen minutes this last weekend. Now tell me again how I can’t do what I just did.
- What I am referring to is the arguments made during the Bush Administration, that the President can have unlimited power during the war to do, well, pretty much anything he wanted…
Nice straw man. Grow it yourself? Or is it one of those ChiaStrawMan™ kits from the As Seen On TV aisle?
One of My Own,
Did you check your used gun for rust? Maybe you bought one of my lost guns. Please describe it so I can find out if it is one of mine. Okay, but it could be mine, couldn’t it? At least if you discover that it is mine, I can assure you that it is not hot.
It’s funny – I never really cared about owning guns until people who like giving orders told me that I shouldn’t own guns.
I figured if THOSE people don’t want me to have guns, I’d better get some guns.
143. goy: . . . “Sure. In other news, I jumped 70′ in the air and stayed there for fifteen minutes this last weekend. Now tell me again how I can’t do what I just did.”
More textbook denial from the conservative punch drunks. You guys just can’t seem to own up to it when you’re called on your BS. Sad and sorry and chronically close minded – tough way to go through life. Facts is facts, Senor Shlubb. Denying them doesn’t change them. I walked into a gun show, paid $175 for a used Ruger 22 Mark III , never showed any ID, was never asked, and walked out.
Why don’t you believe it? Because you’re naive, like a lot of your right-wing brethren – too dumb to know and too proud to ask.
- Why don’t you believe it? Because you’re naive…
Nope. I don’t believe it because I know it’s bs.
When you find the link to that story about how you blew the whistle on this “gun show”, get back to us. Until then, your desperate insistence is almost entertaining.
I always bitched about my husband having a gun bot guess what I getting one too.
Ps. Guess what common sense cannot be legisture. If it way we could have saved our country a lot of problems over the years especially now!
@Oscar the Grump (#96 and #97)
Appreciate your thoughts related to my #89 post. However, make no mistake, Stephen (me) and Steve P are different animals. For my take on Steve P and his “gun show” link see #58. It’s a fair guess that Steve P would not know that difference between a bowline and a figure eight or a Remington Mod 70 and an Marlin 336.
@One of my own
Ok, here’s your chance to test the system. First, post the date, location and name of the event, together with the sponsor of the gun show you attended with contact information of the organizers (online links would be nice as well). Second, and most importantly, give us name of the person and contact information for the person who sold you the Ruger. Third, a scanned pdf of sales receipt should be easy to create – and maybe upload. You could email this to anyone who requests a copy together with photos of the Ruger. Sounds like you have a story here. I’ll leave the question of legality to any lawyers or law enforcement types in attendance.
C’mon, Stephen, take it easy on “one of my own.” It took her some time to Google the name of a firearm and a reasonably realistic used price to fit her hardhitting “Michael-Moore-style” expose of evil 2nd Amendment events. Although this tale is far-fetched and quite easy to pick apart, remember that she is trying. Not all dedicated leftists have the benefit of a taxpayer-funded team of speechwriters and a magic teleprompter at their disposals, after all.
Keep it up though, “one” – your daily drivel on these boards is a real hoot and you really raised the bar high this time!
Larry G, here I am sitting and enjoying my “affordable” Shiraz thinking I’m rather mellow.
@Anthony R. Seta: There’s much that’s sensible in you post #98. You start out well in the following passage:
“We have a great right in the USA to own firearms. This concept doesn’t exist in much of the globe. Let’s not blow it people. It is worthy to at least attempt to work with the current administration to maintain a right that can only be guaranteed by our government. The constitution is the government.” Now, I’m no constitutional scholar, but I do believe you’ve off the tracks pretty badly in the last two sentences of that passage; the last in particular. I rather doubt that any constitutional scholar or historian would agree with that last sentence. The Constitution stands above all Congresses and Presidencies since the beginning. What powers governments possess are derived from the Constitution and the necessary assent of the people; not the other way around. Governments come and go, the Constitution remains. The 2nd Amendment right derives from the authority of the Constitution and the will of the people to see that constitutional rights are respected by all governments past, present, and future. This is not a right anyone needs to beg for from this or any government.
One of My Own,
My question is what you are planning to do with your Rugar Mark III? $175 would be a good price for that unit, providing it is in decent condition. I did not own a .22 caliber Ruger and I can’t vouch for it. But you have selected a fine little plinking gun that no person in their right mind would use to commit a violent crime. It would take several half decent hits just to bring down a good size man, so it would make a lousy defense gun. Of course, if you have sniper skills, a well placed shot of any caliber would work. A .22 revolver is not a very good camp gun, because it can’t stop a bear or mountain lion, but a couple of rounds can stop a coyote or a dad gum racoon. Target shooting would be fun with it, but you wouldn’t win too many competitions with it because serious target shooters usually have guns which would cost much more than $175, because of the need for custom barreling. So, I have to think you got it for plinking. By the way, the Rugar Mark II was a classic .22 caliber target gun in its day. Take your new gun out and practice with it and I will assure you that you will soon be hooked on firearms. My first gun was a (oops, that has become classified information).
Correction to #150: That’s Winchester Mod 70 or Remington Mod 700. Both fine rifles. Damn! Hate it when that happens.
I am truly amazed at the ignorance of non-gun owners regarding fire arms and the second ammendment. I Blame this on the school system that has taken the extreme footing of no tolerance where even a kids drawing of a gun can cause expulsion. I believe this is bold attempt to convert generations of children to accept government acceptence of No Tolerance /Gun Laws. Think of millions of voters who grow up thinking that the government will make their world safe by outlawing the very mention of firearms and god forbid ownership of a firearm.
This must be reversed if we are to see the second ammemdment make it to the third birthday of this great nation ( I think?). I was taught hunter safety and participated in NRA Marksman Competition at my Grade School in 1965. Firearms are a part of our society and national heritage. We teach kids to drive at school. We teach home economics and shop to aquaint students with life skills and above all safe practices.
I Believe we as a society/nation have a duty to teach fire arm awareness and safety to all children in the schools. It will prevent almost all fire arm accidents related to children. It will improve relationships between couples as there will no longer be anyone who can claim that I feel afraid of firearms in the house. Everyone would now how to clear a firearm to insure it is safe.
A hundred years ago one of the main sports was hunting and target shooting. Many towns had shooting ranges and competition was healty sport. Today we see shooting ranges being shut down right and left out of fear of liability or environmentalist concerns of lead. Yet every community of any size has one or more golf course. Golf has replaced firearms as the premier acceptable shooting sport.
The NRA and Civilian marksman ship program should increase the number of ranges. I believe some of the funding in the governments civilian marksman ship program should be increased to provide for ranges in a community even if it is a portable airgun range transportable to the schools so that the Marksmanship training can be taught at the schools as part of the physical education program. This could be funded under DOD as evolved in two wars and I believe we will be in more conficts in the future as we engage the Muslim Extremists such as the Taliban and Al Quida.
The second ammedment guarentees the rights of firearms possssion to the people and it also addresses the militia and a militia is every able bodied citizen capable of bearing arms in the time of need. We should address this requirement by having marksman ship training in the schools.
The student will make his decision when he graduates if he is going into active service in the military. If the needs of the defense of the country should ever require the draft again the available pool will be knowlegable in the area of marksmanship.
While overseas our enemies are bringing up their boys to be warlike and aggressive brutes, we are doing the opposite with out young people to an extreme. Now, I am definitely not in favor of raising our boys to be aggressive, warlike brutes and abusive individuals. However, in our schools and in many families we are “pussifying” our males, making them allergic to guns, self-defense, and belief that sometimes force is necessary to defend right principles. We are making our societies, which are under increasing attack by Communist totalitarians and Islamic totalitarians, more pacific. This is a formula for disaster and the eclipse of Western Civilization. Plus, one of the nation’s most patriotic and formative organizations, the Boy Scouts of America, are increasingly under attack from the Left. Many of our sons learn survival, teamwork, and gun safety/skills in the Scouts. Many of these kids grow up to be our best citizens.
If we want our Republic to survive and our Western Civilization to survive we have to reverse course. And time is running out.
The problem with guns is not the owners or the guns themselves. The problem is this gigantic gun industry that has helped create a culture of death around the world.
I have no problem with the second amendment. But when I hear about guns going south of the border to further the drug war, or guns falling into the hands of eight year olds in the Congo, I worry.
Pat J,
Your culture of death has always been created by governments, religions, and/or criminals. The guns are being purchased by your federal government and then supplied to the Mexican government for use in their war with the drug seller criminals. This is how we say we are helping the Mexicans with their drug gang problem. Corrupt Mexican military and police are selling/giving these guns to the gangs. This is why the smartest woman in the world just told you that the US gun manufacturers are supplying guns to Mexican criminals. Tell me how the gun manufacturers have caused this situation. We could do a lot more to end this violence if people decided not to buy illegal drugs from Mexicans or anyone else, but then who are we to tell people they can’t get high?
Yes, I think you do have a problem with the second amendment.
Not quite past its freshness date, this news adds support for the notion that BHO will have his work cut out for him on the “common (non)sense laws” approach. Excerpt:
The “lock-up-your-gun-so-you-can’t-get-at-it-in-an-emergency” laws are some of the worst of the “common (non)sense” laws. Heller marches on.
I have this discussion sometimes with some people I know who think we should decriminalize drugs. They “say” that using drugs should not be a criminal offense because it does not harm people other than the ones who use the drugs. I beg to differ. Everyone around the addict suffers from their vile behavior. Their families and kids certainly do. Ask employers of addicts what this sometimes does to their businesses.
And most of all, the money they fork over to the providers of the narcotics funds other criminal enterprises that deal in death and destruction.
Yes, the drug users are the ones who make it all possible.
Guns, on the other hand, are tools. Nothing more. They are tools in the hands of both bad people and good people. God help us all when good people give them up or are forced to give them up by governments and people who do not believe in evil.
Put the Guard on the border. And let our citizens watch the border too. And then blow the cartel people and their mules to holy hell. Shoot, shovel, and shut up. You don’t show those kinds of animals any mercy. Not if you want to live and if you want your society to survive.
fred, probably best not to get into a comparison of drugs and guns. There’s no right to drug use recognized in the Constitution .
The flaw I see in your comments about legalizing drugs is that it’s the criminalization and the other effects of the War On (Some) Drugs that cause the real cost to society. Overcrowded prisons and enormously overburdened law enforcement are both a huge part of this, and the taxpayer foots the bill for all of it. This is to say nothing of the allure of the drug culture for young people simply because it’s “forbidden”. Money forked over for legalized drugs obviously wouldn’t be going to a criminal enterprise.
Legalized recreational drugs like coke, weed and the like wouldn’t destroy the life of every user and/or their families. We already know this because as significant as the alcoholic problem is, the legal use of alcohol is not much of a game-changer socially.
151. Stephen: . . . “Ok, here’s your chance to test the system.”
Duh, OK . . . It was at the San Antonio Tea Party and Gun Show on March 11. I was there about 2:30 in the afternoon. Lots of stuff to choose from but I was attracted to a mom n pop stand called Delia’s Renaissance Gun Works. The owner handmakes all her accessories – holsters, clip sleeves, etc. Delia wasn’t there so I talked to her day wager named Bilgeman. First he wanted to know if I was interested in a glory hole. I told him “I don’t know what that is but is it good for blowing somebody away?” He just winked and started laughing. I don’t know why. Then I pointed to the Ruger and said “How much for the 22?” Bilgeman said $200. I told him I’d go $175 and he agreed. I plopped down the money, he handed me the gun, and I walked away.
Hope that helps Stephen.
goy,
You are wrong about the recreational drug users and the addicts. From my experience years ago doing volunteer work in hospitals as a Jesuit seminarian, and my contacts in the medical procession, children born to addicts have marked deficits in the pre-frontal cortical areas of the brain. Many are chemically hard-wired to be sociopaths. People without a conscience and no effective executive control neurotransmitters in the brain that allow for civilized behavior.
I know yours is the classic libertarian argument about narcotics. I hear it all the time from my wife’s sister and her husband. It does have a certain elegant logic about it, but the reality it’s filtered through is deficient of some necessary, if inconvenient information.
Let me tell you why I eschewed drug use when I was a teenager (I was born in 1955, so you can fill in the time line). I saw the Older Boomer kids as complete buffoons and assholes. Off-putting, loudmouthed jerks stoned out of their gourds and often in trouble with the police for all manner of petty crime and sometimes even violent behavior. At parties when I was in the Army out of high school and then later as a university student I saw the behavior of these people and it was a complete turn off. I wanted no part of that scene. I admit that sometimes, when I was in the Army and then later sometimes when I was a college student, I did overdo it with booze, but it wasn’t a habit and eventually, one day, I arrived at a moment of a morning hangover and said to myself, “Enough of this! I’m done with getting drunk ever again. It’s not worth it.”
On top of ruining other people’s lives, as well as their own, some drug users and addicts resort to petty theft, burglary, and even armed theft to get money for the drugs they use. Their suppliers either threaten to shut them off or come collecting what they are owed.
I could go on and on about the things I’ve seen or heard about. My larger point is that drugs are not a victimless activity. Their actions and habits do impede and ruin other lives besides their own. I have nothing but utter contempt for these people. I am in awe of social workers and people who do work with drug addicts, because I surely would have no patience or compassion for them. Even when I was a young and older teen I had the strength to tell kids I knew who were inviting me to try all kinds of stuff to go stuff it. I stood firm and I was alright with being ostracized and left out. As for my sometimes having gotten drunk, no one coerced me into that. I made my own choices while out with Army or college buddies to do this. No one pressured me. Eventually I realized it was stupid and I got in the habit of stopping at two or three glasses of wine or beers.
Getting drunk or high is over rated as an experience anyway.
But, One of My Own, why did you buy the gun? In post #163, without addressing my question, you have implied to your dealer that you wanted the gun for murder or else as a defensive weapon. You got taken to the cleaners by your amorous admirer, sweetie. That gun couldn’t perform well in either situation.
I think you are just another lying liar of a liberal, who is dumb enough to think that her sophomoric humor goes over the head of lesser beings. By the way, what the hell is a day wager? Is that some kind of put down of someone who has to work for a living? Why didn’t you just call him a peasant, you pompous ass!
My I suggest that, in the future, instead of going to “gun shows” you try reading Frederick Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”. When you finish, post here again.
fred – your experience and decisions sound eerily similar to mine, probably for a lot of the same reasons (born ’54). And that includes a few spates of heavy drinking (in H.S. and then years later as a performing musician).
The difference we have, I think, is almost entirely due to the fact that your observations are all based on experiences in a society where recreational drugs are illegal. The entire “drug culture” would change drastically if certain drugs were legalized. It’s my opinion that the mystique around illegal drugs would largely evaporate if they were no longer illegal, greatly reducing their allure to the young, which is the age where many folks get their start of an illegal drug habit.
It’s speculative, and unfortunately, the only practical way to test it is to actually do it. I look back at Prohibition as a guide for a lot of this though. The ‘conventional wisdom’ that led to a full-on Constitutional Amendment banning alcoholic beverages was, simply put, wrong. The same mechanism is at work here, IMHO.
The problem with your accurate observations about the offspring of drug addicts – especially coke and crack addicts but not so much, if at all, marijuana users – is this: we are already doing precisely what you’ve described by allowing our children to be given psychotropic drugs in constantly increasing numbers. There was a chart online years ago that demonstrated almost every school shooting in the U.S. involved one of the psychotropic drugs given to the perpetrator(s). In some cases – all too many – such drugs are prescribed based on some teacher’s “observation” and “diagnosis”. In others, they’re prescribed based on answers to “Teen Screen” tests that are wholly inadequate for assessing depression, ADD, etc.
This is what makes the War on (Some) Drugs so hypocritical. We can’t rationally restrict some drugs while prescribing others that do enormous damage.
#163 oomo/ooyo/ooever:
“First he wanted to know if I was interested in a glory hole. I told him “I don’t know what that is but is it good for blowing somebody away?” He just winked and started laughing.”
Can you blame me for laughing?
We all know that if it wasn’t for glory-holes, you would have no friends at all.
Lucky you that your hobby is also so personally enriching…now spit into your bucket and get back to making nice to your next new buddy, “Peter”.
Goy,
While I agree with you about the harmfulness of allowing doctors to prescribe drugs that are very harmful to people, based on presumed social abnormalities, I doubt that the solution should be to give up the fight against illegal street drugs. Why not seek to eliminate both atrocities? One does not need to be declared a hypocrite because he pushes for solutions to only one of these problems. They are not related problems. The only similarity these problems have is that people needleesly under the influence of drugs, do cause lots of problems for the rest of us.
167. Bilgeman: . . . Decided to take the bull by the horn have you? I guess your feigned casual indifference wasn’t enough to overcome the rage that wells up inside you when I remind you of your glory hole fascination.
People of this dear board, please know that I’m sure Bilgepump is a fabulous individual, a great American and patriot wheel-barrowing around with him an intellect that strains the talents of Pythagoras himself.
Ah, perhaps that’s it! The Greek connection. I hear that culture was rife with Bilgepumpian behavior. Are you sure your name isn’t really Bilgepumpakokis? No matter. I look forward to you providing more insights into your very curious and glorious obsession. We now know there is spitting and buckets and men named Peter involved. Pray, do continue Bilgepump – share your experience with this odd custom – enlighten us further.
You’re like a combination of Cliff Clavin and Ted Haggart. Fascinating, really. you might be able to earn a few extra bucks volunteering your proclivities for study by 1st-year residents in psychiatry.
Jim,
People needlessly (?) under the influence of alcohol abuse cause a lot of problems for the rest of us. Alcohol isn’t illegal.
Let me first emphasize that I’ve not said the solution to rampant ‘legal’ drug abuse by the medical community – which results in some 100,000 deaths and 2M hospitalizations annually – and that’s for the ‘properly’ prescribed medications – is to change our behavior toward drugs like marijuana, hash and coke. I agree with you: the two realms are, in fact, orthogonal.
What’s hypocritical is to accept the damage inflicted by the former – simply because it is economically beneficial to a powerful pharmaceutical and medical professional lobby – while pretending that damage inflicted by the latter, typically far less in magnitude if it weren’t for the arbitrary illegality, is somehow socially unacceptable.
All of our social experience with illegal drugs – the cost of law enforcement (including the dangers to which LEOs are exposed), the behaviors of those who buy, use and sell them and the criminals created by the arbitrary designation of those substances as ‘illegal’ – is bound up in the fact that they have been declared illegal. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing. This experience needs to be considered separately from these drugs’ inherent, physiologically destructive effects, if such effects exist.
Marijuana and hashish are no more inherently ‘destructive’ of a drug than alcohol – considerably less so, in fact. Cocaine, while it does possess inherently destructive qualities akin to alcohol (i.e., when abused in the same manner), isn’t inherently destructive. What’s destructive is how it’s used – or abused – which is a personal choice, no different from the choice involved in alcohol or other legal substance abuse. What’s most destructive in cases of drug addiction – as opposed to alcohol addiction – is the economic effect caused by the cost of the drugs themselves (arbitrarily inflated because their illegal nature constricts supply), and the social effect inherent in using them because they’re illegal (i.e., using them can make you a criminal if you’re caught buying, using or selling them).
Ever seen the destruction of a life caused by addiction to aerosol inhalants? It’s potentially as bad as addiction to heroin. Should we make aerosols illegal simply because they can be abused? If so, that same rationale can be use to justify repealing the Second Amendment, since firearms can be – and often are – abused. If not, why should cocaine or marijuana be treated differently? In short, it doesn’t make any rational sense to make a substance illegal because of the way SOME people use or abuse it. It’s just a socially accepted ‘standard’ that has become conventional wisdom with no inherent validity.
We have NO recent experience with so-called ‘recreational’ drugs as legal substances, therefore it is impossible to judge their deleterious effects in the context of contemporary society, were they to be legalized.
#169 oomo/ooyo/ooever:
Do us a favor, snookums, don’t be so long-winded, m’kay?
Your hobby is causing you some REALLY bad breath, see?
I AM gratified to know that I could toss out a gratuitous insult WEEKS ago, and here you are, still carrying it around and obsessing on it here on a dead thread like a major psychic wound.
Apropos the real cost of the War On (Some) Drugs.
this blog sure went down hill this week do us a favor and shut it down and go grow a brain and buy guns and some bullets
this blog sure went down hill this week
Im your stereotypcial redneck kinda guy, I own 13 guns and my dad had me shooting at the age of 4. I believe there should be common scence used in using/buying/selling firearms and regulation and limitations are not a bad thing but only to a point. I agree that an extensive background check should be reqired to own and carry a firearm, but limiting and or completly eliminating the purchase of guns/ammo to our law abiding common man is just wrong. The use of firearms in a crime is extreamly uncommon and the death rate of accidental deaths due to guns in the US in 2008 was only 1,134 people. Now compare that with accidental vehical related deaths at 43,649 people or lets see how many people die from tobacco use and second hand smoke,on average 443,000 people die due to tobacco usage. Complications due to Optional medical procedures AKA plastic surgery 2,929 people, choking 3,206 people, drowning 3,488 people, accidental poisoning 9,510 people, and falling 14,986 people. Now yes there is another 32,564 deaths due to firearms murder/suicide but if someone want someone dead or want to die themselves then they wont have any trouble finding another way. Well what im trying to get at is that Obamas desire to limit/ban firearms will not make jack squat worth of a differnce in our public safty. if someone wants you dead they dont need a gun to kill you, and if you want to save the lives of our common person you would be better off trying to start a prohibiton on tobacco( But the US government makes way to much money on tobacco and alchohal taxes to ban them), or instead of investing our tax money in trying to ban guns put the money towards youth health and education, make the kids have a 2 hour gym class at school because im sure that in the long run it will greatly reduce the ammount of deaths due to heart disease, which is the number one killer in the United States today at 451,326 deaths last year.
Hi, i feel that i saw you visited my blog so i came to ?go back the prefer?.I’m trying to to find things to improve my site!I guess its adequate to use some of your concepts!!
I think that is among the such a lot significant info for me. And i’m glad studying your article. However should commentary on some common issues, The web site style is wonderful, the articles is truly excellent : D. Just right task, cheers