Comment on Entry: Stop Living in Fear, authored by pudge
1. There are some blokes, and blokesses, that would make me feel uneasy if I knew they were carrying. But their personalities are widely different from the individuals whom I personally know to be armed, and so far I see very little reason to join the leftist hysteria about armed citizens.

What makes me most uneasy is Obama's new 501(c)4 Organizing for Action, with its anonymous donors and undisclosed donations, and its intentions to 'influence' their fellow citizens (that's me) in changing America left. If that morphs into the street army that Obama proposed for 'security', funded at parity with our military, all bets are off.

But then, I was raised in the country where everyone had a gun cabinet and enjoyed shooting - and where the idea of shooting a person was considered nearly outside the bounds of civilized behavior.

Whereas in this State of the Growth Management Act, which is fully committed to making densified urbanites out of everyone in hopes of creating a permanent Democrat-leftist majority by groupthink, my neighbors would universally be horrified at the arsenal I brought with me, perfectly innocently and legally when I moved in from the farm some decades ago.

What they don't know won't hurt them, I guess. Certainly these muskets and fowling pieces won't.

Posted by Insufficiently Sensitive at January 28, 2013 09:22 AM
2. Come on Pudge, no one wants to 'embrace' someone who is 'packin'...for fear that the gun might go off. Reminds me of the 'is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me' thing. :) Yeah..the good 'ol 'control' beast raises it's nasty head once again.

Posted by Duffman at January 28, 2013 09:32 AM
3. I.S.: There are some blokes, and blokesses, that would make me feel uneasy if I knew they were carrying. But their personalities are widely different from the individuals whom I personally know to be armed, and so far I see very little reason to join the leftist hysteria about armed citizens.

Right, the point is the individual person, not whether he is carrying. Presumably, that person makes you uneasy even if you don't know they are carrying, and not just because they might be carrying, but because they can do tremendous damage to others even if they aren't.

Posted by pudge at January 28, 2013 10:00 AM
4. Their "fear" is a bogus argument bent on influencing those with little or no knowledge.

The left needs fear. It's their default MO and it certainly is/was the MO of the Obama machine: pushing granny off the cliff, conservatives want dirty water and your birth control, OMG!: they'll take your social security, your welfare, your food stamps, your failing Head Start.

the same folks who tell me to stop living in fear are extremely afraid of normal people with guns

That was exactly the argument a whining lefty made here on the gun thread and another made on Medved last week. They are terrified a legal gun owner is "going to snap" at some place they might happen to be.

Besides the tin foil hat absurdity of that statement, most conservative gun owners I know don't go where loud lefties congregate.


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 28, 2013 10:12 AM
5. The Mayor did a good job on that one in spite of Almberg's histrionics and misuse of public comment period. And the majority of council prevailed with cool heads. It would be interesting to see if Oak Harbor has a misconduct ordinance. Some jurisdictions make it a misdemeanor for public servants to "intentionally" deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege.

Posted by Matty at January 28, 2013 10:30 AM
6. I would comment on this topic here, but I am still aghast after a couple days from your fellow blogger calling neoconservatives our enemies. I knew you moderate loving big government GOP types from the suburbs have been real sneaky in splitting apart the true conservatives from the GOP, but now you all are trying to be blatant about it?

The love affair of the suburban GOP establishment with Romneycare and with Ryan's "my plan will balance the budget sometime around three decades from now" and now the love affair with the next big government power GOP man Bobby, "i'll use the power of my government to send my troops into your store and shoot you blindfolded if you even try to sell milk below $3 a gallon" Jindhal, was always poised in a way to make it sound like they are the only hopes we have to win an election.

Well, folks, if you want to win the Presidency you have to have guys like Reagan and Bush, they aren't our enemies, the enemies of the GOP party right now is the suburban wing of the party that desires nothing less than just being in control of the power of the government, rather than reducing their power. We can see through your trickery, no more Ryans, McCains, Romney's, Jindhals, Christies and the like...if that means a neo-conservative, then that is what it should be.

Posted by doug at January 28, 2013 11:24 AM
7. doug: are you calling me a "moderate loving big government GOP type"? Or was that directed at Jim? I don't think it describes Jim, but it obviously doesn't describe me, as I'm more of a libertarian than most.

Now about neoconservatives, neoconservatives are, generally, the "moderate loving big government GOP types." Neoconservatives generally want to use force abroad and have generally liberal domestic policy goals. They tend to reject Hayek, favoring substantial government intervention in the economy, and don't really care much about social issues.

I think you misunderstood what Jim was talking about when he mentioned "neoconservatives," because they've never been considered "true conservatives" by anyone, including themselves. That's largely Jim's fault, probably, as he didn't explain his use of the term.

Finally, I'll say this is not the place for this discussion. You've made your comment, I've made mine, and no further discussion on this topic will be allowed on this discussion. I've allowed this brief exchange just because Jim didn't allow comments on his post.

Posted by pudge at January 28, 2013 11:41 AM
8. Matty, whether or not Oak Harbor has a misconduct ordinance is an interesting question. However, Sec 1983 of the Civil Rights Act gives individuals the right to sue for damages and/or injunctive relief against state and local governments in either federal or state courts resulting from deprivations of federal civil rights such as those per the 2d and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.

What happened in Oak Harbor is partly Yonkman's fault because he should have told the mayor is was none of his business. If the mayor had pushed matters much further he was opening the door to a Sec 1983 reprisal.

Posted by Paddy at January 28, 2013 12:47 PM
9. Paddy, I would say that his federal civil rights were not violated. I would guess that the Supreme Court would get at least six votes in favor of the notion that it is not unconstitutional to disallow guns in a city council meeting. His state civil rights were violated, but I don't believe his federal rights were.

And yes, he should've said it was none of the councilman's (not the mayor's, as he backed Yonkman) business. I would've said, "I could be carrying right now, but it's none of your business, according to state law. Everyone but you in this room could be carrying a gun every day, and you'd probably never know. State law protects our right to do that, so get used to it."

Posted by pudge at January 28, 2013 01:20 PM
10. The entire notion of "being afraid" is perfectly consistent with the overall leftist world view. It's one of their key defining characteristics.

One of their typical underlying beliefs is that if not controlled by the state, a populace will succumb to their baser instincts. They don't rely on the realities of historical fact, financial and economic realities nor a practical application of psychology. Episodes where people have misbehaved are taken not as "exceptions that prove the rule," but as anecdotal proof of what will inevitably happen unless government steps in to "prevent" it from happening again. Therefore the government must intervene as "we must do something."

The counterargument that disaster hasn't happened up until now without the controls falls upon deaf ears.

The nation ends up with a leftist agenda along with public discourse often resulting in regulations and laws that constrain the healthy behavior of the public in the vain attempt to prevent what were exceptions.

Our current reality is a nation where substantial portions of the people deride the notions that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." And it's for this same reason that the same people that try to tax and regulate the successful to the point that it kills business and employment push with all their might to be the ones to "fix the economy" without a clue of what sound economic policies might actually be.

I couldn't count the number of times leftists have been dismissive, rude, patronizing, and belittling toward me for not agreeing with them on these topics. Their basic belief is that I should abandon my relevant education and experience and wholeheartedly joint in with the drama fest of the Borg.

I've always seen this as a slightly Lilliputian system of restraints upon a perceived foe with crippling real world consequences.

Posted by scott158 at January 28, 2013 01:39 PM
11. On many websites, there are comments proliferating about gun registration being a precursor to gun confiscation. I agree totally with that. An unarmed population invites tyranny. Most people on the left bring up the straw argument that gun control did not cause the Holocaust, anti-semitism did. That may be true, but I completely believe that gun control sure as Hell "enabled" the Holocaust, which is perhaps even more important.

Posted by katomar at January 28, 2013 03:18 PM
12. Katomar@11
Not true on two points. One you need to review the actual History of what Hitler implemented, which in most cases was opening of gun laws compared to what was implemented after WWI (pre-Hitler). Two, you need to review the actual cases of Jewish uprising to see what the facts actually were and see that the Gun Control charade is fiction.

Ref:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
http://blog.adl.org/civil-rights/holocaust-gun-control-debate

Posted by thetruthonholocaust at January 28, 2013 03:42 PM
13. I never said that Hitler passed gun control laws. I said that gun control laws "enabled" the Holocaust.

There was no need for the Nazis to pass a law like that, because the earlier Weimar government had already passed gun registration laws. The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power. They didn't need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other non-citizens.


Posted by katomar at January 28, 2013 03:58 PM
14. The bright side is that the councilman won't be able to be there to vote anymore.

Posted by Gary at January 28, 2013 04:28 PM
15. I agree with Pudge. However, if the same guy came into the meeting with camo gear and an AR15, I'd keep a close eye on him.

The context of the situation is all important.

Posted by headless lucy at January 28, 2013 04:29 PM
16. "I hear all the time from anti-gun folks"

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

I hear all the time from folks that straw is highly flammable.

Posted by observer at January 28, 2013 04:49 PM
17. I know this will be unpopular with the liberals, but the only way to deal with a mad dog is to put him down as fast as possible. That means eliminating people from the gene pool who commit crimes like the shootings in Connecticut. People carrying concealed weapons is the answer until the loony-tunes out there realize that the probability of being killed by an armed citizen before he or she can do much or any damage is quite high.

If a mad dog comes on your property with an AR-15, put him down. Remove him from the population. All it will take is a few times and the crazies will get the message: Acting in an evil way with a firearm is a death sentence.

Posted by Politically Incorrect at January 28, 2013 04:54 PM
18. observer: if the comment that gun owners/carriers were "afraid" of other people wasn't so pervasively mentioned by anti-gun folks, you might have a point.

You have no point.

Posted by pudge at January 28, 2013 05:06 PM
19. @18 Right. No point. ""other people" making the point are so ___ "pervasive". So "pervasive" it is not worth identifying a single other person.
Bravo!

Posted by observer at January 28, 2013 05:30 PM
20. observer: Google is your friend. Try being *actually* observant.

Posted by pudge at January 28, 2013 06:21 PM
21. This excerpt relates to the prevailing wisdom by the political elites about gun control and suggests a possible ulterior motive. Locals in Oak Harbor note what is going on the District of Corruption. Having viewed most of it, this was a very revealing documentary ;


"Breitbart News Executive Chairman Steve Bannon said the mainstream media must investigate the permanent political class on a weekly basis for there to be real change in Washington, D.C.

Bannon, Peter Schweizer, the president of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Institute (GAI), and Fox News' Sean Hannity discussed the feckless mainstream media in "Boomtown," a one-hour investigative feature that ran on Hannity's show on Friday.

Bannon said if the mainstream media refuses to do its job of examining the permanent political class, he, along with Schweizer, and Breitbart News would.

Bannon said the more Americans learn about Washington's crony capitalism and permanent political class, the more they will "get angry" and "demand" more of such investigations."

Posted by KDS at January 28, 2013 10:02 PM
22. Pudge, you misread my comment. I agree that the mayor did not violate the civil rights act. But, people with similar attitudes can be violation waiting to happen.

Posted by Paddy at January 29, 2013 07:16 AM
23. All I know is that I get a real comfortable feeling when I'm in Cabela's. :)

Posted by Duffman at January 29, 2013 07:38 AM
24. Paddy, you wrote, "[Yonkman] ... should have told the mayor is was none of his business. If the mayor had pushed matters much further he was opening the door to a Sec 1983 reprisal."

But the mayor didn't ask Yonkman anything. That was the councilman. The mayor's attitudes were in favor of Yonkman. The attitudes that "can be a civil rights violation" were not the mayor's, but the councilman's.

Posted by pudge at January 29, 2013 10:17 AM
25. My right to own a gun helps to protect me from others with guns, while my right to buy whiskey does not protect me at all from drunk drivers and snookered hooligans.

According to the Guardian, 8,583 murders were committed with firearms in the U.S. in 2011. This is a lot of people, for sure. I do not deny the tragedy of this fact for one second. However, when I see people using these numbers to advocate either complete or partial firearm bans, I always wonder: what about alcohol? In comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that, as of 2010, over 15,000 people die from alcoholic liver disease in our country every year. The number for "alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides" is over 25,000. Why are we arguing so passionately for gun control while ignoring alcohol?

... But we should not stop there. While guns are linked to murders, alcohol is linked to much more than just that. A considerable number of all violent crimes in the United States -- not just murders -- are directly tied to alcohol use. (Would it be reasonable to think that perhaps half of all of those gun-enabled murders would not have happened if not for the influence of alcohol?) On top of this, how many cases of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse occur every year as a direct result of alcohol abuse? How many cases of unemployment and homelessness can be tied directly to alcohol? How many instances of sexually transmitted disease -- whether something annoying like herpes or a bit more potent like HIV -- come as a direct result of alcohol-induced "partying"? How many teen pregnancies occur due to said "partying"? How many random non-automotive accidents kill and injure people as a direct result of inebriation?

I once heard a university professor sum up her view of the gun-control debate in the following manner: It is a balance of the rights of the citizens to bear arms against the rights of children to grow up without fear. She clearly felt that the second item weighed heavier on that scale. When I heard this, I wondered if she would agree to bring back the prohibition of alcohol to protect all of the children who live in real and present fear of their alcoholic parents on a daily basis. The number of children killed by violent or feckless parents -- their behavior magnified by alcohol abuse -- is many times greater than the number of children gunned down in freak school shootings. And their agony lasts much longer.

... The natural liberal response to talk of banning alcohol would be to bring up our previous endeavor to do just that during the 1920s. The result, they would say, was increased black market traffic and empowerment of organized crime. Liberals would point to this item of history as evidence of how it is impossible to truly control alcohol -- using the same approach to advocate legalization of marijuana. And yet, they fail to see how trying to ban firearms would do the exact same thing: to increase black market traffic and empower all crime -- not just organized crime.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 29, 2013 11:49 AM
26. But don't worry, gun control will totally work on a national level.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 29, 2013 11:53 AM
27. The DO want to confiscate all our firearms. This will cause, and rightly so, a national revolt.

All our rights are at stake on this one, especially the one the left hates the second most, the freedom to freely exercise religion.

When the left gets their way and brings on Sharia Law, I wonder how they will tell their most favored group, the homosexuals, that the Muslims want to exterminate them and that they have been taken as fools all along as the Democratic party considered them to be expendable

The Democratic Party considers anyone who dares to disagree to be expendable.

McCarthy and the John Birchers tried to warn of this.

None dared call it conspiracy.

I wrote Patty and Maria telling them both that i will not register my guns. I suggest everyone else do the same. This is no time for weenies.

Kicked off The GOlympiam over 50 times. Hi Laurian. Hi, Larry. How's the diaper blog?

Posted by IndependentVoter at January 29, 2013 06:38 PM
28. Someone is a lot more likely to get killed by an abortion than a gun. The left loves death, just when it is on their terms.

Posted by Leftover at January 29, 2013 10:15 PM
29. @28 - This blunt truth hurts - it might even hurt some on the left.

The mascot of the left is Marquis de Sade. They'll slime you by accusing you of exactly what their ilk has done.

Posted by KDS at January 29, 2013 10:28 PM
30. So a government official, upon learning that a citizen was armed, got nervous. Dang...that 2nd Amendment still works! Then said government official attempted to infringe the right of that citizen to be armed. Dang...those Founding Fathers got it right again!

Posted by Diogenes at January 30, 2013 06:00 AM
31. To me, beyond the hunting, target and/or competitive shooting and self defense use of firearms is the deterrent effect of just the possibility that someone is armed. That deterrence is why we have the second amendment. It keeps people and institutions, government or otherwise, with that thought in the back of their head that if they push too hard on or attempt to harm someone there exists the possibility that that individual may by capable of protecting themselves individually without the help of outside forces. This is paramount to my and your individual freedom and security and as so it benefits society as a whole by maintaining civility.

Posted by shaydo at January 30, 2013 09:51 AM
32. "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." --Russian communist revolutionary Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924)

Go bow to your statue loud, gun grabbing lefty's.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 10:50 AM
33. Yes, someone is actually this stupid, and shockingly, it's an Obamabot.
Republicans and "so-called" conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?

We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our great president came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us. I don't know the exact statistics, but I'm quite certain that Chicago is a lot safer that Morehead City, when it comes to gun violence.

But do Republicans and conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not. All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth redistribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution, I'd say, and President Obama needs to change it.

The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being president. Right now, it says that a person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that's just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair.

Please withhold my name because I don't want to get crank calls.

PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT

Please withhold my name because I don't want to get crank calls.
PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT

OMG! Isn't that just the perfect definition of a LOUD LEFTY!?

The amount of pure vitriol that comes from the left never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 12:44 PM
34. Rags, I think that is a conservative pretending to be a Democrat.

Posted by pudge at January 30, 2013 12:59 PM
35. Rags @33
Love the logic. Of course, maybe they are onto something here. If personhood amendments pass and a person is a person at conception, then this opens up the ability for people who were conceived here to run for President. Better amend the constitution to make this clear :-)

Posted by Just Asking at January 30, 2013 02:49 PM
36. @ 34: The Carteret County News-Times doesn't seem to agree. We, though can agree to disagree, because it's now more far fetched than some of the other crazy ideas loud lefty's come up with ... hello, ridiculously hazardous material light bulbs...

Although,

august589 posted at 12:57 pm on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.

august589 Posts: 1

It's hard for me to believe that this is a serious letter to the editor. It reads as if someone wanted to look and act stupid and give Democrats a bad name in a back-door fashion. If this is a real letter, I'm stunned by the ignorance of it.
and others seem to agree with you.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 03:25 PM
37. ATF botches another gun sting operation

I think it's safe to say the government, particularly the Obama government can't do a single thing right.

Especially in light of the fact that the GDP has dropped massively in the 4th quarter. Of course, President Petulant was quick to blame everybody but the whiner he faces in the mirror.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 03:35 PM
38. Rags: "The Carteret County News-Times doesn't seem to agree"

I hope you are not shocked when I assert that a newspaper's editors are wrong about something. ;-)

Posted by pudge at January 30, 2013 03:35 PM
39. LOL nope. But I've passed being surprised by loud lefty nuttiness a long time ago, so I don't consider the letter outside the realm of possibility.

TWO examples of loud lefty nuttiness: a loud lefty heckling a testifying mother who simply wants to defend her children during the gun violence hearing today and NARAL claiming Getting An Abortion No Different Than Choosing What Haircut To Get Or Sweater To Wear

Final Thoughts on Today's Gun Regulation Hearing

As the hearing wraps up, with many of senior committee members having long since departed for other more pressing matters such as lunch, it is interesting to note that two facts went unmentioned during the proceedings. The first is that long guns are involved in less than 3% of all violent gun incidents. The second is that mass shootings are exceedinly rare and mass shooting deaths have been flat in the last decade or so, including the last year in which incidents at Aurora and Newtown prompted a critical revisitation of our nation's gun control policies and politics, and 2011 when Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head. If mass shootings constitute a crsis, it is not a recent one, and many other crises that meet the same standard.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 03:45 PM
40. We all know President Petulant claims to have been inundated with letters from kids about guns, resulting in his side show... er, press conference.

Evidently all letters to President Petulant are not created equal.

The vast majority of us have never seen an abortion - but we can gain wisdom from those who have. Abortion is a terrible, violent procedure that kills a baby. No amount of sugar-coating can banish that reality. Those of us in the pro-life movement must continue on, knowing we are fighting a battle against the most important human rights injustice of our time.

NOTE, I do not believe it is 'off topic' to talk abortion in a gun control thread. Both sides of the political spectrum want to end senseless violence. Only one side considers +55 million victims of that violence.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 03:53 PM
41. While we can all enjoy Rag's defense of being off topic, let's try to get back on it, eh?

First of all, Wayne LaPierre, lying today at the hearing:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/wayne_lapierre_hopes_you_dont_read_that_study_he_mentioned/

Want to protect women? Close the private sales and other loopholes:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/30/gayle_trotter_s_fantasies_of_fighting_off_violent_men_don_t_have_anything.html

Posted by Lionel Hutz Esq at January 30, 2013 04:22 PM
42. If you are against violence then don't be a hypocrite and be against ALL violence. +55 million is a hard number of violence victims to trump.

Interesting that you cite a Salon piece, especially they claim Yeah, abortion takes a life. So what?

It makes one wonder if they'd cite a study that either refutes or validates their own claim... and would you be so anxious to cite it.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 05:19 PM
43. So, as asked by pudge I googled guns and fear and got this from someone named Gayle Trotter testifying today in the Senate.

"An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon," said Trotter, a mother of six. "And the peace of mind she has ... knowing she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she's fighting hardened violent criminals."

"scary-looking gun"? Sounds like fear based reasoning to me.

I also found that Gayle Trotter, like pudge, uses "CLING to your gun" language.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/this-november-cling-to-your-gun-rights/?print=1

If there is a side in this debate motivated by fear, there are actual real live identifiable people who are on the record using fear as their reasoning and it is not "anti-gun folks". It is the other side of the discussion.

Posted by observer at January 30, 2013 05:25 PM
44. Hutz: Want to protect women? Close the private sales and other loopholes

You are, of course, lying. There is no evidence that private sales and loopholes increase threats to women.

The article you quote is lying in many other ways. It's absolutely amazing that you attack LaPierre, and then go on to cite an article to back your liberty-hating position that is so rife with lies it's impossible for a thinking person to get through without choking.


"one of their primary functions since then has been to undermine efforts to end sexual abuse and violence against women"

Lie. They simply disagree on how best to do it.


"They've organized protests of campus fundraising for anti-violence organizations."

Lie. The link they provide contains no protest, merely criticism, and makes no mention of any anti-violence organization.


"This is an era where Rush Limbaugh thinks it's funny to mock kids who don't want to die."

Lie. It never happened. He mocked the idea that Obama using them as props was meaningful.


"The conservative claim, made by Trotter, that guns are an 'equalizer' is about as serious a misrepresentation as you can muster when it comes to violence against women"

Lie. In fact, her claim is quite simply, and obviously, true. This moron Amanda Marcotte deceptively twists the claim into one in which a gun is always or even usually an "equalizer." That's not what Trotter said, or meant. She simply said -- and meant -- that sometimes a woman could make use of a gun with more than 10 rounds in its magazine to defend herself, which is absolutely true.


"It's particularly outrageous for Trotter to float this line of nonsense so soon after the headline-grabbing murder of Kasandra Perkins."

Lie. The "outrageousness" of an argument is entirely independent of circumstances unrelated to it.


"Having guns in the house didn't save her"

Lie (by implication). No one ever argued it necessarily would.


"... and if Jovan Belcher hadn't been able to unload nine bullets into her by simply grabbing a gun on hand, it's likely she'd still be alive."

Pretty much a lie. While factually true, the implication -- that it is in any way likely she would be alive if there were fewer bullets in the gun -- is nonsense.


"The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger."

Lie.


"The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths."

Lie (again, by implication). It doesn't control for many other factors that could contribute to those deaths, but merely stating a meaningless correlation.


"Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her."

And batterers who don't own guns clean their knives to intimidate. Yes, evil people do evil things. So? What retarded crap.


"The Violence Policy Center's research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense."

Lie. The VPC did not show that at all. They counted women who killed in self-defense, versus women killed. They are just flat-out telling a bald-faced lie here. There are many more incidents of women warding off an attacker with the threat of a gun, or firing and not killing, than there of her actually killing with that gun.

And, of course, that statistic is essentially meaningless, except in that it shows that several women are alive today who likely wouldn't have been if they hadn't killed their murderous partner.


Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

Yet more lies.

Posted by pudge at January 30, 2013 05:27 PM
45. observer: "scary-looking gun"? Sounds like fear based reasoning to me.

Yes, it puts fear into the attackers. So?


I also found that Gayle Trotter, like pudge, uses "CLING to your gun" language.

You mean, we both occasionally quote Obama's lanugage. So?


If there is a side in this debate motivated by fear, there are actual real live identifiable people who are on the record using fear as their reasoning

Please, please, please stop being stupid.

My point is that it is YOUR FEAR that drives your views on the topic.

You are providing an example of someone else saying she wants a particular gun to SCARE CRIMINALS as evidence against my point.

That is stupid.

Please stop it.

Posted by pudge at January 30, 2013 05:35 PM
46. @45 You are quite an emotional writer who shows disdain for looking at facts.

My "FEAR"? Where did you get that I am afraid?
I'm not afraid.
I'm concerned.

You see people like you who demonstrate consistent emotion driven responses and who carry weapons are dangerous to those near them.

I don't know you and I'll likely never be near you. But while I also don't know your family and friends, I'm concerned for their safety.
And yours. People who own fire arms are significantly more likely to successfully commit suicide. Google it.

Posted by observer at January 30, 2013 05:43 PM
47. observer: You are quite an emotional writer who shows disdain for looking at facts.

You're lying on both counts.

There was nothing emotional about anything I wrote, and I'm the one looking at the facts.

while I also don't know your family and friends, I'm concerned for their safety

You're a damned idiot and a poor troll. Keep up the ad hominems and you'll be banned.

People who own fire arms are significantly more likely to successfully commit suicide.

So? Yes, guns are good at killing. That's why I have them. You're not making an argument against guns.

Posted by pudge at January 30, 2013 05:50 PM
48. You see people like you who demonstrate consistent emotion driven responses and who carry weapons are dangerous to those near them.

Defining loud lefty's who in face of a tragedy started screaming "DO SOMETHING", even faced with the facts about guns and their danger vs how they look. Newsflash: The shotgun Biden touted will put a bigger hole in you than a scary looking AR15 - and it's far easier for a little woman to cock than a hand gun with a slide mechanism. And it's one of the most recognizable gun sounds able to instill fear.

Google it.

YOU made the claim, YOU provide the proof.


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 05:54 PM
49. Hmm, How's that gun control working out ?

The big loud lefty talking points about abortion are 'if you don't want one, don't have one' and keep your relgion out of our bodies.

DITTO back at ya in regards to guns. Feel free not to own one. Feel free to live in your gun free zone bubble. Feel free to decide not to visit your gun owning neighbors, feel free to decide amongst yourselves WHO actually owns the guns, because, frankly I think you are too willing to point fingers and to judge but too cowardly to actually ask.

AND, if someone did ask, I'd tell them it's none of their damned business, just like my salary, how I discipline my kids or my dog is none of their damned business.

Day of Resistance Rallies On .223 (February 23, 2013)


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 06:09 PM
50. Loud lefty DO SOMETHING! nuttiness #2

Loud lefty DO SOMETHING! nuttiness #3

What could go wrong?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 30, 2013 06:27 PM
51. Good post and good pushback at the leftists (i.e. Hutz and Observer). They love to project their anger, fear and ad hominem on to others who don't see it their way.

They are not capable of giving reasoned rebuttal.

"You see people like you who demonstrate consistent emotion driven responses and who carry weapons are dangerous to those near them."

You are showing us who you really are, with your emotion driven responses to try and influence the gun control lobby - misguided and dangerous-beneficial for criminals and bad for law-bidding citizens.

BTW, There needs to be a move to get rid of gun free zones near schools. We must do that for the children !

Posted by KDS at January 30, 2013 10:04 PM
52. Liberal CNN cancels Soledad O'Brien's show for being "too ethnic".

Crickets from the Left.....

Posted by Princess Leia at January 30, 2013 10:27 PM
53. I wrote the councilman a letter and asked him to resign or at least someone should start a recall for him violating his oath: "to protect the Constitution". The man is a desgrace and should not be allowed to push his own personal agenda. Wake up Oak Harbor that is not who you folks are. You are proud active and retired military who don't have to put up with this kind of BS.

Posted by Jimbo at January 31, 2013 08:35 AM
54. I just have to laugh because it was all so predictable ... and we did!

We have a loud lefty promoting her "'Paycheck Fairness Act' Would Require Employees To Share Workers' Salaries" (hello, Twentieth Century Motor Company!).

We have Homeland Security telling us to defend ourselves from mass murderers with ... ta da! ... SCISSORS!

We have unemployment going up (unexpectedly!) while we have a President Petulant dissolving his jobs council that never bothered meet in order to counsel a President Petulant that didn't want to hear and could not care.

We have job cuts and layoffs as the "New Normal" ... to say nothing of the downgrade of full time work because of Obama-doesn't-care

We have GDP going down (unexpectedly!)

We have loud lefty's Thanking God for abortion (does anyone beside me see the hilarious, sad irony there?)

We see state legislatures furiously writing/passing laws against the federal government to protect the Second Amendment.

We have union membership taking a dive.

And, on top of it all, we have bedbugs and rats!

My God, the loud lefty implosion is happening within weeks of the President Petulant's most recent coronation!

A pendulum swings like pendulums do...

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 31, 2013 11:50 AM
55. "A pendulum swings like pendulums do..."

Which would mean something of significance if the opposition had a spine. However the leadership does not - they are in desperate need of new blood and the GOP as it exists now is on the verge of imploding and will seal their own fate along side the whigs if they bring enough votes to pass illegal immigration reform - 1986 Amnesty on steroids.

If they pass this bill that will guarantee a Democrat majority (in spite of what Karl Rove claims) , their epitaph ought to read; "RIP, Republican Party - they were lauded as the stupid party and they did not disappoint"

Posted by KDS at January 31, 2013 12:37 PM
56. Some people see the glass half empty, some see it half full. I'm grateful I HAVE a glass and grateful for what ever I have in it.

And I am laughing my head off at the headlines/articles today that so perfectly illustrate the over reach of an incompetent president Petulant and the waking up with a hangover of the utopia drunk loud lefty's

"Oops, Now the Unions Tell Us They Don't Like ObamaCare"

"Union Leaders' Epiphany Leaves Them Scrambling: Wait, Obamacare Is Going to Drive up Our Costs?"

"Unions Loved Obamacare..... Until They Found Out What It Costs"

"Unions Grow Wary Of Obamacare After Fighting Tooth And Nail To Help Pass It, Complain It Is Driving Up Costs, Making Unionized Workers Less Competitive"

"Obama Administration Takes Steps to Implement Obamacare Mandate Tax on Americans"

The Obama Administration took steps this week to implement the Obamacare mandate tax. The Congressional Budget Office determined in 2012 that millions of Americans will get socked by the Obamacare mandate tax, 80 percent of whom are middle income citizens.

"GDP Shows Negative Growth In First Quarter, Jobless Claims Spike . . . Harry Reid's Response: "We Are In A Recovery," Don't "Bad Mouth It""

"Obama Regulatory Spending Costs More Than 16 Years Under Bush and Clinton"

"The Cost of Obama's Regulatory Explosion
Nearly double the cost of the first three years of Bush and Clinton combined."

"Pew Poll Finds For First Time Majority Of Americans Think Federal Government Threatens Their Rights, Freedoms"

"LOST VIDEO - 'Skeets' Obama Kinda Jumpy Around Guns"

"Source: Number Of Times Obama Shot Skeet At Camp David . . . . One"

News of President Obama's apparently long-secret fondness for skeet shooting came as a surprise to those who say they have witnessed the president's "awkward" attempts at pinging the (clay) pigeons.
"The only time he shot skeet was for President's Cup," said the source, referring to a shooting competition tradition involving the presidential Marine guards. "I was there. He stayed for about five minutes, and couldn't leave fast enough."

Skeet shooting "is very hard," said the source. "Especially for someone not used to guns ... He couldn't have been more uncomfortable

LOL! The first time my youngest son shot skeet, he missed the first pigeon and then hit the next 14. The range master was so impressed he bought my son another round to see if he'd do it again. He did ... and didn't miss the first pigeon that time.

"and then a roll of duct tape came out"

"Are Dems the 21st Century Samurais?"

The Sword Hunts were a despicable series of mass disarmaments of the people in feudal Japan, performed for precisely the purpose of eliminating them as a threat to tyranny. The most powerful of the Japanese lords knew well that an armed peasantry presented a constant threat in a feudal society where order and good discipline were to be the province of the Samurai or warrior class, who roughly equate to a much more savage version of medieval, European knights.


"DHS Offers Advice For Stopping Next Newtown-Like Mass Murderer: Scissors"

"NRA President Says Anti-Gun Fanatics Threatened To Kill His Son And Daughter ... It's OK to threaten to kill the children of your opponents if you're a liberal."

"Socialism 101. Case Study? The Morons In France."

To try to combat being broke, not only is he planning to raise taxes even MORE over the next five years like a drunken sorority girl on spring break with her Daddy's credit card, but French President Hollande has recently had the brilliant idea of making everyone shut their lights off.


"More Social Pathology
Sanctimonious Animal Rights advocates stage a protest in a Bay Area Supermarket ... that certainly never inhibits them from assuming all kinds of baseless authority to tell the rest of us how to live."

"Grocery chain banning all products marketed to children with cute cartoon characters"

"Chicago NPR station issues bizarre plea: 'Go make babies today'"

"MSM Reporters Who Watch Abortions Tell Of Their Brutal Reality: "Into The Muck Would Drop A Foot, Or A Hand, Or A Piece Of Rib Cage""

"Feel Good Story Of The Day: Piers Morgan Loses To RuPaul In TV Ratings"

Barack Obama: The Affirmative Action President

Under the Obama watch the economy has contracted, the debt has skyrocketed, environmental "investments" have gone bankrupt, and anti-business policies have stifled growth. Americans are being murdered and kidnapped globally.

Numerous scandals are coupled with the failed policies of the administration to become the open secrets many dare not utter. The alleged superior ingelligence of Obama and his administration team is marked by sub-par performance. Let the perpetually outraged left hyperventilate and scream.

Nothing changes. Water is still wet, Hezbollah still blows stuff up, and leftists throw race-baiting temper tantrums.

Adding to, or detracting from, his record, Obama is the failed affirmative action president (FAAP). To say he was elected solely because of his race would be wrong. Many blacks and guilty white liberals are fixated on his race, but many other Americans love the idea of a multi-racial leader. In reality, though, most Americans turned to him after Lehman Brothers burned.

Upon taking office, something happened that is an insult to everybody who believes in affirmative action but also values merit. The standards were lowered for Obama regarding actual job performance.

It's impossible to deny that his defenders make excuses for him. The worse things get, the more he is propped up. He is either too big to fail, or, gasp, "too black to fail." Which means that any criticism of the President is deemed as having roots in racism not performance.

This defies logic since he was voted in twice.

Those who expected results out of him could have noticed how substanceless his programs were when he was on the campaign trail. His idea for budget cutting was "getting rid of programs that don't work." He offered nonsensical platitudes such as "tomorrow will be different from today."

Of course it will. It is called a calendar.

He was given the job because people believed that "hope" and "change" equaled solutions.

Even in his second term he is still complaining about the mess he inherited while his bar of success keeps getting lowered. He actually takes credit for a lack of accomplishments. Non-achievements are called achievements simply because he says so, without challenge.

Presidents are usually graded on jobs created. He is judged by "jobs saved or created." Jobs saved? There is absolutely no metric to measure this. Even he arrogantly admitted through laughter that "shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we thought."

That is failure. ...

Mr. Obama and his sycophants want to blame President Bush for the problem but then take credit for turning things around. Hank Paulson got TARP passed before Mr. Obama ever took office. All Mr. Obama did was take the fragile but stabilizing economy and pass a stimulus bill that stimulated nothing.

Liberals still praise Mr. Obama as a success, perverting the very meaning of the word.

When challenged on failed campaign promises, Mr. Obama has the unmitigated gall to say that he "did or tried to do" everything he promised.

Tried to do? When did trying to do something become acceptable? Can anybody remember his predecessor being praised for attempting to do things and failing?

This insidious "soft bigotry of lowered expectations" continues to this day.

Obama is also held to a lower foreign policy standard. Killing bin Laden was a major positive, but also an aberration in a failed record. In Syria people are being murdered daily. Americans have been murdered in Benghazi, Libya and Algeria.

People who would normally demand that the leader of the free world "do something," are now left to lament that "maybe the job is too big for one man."

No, the job is too big for this man. He has a light resume, and never rose to the occasion. ...

In 2013, President Obama is determined to continue failing because he deeply believes in policies that have always failed everywhere they have been tried.

Nobody cares if Barack Obama is light-skinned or dark-skinned. His problem is that he is thin-skinned, unwilling, and unable to do the job. He delegates everything except ribbon-cutting ceremonies, lifting nothing heavier than plastic scissors.

The coddling of Obama must stop. It insults Americans of all races with actual records of real celebratory achievements.

The affirmative action presidency needs to end. The excuses need to stop now.

So does the Obama reign of error, crushed under the weight of unrealistic expectations by people who wanted to see Utopia at all costs rather than see the truth of one mediocre man never being more than that. ...

**Nope, no headline linkfest ... and not in a nod to whining loud lefty's (you - and we - know who you are.) If you want them I'll provide them - sometime after my day of errand running.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 31, 2013 01:11 PM
57. I vary between half empty and half full. The numbers of low information voters and low information politicians who are also corrupt makes it half empty. Anything the Republicans do to counter their image as the stupid party makes it half full. Their strategy on fighting the battle on spending cuts and the budget or no-pay for the Senate makes it half full. The fact is the current leadership has little or know spine and can't communicate well.

Posted by KDS at January 31, 2013 01:43 PM
58. My favorite gag going around: a poster with a photo of an old guy in a cowboy hat saying
"You actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws?
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?"

Posted by Princess Leia at January 31, 2013 03:16 PM
59. Princess: Do you think that most criminals can pass a background check? -- and, additionally, the only cowboys that you are likely to run into are of the drugstore and goat-roper variety.

Posted by Angelus Novus at January 31, 2013 03:53 PM
60. They are probably all Republicans - right @59 ?

Keep spewing out your hate-filled propaganda. Don't think that anyone outside of the low information voter/tool of the Democrat party crowd swallows that though.

Posted by KDS at January 31, 2013 04:19 PM
61. Novus: Do you think that most criminals can pass a background check?

You seem to think your question is relevant to what Leia said. You're wrong.

the only cowboys that you are likely to run into ...

You enjoy not having a point, don't you?

Posted by pudge at January 31, 2013 07:29 PM
62. So, I am still laughing at the ACTIONS:CONSEQUENCES headlines I'm reading today.

Really, I think one of the moderators ought to post an open 'most ridiculous, heart stopping, eye bugging, laughter and/or cringe inducing headline of the day' thread. Hilarity will ensue, as well as passionate discussion about the facts and/or veracity of the sources of those headlines.

Here's a few since I got home an hour ago:

File under hypocrisy writ large.. or in the case of Al, extra large:

"VIDEO: AL GORE PUMMELLED IN BOOK TOUR..."

"Feel Good Video Of The Day: Goracle Pummeled By Liberal Media During His Book Tour For Selling Current TV To Qatar ... Love it."

Oh, yeah about those pesky ACTIONS:CONSEQUENCES:

"IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family"

"IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Insurance Plan Will Be $20,000/Year For Family Of Five ... And if you don't buy it the government will fine you $2,000."

"Thanks to Democrats, poor families getting squeezed on Obamacare exchanges."

They're calling it a "glitch."

"Pew: 53% View Government As Threat To Personal Rights "

"Me or We: Stanford study concludes self-interest wins out over society's"

BINGO!

"About That 'Permanent Democratic Majority'
Demography isn't destiny--and assuming that it is will likely make liberals overreach again."


"Gallup: More U.S. Small Businesses Cutting Workers Than Hiring"

"Thanks to Democrats - US Now 100% Dependent on 19 Strategic Rare Metals & Minerals - 11 of Those From China"

Thanks to Democrats, the United States is now tied for last, with Papua New Guinea, in the time it takes to get a permit for a new rare metal or mineral mine. And, thanks to Democrats, the United States is now 100% dependent on 19 strategic rare metals and minerals, 11 of those are from China.
American Resources Policy Network Principal Daniel McGroarty wrote about this crisis in The Wall Street Journal today.

A century ago, plentiful elements like iron, lead, and copper fueled our Nation's transition to an industrial economy. But today, many of the materials that characterize the industrial cutting-edge--such as rare earths, indium, and lithium--are not as naturally abundant or easy to access as their predecessors...

...Jobs and capital increasingly flow to countries that command the resources to power modern manufacturing, and American manufacturing is more dependent on metals and minerals access than ever before. Yet there is no country on the planet where it takes longer to get a permit for domestic mining. Among other consequences of this red tape, there are now 19 strategic metals and minerals for which the U.S. is currently 100% import-dependent--and for 11 of them a single country, China, is among the top three providers.

"Another Plaintiff Beats Obama HHS-Abortion Mandate in Court"

"Democrats Ask NFL, NBA Teams For Suggestions On How To Stop Global Warming"

"'Racist Witch!': The Left Goes Nuts After Falling for Parody Site's Fake Story About Ann Coulter"

I would like to note that not even one of our suddenly silent loud lefty's have asked for a link to any of these headlines per my offer at 56 ...

Wherefore art thou, loud lefty's? :)

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 31, 2013 08:13 PM
63.
The measure of a decent human being is how he or she treats the defenseless. The philosophy of Ms. Williams echoes past tyranny: "Might makes Right!" What gives Mary Elizabeth Williams the right to determine that her life is better than the baby she carries? Who appointed Ms. Williams the arbitrator of who lives and who dies? Always, Ms. Williams? Abortion is acceptable always?

We are not talking about life endangerment or catastrophic damage to the mother here. No. What Williams believes, and she's not alone, is that a woman can execute her fetus simply because "she's the boss."

You may remember the late term abortion doctor George Tiller. For $5,000, Tiller would drill a hole into the skull of a baby anytime up until birth. Tiller had an assistant in his Kansas clinic, Dr. Kirstin Neuhaus, whose assignment was to put on paper a reason for the late termination. Pretty much any reason would do - including "anxiety."

On May 31, 2009, Dr. Tiller was shot through the eye while attending a church service. His killer, Scott Roder, is serving life in prison. The murder made national headlines and in many press dispatches, Tiller was portrayed as a martyr. People like me, who had criticized Tiller before the vicious crime, were accused by far left loons of encouraging the assassination.

On June 22, 2012, Dr. Kristin Neuhaus was informed that Kansas authorities had revoked her medical license. A judge ruled that she did not properly perform medical examinations of eleven abortion patients. The prosecution said that Neuhaus was a "threat to any future patients she might have."

Not to mention the babies she helped Tiller abort.

There comes a time when a human being has to either face evil or admit to allowing it. Abortion is legal in the United States but it should not be celebrated or used as a political tool. That's what the babies would say.


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 31, 2013 09:05 PM
64. The ignorant always live in fear.

Posted by Leftover at February 1, 2013 12:00 AM
65. Re 64;
Leftover, Yes, you are correct. That is why the left fears the right.

Posted by Oscarphone at February 1, 2013 09:45 AM
66. So I got this in an email today. I do NOT claim responsibility for its authorship nor the veracity of the information, but I certainly do agree with the content. I cleaned up the bold, the multiple exclamation !!!! marks and the unnecessary 'pass this on' hyperbole. Read it or don't

Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin' Author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

*
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

Switzerland issues every household a gun
Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle
Switzerland has the lowest gun relates crime rate of any civilized country in the world.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 1, 2013 02:01 PM
67.
In fact, I recommend this video as the single most powerful argument that every adult American should have a handgun on his person at all times in public places.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 1, 2013 02:09 PM
68. I bet statistically speaking that a gun owner has a greater probability of committing suicide or killing their spouse than a non gun owner, and that they also have a greater probability of the same than being shot by a stranger. Have at it you mental cases.

Posted by Puffy at February 1, 2013 02:11 PM
69. I bet statistically speaking that a gun owner has a greater probability of committing suicide or killing their spouse than a non gun owner, and that they also have a greater probability of the same than being shot by a stranger. Have at it you mental cases. -Posted by Puffy at February 1, 2013 02:11 PM

Back up your 'bet' with FACTS. I bet you can't.
Further, if you could [/snicker], why would you care? Do you care about the violence of 55 million dead babies? Do you care about euthanasia? Do you care about all suicides or only those committed by those bitter conservatives clinging to their guns and God?

I love that issues like guns so perfectly expose loud lefty hypocrisy.


Watch and learn, boys.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 1, 2013 02:21 PM
70. Puffy: I bet statistically speaking that a gun owner has a greater probability of committing suicide or killing their spouse than a non gun owner, and that they also have a greater probability of the same than being shot by a stranger.

Even if that is true: so what? What does that mean? Unless you can say, you're not actually making any argument of any kind.

Maybe people who are more likely to commit suicide or kill their spouse are more likely to, therefore, get a gun. Maybe people who are more likely to be the victim of violence by a stranger are also more likely to, therefore, get a gun. Unless you can show causation, you are showing nothing at all.

Why do you hate science?


Have at it you mental cases.

Be rational, or go away. In case you are unclear, your comment is an example of being irrational.

Posted by pudge at February 1, 2013 02:26 PM
71. Man Goes on Wild Stabbing Rampage at Vancouver Apartment Building -- Gun Control Debate Ensues
Witnesses described a terrifying scene to CTV News where a 33-year-old man began stabbing residents for no reason.

"It was a very vicious, very serious attack. There were multiple victims in this," he added.

Green Mountain Dems reject gun ban

Vermonters who value their freedoms are not as threatened by any political party as they are by transplants from Chicago or New York who seek to impose the values and laws of the society they left on the new state they call home.

**If only Seattle had that mindset to protect itself back in the 80's...


Obama Campaign Alert on Guns Has Zero Impact

Last Friday, the Obama campaign fired up its vaunted voter machine and urged supporters to call Congress in support of gun control. The email alert to Obama's list of more than 20 million supporters was intended to flood Congress with calls in support of the President's gun control proposals. After a week, it is clear the effort fizzled.

This is further evidence of the fundamental challenge faced by supporters of gun control. While large numbers of voters say they support more restrictions on gun rights, they aren't particularly motivated by the issue. It is merely one of many issues they support. Those who believe in gun rights, however, are singularly motivated on the issue. Not only is their vote determined by that issue, their level of political engagement is determined by it as well.

Not even Obama can fix that math.

New Glock Ad

Media Lies Again With 'Man Buys Missile Launcher During Gun Buyback Program'

Democrats hate competition

Advice from DHS on stopping mass murderer: Scissors

The cartwheels that government bureaucrats turn just to avoid the very subject of guns is hysterical.

In other words, sit back and enjoy - or pray that the shooter doesn't notice you. As for the scissors - sure, why not? They're cheaper than taking karate lessons and easier to hide than a baseball bat.

Of course, what practical good they would do against a man armed with a gun is a totally difference question that DHS apparently forgot to address in the video.

One wonders sometimes of "Homeland Security" isn't a joke department, like the "Ministry of Silly Walks" in that Monty Python sketch.

**Oh how I love snark and sarcasm:

'Dangerous Hairdryers' and Self-protective Cutting Shears

Last year, with the authorization of Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice, after thousands of "Fast and Furious" assault rifles wreaked mayhem on both the U.S. border and inside Mexico, the Obama administration commissioned Janet 'Big Sis' Napolitano to do whatever was necessary to help save American lives.

Soon thereafter, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, overseen by Secretary Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security, seized 13,000 "unsafe hair dryers" from blowing their way across the border.

Apparently, Mexican drug cartels entering the U.S. to buy illegal guns and Al Qaeda operatives infiltrating American soil are not the problem. But hairdryers that "fail to have adequate immersion protection" -- now that is a huge problem.

Now, a year later, after pulling the plug on a successful "dangerous hairdryer" crusade, Ms. Napolitano and company have embarked on a new venture: offering advice on how to stay alive if one is fortunate enough to have a job and a demented gunslinger decides to vent his anger in the workplace.

Naturally, because the government objects to honest Americans citizens being armed and able to defend themselves, the DHS was forced to get creative when suggesting lifesaving options that should have also included: When making a business call, instead of looking for the donuts and coffee or scoping out the location of the bathroom, be on the lookout for an escape route and never sit with your back to the door.

In the end, between Ms. Napolitano's successful "dangerous hairdryer" endeavor last year and the lifesaving instructions for using scissors against an angry, gun-wielding former coworker on a rampage this year, the Department of Homeland Security's information campaign is destined to save lives.

In the meantime, in the near future a taxpayer-funded "Options for Consideration Active Shooter Training Video Part. II" may be warranted to address a situation where a gunman attacks, oh, let's say a beauty parlor. In that case, someone will need to provide step-by-step self-defense "options" for a hair stylist with only a "dangerous hairdryer" handy and no assault scissors within reach.


Biden On Gun Control Plans: "Nothing We're Going To Do" Will "Fundamentally Alter" Chances Of Another Mass Shooting - Update: "Staffer Unsuccessfully Tried To Cut Biden Off Repeatedly"

NRA Vindicated: Armed Guard Stops School Shooter After He Opens Fire On Classmates

** And, just because I can, just because sometime loud lefty's need their noses rubbed in how wrong the lies they believe are :

FEC Filings Show Romney Campaign Quietly Donated $90K To Red Cross For Sandy Relief Efforts, Never Publicized It

Classy move.

And now to perfectly illustrate why America is on the road to Greece and president Petulant is the incompetent leading us there:

Obama/DNC Ends Year $27.2 Million In Debt, RNC Ends With $4.7 Million Cash On Hand

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 1, 2013 03:28 PM
72. "Puffy: I bet statistically speaking that a gun owner has a greater probability of committing suicide or killing their spouse than a non gun owner, and that they also have a greater probability of the same than being shot by a stranger."

People who drive automobiles have a higher statistical chance of being involved in a car accident than the bushmen of the Kalahari. I bet that the relationship is very strong at the 99% confidence level.

Posted by Politically Incorrect at February 1, 2013 03:40 PM
73. @65, yes, you fear your fellow man because you are ignorant. There's no difference between the Democrats of today who fear the right and guns and the Democrats of yesteryear who feared those with darker skin.

Ignorance is the hallmark of the Democrat party. Always has been and always will be.

Posted by Leftover at February 1, 2013 06:14 PM
74. Kinda makes you wonder if loud lefty's simply don't know or just don't care...

And speaking of FEAR, where are the loud lefty's hiding? Under their desks with pointy sharp scissors?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 1, 2013 07:56 PM
75. Ragnar #74, Obama is truly in over his head. Too bad vote fraud (147% turnout, anyone??) got him in.

Posted by Princess Leia at February 1, 2013 08:53 PM
76. Yes, he is in way over head, but I think it was less fraud, more too many low information voters, too many voters sitting out and too many voting on popularity rather than policy and competence. I think what we've learned is the lesson of reality TV: people think they know a person just because they make People mag. Unfortunately most don't grasp the difference between a famous for being famous celebrity and the competent talent of a star. We have a 'celebrity" when we need competence.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 1, 2013 09:20 PM
77. Even if it is readily apparent he is in way over his head, he will remain unwilling to govern in a bipartisan way and continue a statist ideological approach. His actions demonstrate he is primarily interested in decimating the Republican party at any cost and the the state of the economy has little bearing on governance.

He may come across as shrewd because this administration is playing for keeps and the long term, but in reality it may succeed in transform this country into a banana republic at the Federal level with contempt for the constitution. In the long run, if "successful" it will make the US the world around us a more miserable place to live for a vast majority because of the self-centeredness, narcissism and ideological hatred for half of America. May this country's dignity be at least partially restored and his 2nd term end in a similar fashion to that of Richard M. Nixon !

Posted by KDS at February 1, 2013 10:32 PM
78. @77, What do you mean unwilling to govern in a bipartisan way?

He just signed the Republican House bill that suspends the debt ceiling giving the Treasury unlimited ability to borrow.

Posted by SDK at February 2, 2013 08:52 AM
79. @79 - That is only because the Democrat controlled Senate passed the bill. You only tell part of what the bill contained. It also states if the Senate does not submit a budget by mid-April, they will cease being paid. It is a small step in the right direction, but based on past performance, I stand by my original statement.

Example of no bipartisan governance - Why did he go ahead and sign the ACA into law when not one Republican voted for it ? As a result, we have Obamacare, which will continue to suppress economic recovery and will price many people out of healthcare and the most costly part has not even began.

Posted by KDS at February 2, 2013 10:06 AM
80. my comment was directed at sdk.

Posted by KDS at February 2, 2013 10:51 AM
81. Some days there is nothing quite so fun as a Cheshire Cat grin inducing, loud lefty provoking linkfest cheerfully leading their sacred cows to the slaughterhouse. And since we can't seem to lead our loud lefty's to places that give them the side of the story the don't get/they done want to hear... the groundhogs might want to go back underground ... or back under their desks ... Of course, it appears they already have.

Great news: Obama shot a skeet once, or something

Washington Post Fact-Checker Still Skeptical About Obama Skeet Shooting Claim: Pic 'Does Not Quite Answer the Questions...'

Gun Expert: "Obama Shoots a Gun Like He Throws a Baseball"

That Elusive Photo Of The President Shooting Skeet

I hope the skeet didn't suffer too long.

The Target Explains It

Folks from all over the net are commenting about the just-released White House photo of the president supposedly skeet shooting at Camp David back in August. My first impression of the photo was that he couldn't possibly be shooting launched clay pigeons because the muzzle of the barrel is not elevated enough to hit an aerial target. That mystery has been solved for me by blog master Jonn Lilyea, over at the military blog, This Ain't Hell, with the posting of a second, more complete photo which includes the target.

Another, easily spotted discrepancy is that the shotgun is improperly held: the butt of the stock is sitting too high on Obama's shoulder to absorb the recoil. Firing multiple shot shells from a shotgun held in that position would quickly become a very painful experience.And, there's no evidence of recoil which anyone who's ever fired a shotgun, even with target loads, knows is substantial.

The question is why, if the president is a frequent and accomplished skeet shooter, as the White House claims, would they release a photo which makes him look so amateurish?


HAHAHAHAHA: White House actually commanded people not to photoshop the Obama gun picture with predictable results

THE NEW BUMPER STICKERS ARE HERE, THE NEW BUMPER STICKERS ARE HERE: A Woman's Right to Choose


"A pendulum swings like a pendulum do..."

The NRA is Winning the Battle

"A pendulum swings like a pendulum do..."

Mayor Booker: 'Legal Gun Buyers Aren't Causing Murders in Newark and Chicago and Other Places'

"A pendulum swings like a pendulum do..."

Debbie Halvorson Splits from Democrats on AR-15 Ban in Race for Jesse Jr.'s Seat

"A pendulum swings like a pendulum do..."

Senator Reid Won't Back Feinstein's Assault-Weapons Ban

"A pendulum swings like a pendulum do..."

Poll: Majority of Young Americans Against Banning 'Assault Weapons'

"A pendulum swings like a pendulum do..."

Arianna Huffington Tweets Pic Of Newtown Victims With: "This Is The Cost Of Freedom"

Perhaps Arianna needs to remember the estimated 2.45 million rescued in 2011 by having a gun for defense. Using tragedy and children as a political tool is sickening.

He's the Biggest Celebrity in the World

President Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world, as a 2008 GOP ad said. But is he ready to lead? In particular, is he ready to use his star power to speak in and walk the streets of gang territory and tell his brothers that gun violence is distinctly uncool and even horrible. Is he ready to do what Dr. Dre did, and tell young blacks that their gangs are killing far more blacks than the Klan ever did?

"He's the biggest celebrity in the world. But is he ready to lead?" It sure doesn't look like it so far.


A Hill To Fight On -- Not a Desk to Die Under

What the Left has managed to do, however, is to convince a significant voting bloc -- white, educated, affluent urban professionals -- that the mere presence of a firearm within reach will suddenly set off an uncontrollable urge to go postal. "I just wouldn't trust myself to have a gun in the house," I often hear my lefty friends say, and of course with an attitude like that, I wouldn't trust them either, so perhaps it's just as well.

A nation of wimps, victims and cowards

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." - Robert A. Heinlein, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

I waver back and forth between hope and despair for my country. Sometimes - such as when I see the thousands of people flooding gun shows across the nation - I feel great hope. Other times I can't believe my eyes or ears about how far our country has descended. "And you call yourself an American?" is my mental reply to far too many people.


TADA!:

High-school freshman suspended for having a picture of a gun


Yeah, yeah, 'anecdotal evidence', they'll whine...

10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives

Mother Uses Gun To Protect Her Child From Armed Intruders

Armed 70-Year-Old Women's Basketball Coach Shoots Attackers While Walking Two Players to Their Cars

Gun-Toting Thugs Attack Basketball Coach Escorting Girl Players To Their Cars, Coach Pulls Out His Concealed Weapon, Shoots Both Attackers

The "clip vs magazine" crisis


Incredibly Botched ATF Operation-Machine Gun Stolen, Gun Buyback Over Market Prices, Undercover Agents Names Leaked

"A pendulum swings like a pendulum do..."

Black Agenda Summit At Howard University: Obama "Does Not Deserve A Pass Anymore"

"A pendulum swings like a pendulum do..."

Rep. Alcee Hastings(D-FL): Obama Consistently Disrespects Congressional Black Caucus, Black Press, And Graduates Of Historically Black Colleges

Sycophant news

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 2, 2013 01:27 PM
82. Response to Congressman's Quip About Not Needing An Assault Rifle to Shoot a Duck
In this video it demonstrates the difference between using an assault style rifle, in this case a Huldra AR-15, and a 12gauge shotgun with double ought buckshot. Take a moment to watch the video letter in the demonstration between the lethal destruction of the AR-15 and the shotgun.

Just past the five-minute mark in the video they show a statement that I found interesting, and it reads:

"Based on Military and Police After Action Reports, in the majority of cases, multiple single projectile bullets are required to stop an attacker."


How often have you seen reports when a police officer has to fire upon a suspect that the officer fires multiple rounds from whatever type of gun he is using. Rarely do you hear of an officer firing a single shot when they found it necessary to use deadly force.

So what happens if a gang of three or four people kick in your door and start to attack you and your family? If, as military and police reports state, multiple rounds are needed to stop it attacker and you have 3 to 4 attackers, you will need a magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Perhaps the politicians want you to tell the intruders to stop while you can put another magazine in and continue to shoot them.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 2, 2013 01:38 PM
83. I carry because I can, and yes I have looked up the barrel of a criminal's gun to see the hollow points pointed my direction. I carry because I'm not going to die waiting on law enforcement who has absolutely no direct responsibility to protect me or even respond to a call for assistance. I carry because I will not be caught defenseless in a society who turns violent criminals loose every day.

I cling to my Bible and my guns and will do so with my last breath if I die in a big pile of spent brass when the Obama Agenda 21 regime comes to try to take either. They can all kiss my big butt.

So there, buttbreath, go to hell where you belong.

Posted by IndependentVoter at February 2, 2013 07:25 PM
84. Fine way of describing, and good paragraph to obtain information regarding my presentation subject matter, which i am going to present in university. hgh supplements http://findhgh.com

Posted by hgh supplements at February 2, 2013 11:21 PM
85. Hi, I read your new stuff like every week. Your writing style is awesome, keep up the good work! hgh supplements http://hgh.la

Posted by hgh supplements at February 3, 2013 12:21 AM
86. Military's deadliest sniper killed on gun range of resort near Glen Rose

Posted by Nothingtofear at February 3, 2013 09:33 AM
87. My 2nd favorite gag going around on twitter:

A photo of dozens of criminal thugs holding up their guns and saying "Dawg, they passed a law. Where do we turn these in at?"

Posted by Princess Leia at February 3, 2013 02:07 PM
88. Gun control: Dems never waste a good tragedy
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." - John Adams, founding father

Congratulations to Barack Obama on being named the Gun and Ammunition Salesman of the Year by Smith and Wesson! Maybe he will win a free trip to Hawaii and save us taxpayers $3.6 million.

***I suspect president Petulant will be especially so this week...

Obama mocked for releasing skeet shoot photo during gun-control debate

He's full of skeet!

Gun owners lampooned President Obama as Elmer Fudd yesterday after the White House released a photo -- in the middle of a fierce national firearms debate -- of the commander-in-chief shooting clay targets at Camp David over the summer.

While the president's shooting skills were being mocked, his own gun-control allies privately fretted that Obama risked being ridiculed as a phony for suddenly trying to portray himself as a friend of sportsmen and hunters. Or, conversely, that he was glorifying the use of guns.

But if the move was aimed to win over gun enthusiasts, it backfired.

"That looks pretty pathetic. That's not skeet shooting," chuckled Rick Davenport, of the Erie County Sportsmen's Federation.

In the photo, Obama is shooting straight ahead.

"In skeet shooting, you're either shooting high or you're shooting low! This is nothing but pandering to the sportsmen and hunters," Davenport said.

New York Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King said Obama's 12-gauge Browning Citori shotgun must have jammed because gun owners will see right through the p.r. offensive.

"We've seen this p.r. stunt before. This is what all the gun banners try to do. They try to ingratiate themselves with us," King said.

***HA! Bipartisan mocking!

Seven Reasons Why it's a Photoshop
Staged, like everything else in Obama's life.

Proof? Hardly.

Right now I'm thinking that the Obama White House wishes it had a Ministry of Truth as effective as Oceania's.

Really?

Curious....so Palin with gun = evil. Obama with gun = manly? Not with those Mom jeans.

White House Dared People To Photoshop Obama's Gun Picture...And Did They Ever"

Hilarity ensues as Twitter users caption and Photoshop Obama's shooting photo

Some Obama Photoshops the White House Warned Us Not to Make or Publish

White House Warns: Don't Photoshop Obama Gun Pic


Sarah Palin fans encourage President Obama to shoot like a girl"

The president is rocking some mom jeans in that newly released skeet shooting photo, but many are suggesting he needs more than that if he really wants to shoot like a girl.

Won't anyone think of the poor skeet? Is President Obama beyond reproach because he shoots clay targets (like, all the time)? Or has he just not convinced Americans that they'd have a very hard time prying that rifle/shotgun/whatever from his warm, live hands?

***Good Grief and thank you loud lefty's! WE couldn't make this stuff up!

Rep. Moore (D-Wis.): 2nd Amendment Will Lead to People Owning Nukes, Subs

Gaffe-prone Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) is at it again. Eric Scheiner of CNSNews.com reports that Moore told Fox 6 in Milwaukee that this Second Amendment business is going too far.

"Where are we going with this? I mean, do individuals get to own nuclear weapons? Do they get to own submarines, with this notion that they have a right to bear arms? No."

Scheiner pointed out that actually, wealth permitting, you have a right to own a submarine. (See Titanic director James Cameron, for example.) He asked Moore's office if they're for restricting submarine ownership. They have not responded.


***Good Grief and thank you loud lefty's! WE couldn't make this stuff up!

The South Will Secede Over Guns! Randi Rhodes is Sure Of It!

Wow, talk about being stuck in the '60s -- the 1860s.

With all the certitude of an arrested adolescent, left-wing radio host Randi Rhodes is convinced the South will secede once again, this time over the Second Amendment.


Randi What's-Her-Name Is Hilariously Amusing.

So, we're racist white supremacists who all want to secede. Randi What's-her-Name thinks we're a bunch of far-right, male, southern, paranoid extremists who are bearing for "armed revolution against our government." And she makes fun of us wackjobs (who are all white and supremacist, mind you), and then she talks about how great it WOULD be if we actually did secede.

***OOPSIE!:

Mass Shooter Confesses He Learned to Hate White People in College

Public Schools Used to Have Rifle Teams -- Even New York

***When we lived in Pittsburgh, there was an odd school day off in the fall. I finally asked someone why and was told 'it's the first day of hunting season'. Yep, a scheduled day off from school.

Chicago Murder Rate Higher Than Non-Gun Controlled Capone Era

While the left proclaims that American gun violence requires immediate gun control action, Chicago - the most heavily gun-regulated area in the country - now has a higher murder rate than it did during the halcyon days of Al Capone. According to Chuck Goudie of ABC Chicago, "Forty-two people were killed in Chicago last month, the most in January since 2002, and far worse than the city's most notorious crime era at the end of the Roaring Twenties. January 1929, there were 26 killings."

When Al Capone ruled the streets of Chicago, there were few gun laws on the books. As Goudie points out, "The first national firearms act wasn't signed until 1934."


Reality and Obama's colossal pride

The two will collide sooner or later.

***After the lousy (and oh so satisfyingly so) week he had, I'd bet SOONER!

Obama Loses Two HHS Mandate Cases in One Week

***Loud lefty evil Cheney mea culpa's coming in 3...2... CRICKETS

Defense Secretary Panetta Admits Information from Waterboarding Led US to Bin Laden (Video)


How About Female Players in the Superbowl?

Salon: Football "Killer Sport" Which May Be Nearing Collapse

The Three Types of People You'll Meet in Liberal Hell

Liberal Hell is unsustainable. The question is not whether it will collapse, but when and how. If it isn't overthrown politically, then it will melt down into the usual vicious little tyranny and then a dynasty and then a wall covered in graffiti being torn down by the angry generations who were forced to live under it. But the modern American and European versions won't last that long because they run under multiculturalism. And that means the Eurocrats and American Liberals won't last long enough to watch a tank ram into Congress or see their wall come tumbling down. It's the Ghetto that will take everything they have built and make it their own.

***Liberal hell, indeed:

Obama: More Taxes To Come, But We'll Ramp It Up Gradually So Maybe You Wouldn't Realize What We Are Doing

***Liberal hell, indeed:

NYC Schools Distributing Thousands Of Morning-After Pills And Other Contraception Without Parental Permission

***Hey, loud lefty's:

COEXIST

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 3, 2013 03:31 PM
89. @91,

I had considered going to one of those gun buy-back events to look for a Walther PPK. I thought somebody might be willing to sell me a PPK, no questions asked, if the money was better than what the sponsors of the event were giving for the gun. I didn't make it to the event, but I saw on KIRO-TV the guns being collected. Most of them looked like pieces of junk that I wouldn't have any interest in purchasing. That includes those street sweeper shotguns. They're largely pieces of crap, in my book.

Posted by Politically Incorrect at February 3, 2013 04:07 PM
90. State law preempts local law on guns. Seattle tried to ban guns from city-owned land, and it was shot down for the same reason. You can't do that. It's illegal, and literally a civil rights violation.

It is not allowed under state law, yes, and technically a "civil rights violation", but that is too general of a tag to mean much. Not being allowed to carry a firearm into a federal building or onto private property may "violate your rights" in a broad sense, but few rights that exist within our society come without any exceptions for certain reasons. Even with respect to gun rights the Supreme Court has been specific on this concept, and has allowed reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use.

But it also demonstrates the irrational fear that is pervasive among many anti-gun folks. Here's a guy who always carries a weapon, who was trained by our government in the use of it, who has no known history of mental illness or criminal violence or lawbreaking. There is simply no rational reason to think he might use his weapon inappropriately, and therefore no rational reason to be concerned that he has a weapon.

And you're right with every single count. I have little problem with people owning guns and having them within their own homes, as long as they don't shoot Girl Scouts coming to their door. I even do not have an issue with people with extensive training (off-duty police, etc.) carrying weapons when appropriate, as long as they are mentally healthy and competent (e.g., no protection orders against them, no criminal history, etc.), and they're not waving it around when it isn't required. If no issues come up, what's the point of even asking about it or mentioning it?

One problem for me comes with allowing -- and even encouraging! -- people to get firearms when they do not have the training that one would get in the military, police, or some other group. Getting a CPL in Washington does not require that you show a need for a weapon, or that you even demonstrate an appropriate training to deal with emergency situations, just that you do not have a criminal record or a documented history of mental illness.

Countries like Switzerland and Israel that are well-known for more permissive views of guns have mandatory military service where they receive training, and specific requirements for carrying weapons. Even at the time when the Constitution was written, citizens of towns were expected to have a weapon and be trained in it for contributions to an active local militia, and there was concern that disarming of limiting certain communities over others would lead to persecution by a majority.

Getting to that model of gun rights where the obligation (well-regulated militia) is included with the actual right (bearing arms in public) is more in line than simply assuming that people without training should be granted to power to severely injure or kill people with no responsibilities to society whatsoever.

@81, 90, etc.: tl;dr

Posted by demokid at February 3, 2013 04:43 PM
91. as long as they are mentally healthy and competent (e.g., no protection orders against them, no criminal history, etc.), and they're not waving it around when it isn't required. If no issues come up, what's the point of even asking about it or mentioning it?

I've told the story before about my son and his carry permit. He was in Safeway with his pistol holstered at his side under his jacket. As he was reaching for something in the meat counter some nitwit lady sees it and starts screaming "He's got a gun". He calmly put down his meat, put his hands out and walked to the front of the store, showed his permit to the manager who proceeded to ask the lady what do you think he'd do at the meat counter, lady?

These fearful who see the boogie man in every gun owner are ridiculous.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 3, 2013 05:49 PM
92. If you're really living in fear of a home invasion, why not buy a few of those, and keep them loaded inside your home? I would have no objection whatsoever, and I'm a big-time Seattle liberal.

I don't live in fear. Actually, I would posit that liberals who have posted here live more in fear of gun owners than is rational: those that worry what their neighbor might have, those that worry about a legal gun owner suddenly going crazy in a public place...

I would suggest you conquer your fears by speding some time at a range. I believe you can rent guns at many. Maybe with some gun safety lessons and practice you can conquer your fears.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 3, 2013 06:03 PM
93. Sandy Hook Student's Father: You'll Have To Take My Gun From My Cold Dead Hands!
He also pointed out that gun ownership is a right and should not make gun owners suspect simply because of the numbers or kinds of guns they own or even how much ammunition they have.

"My guns are not dangerous," Stevens said. "They are at home, locked up, collecting dust and cat hair."

"But criminals and tyrants," he continued, "tyrants especially, beware, 'lock down' is not an option at the Stevens' residence and 911 will be dialed after the security of my home has been established!"

Stevens asked, "Why is that same security that my daughter enjoys at home with her dad not available at school in Newtown? That is what you should be considering, not making her dad a criminal."

"Charleton Heston mad the phrase, 'From my cold dead hands' famous," Stevens thundered. "And I will tell you here today, you will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands!"

Stevens slammed his fist on the desk and walked out to applause from the citizens listening

Yowser!

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 3, 2013 06:08 PM
94. @95: He calmly put down his meat, put his hands out and walked to the front of the store, showed his permit to the manager who proceeded to ask the lady what do you think he'd do at the meat counter, lady?

To which I would say, what does HE think he'd do at the meat counter? If I don't know you and you have your gun showing in public, what precisely should be anyone's reaction? Even if you have your permit, I have no way of knowing whether you're a responsible and trained gun owner.

Heck, if you're wandering around a Bellevue Safeway with a loaded gun for no good reason whatsoever, I'd have to really question your judgement.

@97: Stevens asked, "Why is that same security that my daughter enjoys at home with her dad not available at school in Newtown? That is what you should be considering, not making her dad a criminal."

Yes... who needs teachers when we can have one armed guard for every two or three students? And let's not forget that if the kids wear bulletproof vests, they'll be unlikely to be one of the handful that will be affected by school shootings this year. Might even put some kids in Lexan hamster balls -- that would also keep them from getting injured if they fell down stairs or something.

This idea of throwing massive amounts of money specifically towards school shootings is not only silly, but a drastic, disproportionate overreaction at a time when local school budgets are tight to begin with. Again, if saving children's lives is the primary concern, there are many, many other uses for funds that would be able to get greater benefits for lower costs.

Posted by demokid at February 3, 2013 06:29 PM
95. @99: While Timothy McVeigh's biography is indeed fascinating, especially his service in the First Gulf War, you really need to read the material which takes place after 1994. Just sayin'.

If he has one gun, whatever. I would prefer to know, though, whether there's someone with a large stockpile of guns in the neighborhood that's made a number of purchases of fertilizer.

Posted by demokid at February 3, 2013 07:34 PM
96. To which I would say, what does HE think he'd do at the meat counter? If I don't know you and you have your gun showing in public, what precisely should be anyone's reaction? Even if you have your permit, I have no way of knowing whether you're a responsible and trained gun owner.
Heck, if you're wandering around a Bellevue Safeway with a loaded gun for no good reason whatsoever, I'd have to really question your judgement.

It was HOLSTERED. How did anyone know he wasn't law enforcement? The nitwit panicked without knowing. He has/had the RIGHT to carry it. And you have no RIGHT to question his judgement nor that of anyone exercising that RIGHT without cause. Really, how dare you? Are you that frightened?

Here's a hint: a HOLSTERED gun won't hurt you.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 3, 2013 07:55 PM
97. Here's a newsflash: you have NO RIGHT to know what your neighbor has, what he does.
NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

It is NONE of your business.

What the heck is it with you lefty's that you so want to control your neighbors? What the heck is it with you lefty's that you are so darned distrustful of your neighbors? Who the heck do you think you are that anyone, let alone your neighbor, owes you some kind of accountability. HUBRIS writ large with you nosy lefty's.

Can't We Just Pretend to Pass Gun Control to Make Dumb People Feel Safe?

So people are acting pretty set on gun control, but all their ideas are things that do nothing but pester law abiding gun owners. Like the "assault weapons" ban or banning high-capacity magazines -- which won't actually be banned since they won't confiscate what's already out there. It will just make those things more expensive -- hence annoying to gun owners like me. But apparently this gives a false sense of security to idiots since if you put the word "ban" on something, they think that means those things disappear.

So idea: Let's just pretend to pass gun control. The people who most want it won't know the difference between an actual law being passed and absolutely nothing being done, so can't we just say we passed a bunch of laws and pretend everyone is safer? We'll call it the "Super Deadly Gun Ban Act" and it will ban fully-automatic bolt action shotguns and armor piercing hollow points and any magically enchanted guns. And then all the dumb people will cheer, "We is safer!"

So it's the same result as an "assault weapon" ban, but no enforcement costs and no petty intrusions on liberty. If people want useless things done to make us all feel safer, can't we all just play along?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 3, 2013 08:04 PM
98. Jovan Belcher did not shoot Kasandra Perkins
December 7, 2012
BREAKING:
Contrary to week-long reporting, police have discovered that alleged murder-suicide victim Jovan Belcher did NOT in fact shoot his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins and thus orphan their 3mo old child, nor - contrary to the eye-witness accounts of coaching staff - did Belcher shoot himself. Further developments have revealed that Belcher's act was not a horrific, despicable, cowardly act of violence against another human being, rather another is to blame that naturally absolves Belcher of all accusations of wrongdoing in this terrible tragedy.

Details are incomplete at the moment, but police have revealed a sketch of their new subject in the Belcher/Perkins murder

Further investigation reveals that this homicidal maniac is, in fact, responsible for every gun crime/accident that has ever occurred anywhere. As such, police and judicial officers are currently working in conjunction with prisons across the world to release anyone wrongfully convicted of a gun crime, as said wrongdoing was clearly not a result of them or their own actions.

BOLO's have been issued in every state to try and locate what many pundits and politicians are referring to as "the greatest mass murderer that has ever existed since subway cars."

Citizens are urged to exercise care and vigilance. Should you come across this maniac, please remember that he is likely controlling the actions of another, who is but another victim of his cruel malevolence and should be regarded fondly and held blameless by all. Of course, a reminder must be made that anyone falling prey to this maniac should deal with it exclusively by dialing 911 and waiting for the government to save you. Or pray.

Why yes, I am mocking irrationally fearful, irrational loud lefty's. They deserve it.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 3, 2013 08:12 PM
99. demokid: It is ... technically a "civil rights violation", but that is too general of a tag to mean much.

You may mean that it doesn't mean much in the context of what this individual can and cannot do, and that may be true, but it matters a lot in the context of a government official's explicit lack of care for a citizen's rights.


One problem for me comes with allowing -- and even encouraging! -- people to get firearms when they do not have the training that one would get in the military, police, or some other group.

I do not understand why you have a problem with "allowing" it. What's that got to do with anything? I do not have training police have, but I am perfectly competent with my firearms.


Getting a CPL in Washington does not require that you show a need for a weapon

Good, because the government has no business evaluating your need. When the government may be the group that you need the gun to protect yourself from, how can we allow them to make the decision about whether or not your "need" is sufficient for one? That's dumb.


... or that you even demonstrate an appropriate training to deal with emergency situations ...

I don't see how this matters. As a reasonably competent, normal, person, I recognize my own abilities and limitations. I know that I am able to handle myself in some situations, and not in others. Why do I need to show what government thinks is "appropriate" training, when *any* level of training is sufficient as long as I understand my own limitations?


Getting to that model of gun rights where the obligation (well-regulated militia) is included with the actual right (bearing arms in public) is more in line than simply assuming that people without training should be granted to power to severely injure or kill people with no responsibilities to society whatsoever.

Unless you're also going to require the press show they have demonstrated "training," you have no point. The right to keep and bear arms does not, can not, hinge on the "obligation." "Well-regulated militia" is one of the reasons the right is recognized, but the right exists, and is recognized, independent of that reason. This is entirely clear from the text and history of the Second Amendment.


what does HE think he'd do at the meat counter?

Um. Buy meat?


If I don't know you and you have your gun showing in public, what precisely should be anyone's reaction?

If I were at the meat counter, and I saw the gun, I'd have no reaction at all (unless it were a model I was interested in, and I might choose to ask the person about it).


Even if you have your permit, I have no way of knowing whether you're a responsible and trained gun owner.

And you have no reason to care. It's just a gun. The people behind the meat counter have many opportunities, all day long, to kill many people with their very large, sharp, and strong knives. I have no reason to think they are going to cut me, whether or not they are a responsible and trained meat carver.

Now, if you see me pull out my gun for "no good reason," then you may have reason to be concerned. But holstered? No, you have literally zero reason to care about how responsible and trained I am. You're just afraid of shadows.


Heck, if you're wandering around a Bellevue Safeway with a loaded gun for no good reason whatsoever, I'd have to really question your judgement.

I don't care about your questioning of anyone's judgment. It's irrelevant. But it is not for "no good reason whatsoever," it is "just in case it's needed." I've carried a loaded gun to churches and stores and restaurants many other places. It's not that I have a particular reason other than "just in case," it's because I have no reason not to carry the gun. Can you give me a single reason not to? I doubt it.

I also have a spare tire in my car, even though I don't think I am likely to get a flat tire, and even if I do, AAA will probably just give me a tow.

You're not saying anything interesting.

Posted by pudge at February 3, 2013 08:16 PM
100. The bottom line is that loud lefty's don't want anyone to do, own or be anything that THEY fear.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 3, 2013 08:33 PM
101. @96: It was HOLSTERED. How did anyone know he wasn't law enforcement? The nitwit panicked without knowing. He has/had the RIGHT to carry it. And you have no RIGHT to question his judgement nor that of anyone exercising that RIGHT without cause. Really, how dare you? Are you that frightened?

I dare all the time, all day long. As a private citizen, I have every right to question his judgement and the way he exercises his rights. I cannot force the government to pass laws that take away his right to own a gun. There's a difference.

Likewise, he has a right to own it and to "bear" it, but the details about carrying it in a public place are up to the states to regulate.

And as far as being "frightened"? Honestly, I don't really give a crap. I am simply making the case that concealed carry in many situations is pointless, and that current requirements don't ensure that someone is trained to use a gun in emergencies in public places.

Here's a hint: a HOLSTERED gun won't hurt you.

Neither will a lack of a gun.

@97: Here's a newsflash: you have NO RIGHT to know what your neighbor has, what he does.

I don't see any specific right to that, no. However, if the neighbor is cooking meth and my house might get blown up, I'm not going to be concerned about respecting a (nonexistent) right to privacy if I smell it from next door or see it being sold. In the same spirit, I'd also expect that if someone down the street is collecting the ingredients for a bomb and stockpiling assault weapons and armor-piercing ammunition, that would be identified within the bounds of the law before someone would do anything with it.

Again, I don't really care what you do or what you collect and keep at home, unless it poses a significant risk to the people around you.

Posted by demokid at February 4, 2013 12:20 AM
102. @99: You may mean that it doesn't mean much in the context of what this individual can and cannot do, and that may be true, but it matters a lot in the context of a government official's explicit lack of care for a citizen's rights.

It's a part of state law which can legally be changed without significantly impeding someone's overall right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

I do not understand why you have a problem with "allowing" it. What's that got to do with anything? I do not have training police have, but I am perfectly competent with my firearms.

It's irrelevant whether you believe that *you* are competent or not. I'm sure you're adequate. I'm saying that a CPL doesn't prove anything about the ability you have. Unqualified people can carry guns in public, and that is a public safety concern that the states have the power to regulate under the Second Amendment.

Good, because the government has no business evaluating your need. When the government may be the group that you need the gun to protect yourself from, how can we allow them to make the decision about whether or not your "need" is sufficient for one? That's dumb.

"The government" is such a nebulous term. Who precisely are you defending yourself from in a public place with a handgun? It almost sounds like you plan on shooting letter carriers on the street that give you a bad look.

With respect to a need, "may issue" is allowable under the Second Amendment and still law in some states. Requiring a need to carry in public is valid when it is something that can put the public at risk under the police power of the state government. State regulation of firearms to address these risks has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. Unless Wollard v. Sheridan goes to the Supreme Court, it's not likely that this will change.

Why do I need to show what government thinks is "appropriate" training, when *any* level of training is sufficient as long as I understand my own limitations?

Because we're not talking about you alone, and we're not talking about ownership, but concealed carry. If you have a handgun at home, you can play around with it as you wish. When you're carrying it off your property, though, it can and should be regulated to consider the risks to the public relative to the benefit.

"Well-regulated militia" is one of the reasons the right is recognized, but the right exists, and is recognized, independent of that reason. This is entirely clear from the text and history of the Second Amendment.

Read what I wrote. I didn't object to ownership, but to concealed carry. States have the right to regulate the use of guns under Supreme Court decisions -- the Second Amendment only prohibits blanket state restrictions on ownership.

what does HE think he'd do at the meat counter?

Um. Buy meat?

Does he plan on shooting it to see if it's fresh?

I don't care about your questioning of anyone's judgment. It's irrelevant. But it is not for "no good reason whatsoever," it is "just in case it's needed." I've carried a loaded gun to churches and stores and restaurants many other places. It's not that I have a particular reason other than "just in case," it's because I have no reason not to carry the gun. Can you give me a single reason not to? I doubt it.

I never said that my questioning of one person's judgement should matter to public policy. But asking to carry a deadly weapon in a public place without a demonstrated need? Unless you can show some good reason, it's a risk to the public that isn't balanced out with any great benefit. The risks that you face on your own property are your own business.

I also have a spare tire in my car, even though I don't think I am likely to get a flat tire, and even if I do, AAA will probably just give me a tow.

Unless you're regularly traveling in rough neighborhoods, it's more like you're carrying around a welding torch and acetylene tanks in case you break an axle.

You're not saying anything interesting.

I could say the same to you. Definitely tactless, though, as usual.

Still, anything that would make it more interesting in general would be better. Most of your answers to these things are woefully predictable. (The amusing discussion of gay incestuous marriage was pretty unusual, though.)

Posted by demokid at February 4, 2013 01:04 AM
103. demokid: I dare all the time, all day long. As a private citizen, I have every right to question his judgement and the way he exercises his rights.

But you have provided no reason to suppose anyone should care about your substanceless questions.


I am simply making the case that concealed carry in many situations is pointless ...

No, you're not. You're merely asserting it. There's a difference.


... current requirements don't ensure that someone is trained to use a gun in emergencies in public places.

You've not explained how this matters.


... if the neighbor is cooking meth and my house might get blown up, I'm not going to be concerned about respecting a (nonexistent) right to privacy if I smell it from next door or see it being sold.

What in the world does that have to do with someone carrying a gun?


In the same spirit, I'd also expect that if someone down the street is collecting the ingredients for a bomb and stockpiling assault weapons and armor-piercing ammunition, that would be identified within the bounds of the law before someone would do anything with it.

Um. Stockpiling assault weapons is legal, and there is no reason for someone to "do anything with it."


It's a part of state law which can legally be changed without significantly impeding someone's overall right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

He was explicitly trying to take away that right without changing state law. That is the problem. How is this not clear to you?


It's irrelevant whether you believe that *you* are competent or not.

You have it backward. It's irrelevant whether anyone else believes I am competent or not, and the same goes for changing the object to anyone carrying a gun (except for those who have been, through due process, stripped of their rights because they have been demonstrated a danger to others).


I'm saying that a CPL doesn't prove anything about the ability you have.

And you have not shown how that matters.


Unqualified people can carry guns in public

Not legally, no, they cannot. Your problem is that you arbitrarily define "qualified" to mean something that it doesn't, and that -- by the plain language -- would inherently violate the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep *and bear* arms, whether you or the government thinks they are "qualified" or not.


"The government" is such a nebulous term.

No, it's not, at all. It's broad, but very specific.


Who precisely are you defending yourself from in a public place with a handgun?

Anyone who might justify my use of it. What a daft question ...

And, of course, it's not just myself I might be defending. It could be you or anyone else around.


It almost sounds like you plan on shooting letter carriers on the street that give you a bad look.

No, in fact, it does not sound like that at all. You're just making things up. Please stop.


Requiring a need to carry in public is valid when it is something that can put the public at risk under the police power of the state government.

False. That logic makes no sense whatsoever. You're just making assertions without any substantiation of any kind. Speech, obviously, can put the public at risk, but we reject the notion that any need to speak be demonstrated.


State regulation of firearms to address these risks has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

Please stop pretending that just because the Supreme Court said some such regulations may be constitutionally valid, that any such regulations are. It doesn't help the discussion in any way.


Because we're not talking about you alone

In essence, we are. We are talking about every individual person, alone, and all of them -- exactly like me -- is equal, absent due process.


... and we're not talking about ownership, but concealed carry

No. NONE of your arguments are about concealed carry, but are about carrying in public, period.


Read what I wrote. I didn't object to ownership, but to concealed carry.

Irrelevant. You falsely stated that the right to carry somehow hinges on the "obligation" of a "well-regulated militia." That is not in the text, nor the history, and the Supreme Court has shot it down. You are 0-for-3 on the basics for your argument, and what's worse, you didn't even provide an argument to back it up.


States have the right to regulate the use of guns under Supreme Court decisions

... which is, again, an irrelevant statement, since the Court did not imply all regulations would be constitutional.


[the Court said that] the Second Amendment only prohibits blanket state restrictions on ownership.

Now you're just lying. The Supreme Court never said any such thing.


Does he plan on shooting it to see if it's fresh?

You falsely assume that he planned on using his gun for anything at all, probably because you are driven by fear.


... asking to carry a deadly weapon in a public place without a demonstrated need? Unless you can show some good reason, it's a risk to the public that isn't balanced out with any great benefit. The risks that you face on your own property are your own business.

Again, you give zero reason for anyone to suppose that they should demonstrate a need. You merely assert it. You're not making a case.


Unless you're regularly traveling in rough neighborhoods, it's more like you're carrying around a welding torch and acetylene tanks in case you break an axle.

No, it's not. Again, your fear seems to be driving you: because of your fear, you see a gun as some extreme measure. It's not. It's just something that people have Just In Case, like a spare tire.


I could say the same to you.

Yes, but no one would take it seriously, because I am making arguments backed by substance, and pointing out that you are not, and it's obvious to everyone that I am, and you are not.


Definitely tactless, though, as usual.

Thank you, and you're welcome. (I think you meant that as an insult, but it's not.)


Most of your answers to these things are woefully predictable.

That only implies you know the right answers, but you're just afraid of them. I do not aim to be "unpredictable," I aim to make the best arguments. And I usually do. And here is no exception, though since you're not even making any actual arguments, that's not a high bar.


(The amusing discussion of gay incestuous marriage was pretty unusual, though.)

Yes, unfortunately, gay rights advocates are seemingly incapable of thinking through their arguments and the facts surrounding them. It's actually perfectly obvious to anyone who does, because gay sibling marriage is explicitly banned right there in the gay marriage bill. And it's further obvious that there's no significant arguments against such marriages that don't apply to normal gay marriage, and it's further obvious that "equal protection" applies as much to those as to normal gay marriages.

So it's not like I am saying things that are hard to figure out, to anyone who is paying attention. The fact that it is unusual only means that people are either -- as I said -- incapable of following through on their thoughts and opinions to see where they lead, or they are afraid to talk about it. I do not suffer from such a malady as the latter, and I'm pretty good about the former, so I see it and say it where others won't.

Again, you're welcome.

Posted by pudge at February 4, 2013 07:21 AM
104. I don't see any specific right to that, no. However, if the neighbor is cooking meth and my house might get blown up, I'm not going to be concerned about respecting a (nonexistent) right to privacy if I smell it from next door or see it being sold. In the same spirit, I'd also expect that if someone down the street is collecting the ingredients for a bomb and stockpiling assault weapons and armor-piercing ammunition, that would be identified within the bounds of the law before someone would do anything with it.

Can you be more dishonest or do you simply not understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL.

Enjoy the corner you've backed yourself into with your illogical fears. Maybe if you face the corner and cover your eyes, it will soothe your jumpy nerves.

GAWD! Save us from the illogical sanctimonious.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 4, 2013 07:48 AM
105. Loud Lefty's are scared: DO SOMETHING!

DUMB being the operative word

*** How is it young college students can 'get it' but open mouthed, closed minded, loud lefty's can't manage to figure it out?:


Public Safety: Regulating Things Rather Than People

When we talk about public safety in America, we talk about a great variety of things. That's part of why we can't seem to get public safety right - we are still talking about things instead of talking about people. The human cost of public safety lapses is very painful and very real. These horrific crimes are carried out by human beings against other human beings, and yet we pretend like regulating things is going to solve this problem.

Obama's speeches and policy objectives fall into this object fallacy in a big way. His speech blamed assault weapons, magazines of over 10 rounds, locks, safes, and video games as reasons why we have gun violence in this country. Criminals don't care if a weapon is illegal. They will find a way to get around a background check. (Maybe they don't have anything that would show up on a background check...yet. If only we could do foreground checks instead!) For premeditated mass shootings, they will premeditate how to get higher capacity magazines. And as for locks and safes - there's no way to enforce it without barging into the homes of gun owners just to babysit their guns.

Firearms may be the means by which violence is sometimes carried out, but they're not the reason that violence happens. Nobody goes on a murderous rampage just because the opportunity is there. Criminals go on killing sprees because they are sick souls poisoned by irrational hatred. It's much harder to spot one of those than it is to count how much ammo fits in a magazine. It's tempting to take the easy way out - but it's also dangerously ineffective.

Guns in America: A Question of Trust

More guns are being sold in America now than at any point in history, precisely because Americans are being told they cannot be trusted with guns.

Why are Americans attracted to guns? It there a uniquely dark side to the American character and American history? Is there a minority obsessed with destructive technology? Or is there a strange discontentment among those who, as the president put it while campaigning in 2008, "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"?

Tradition, technology and culture explain some but not all of the American attraction to guns. Another aspect, largely unremarked upon, is trust, or rather the pervasive erosion of trust in American society. Economic failure, social polarization, racial and ethnic fragmentation, and mendacity and malfeasance at all levels have brought about a lack of trust perhaps unique in American history. One result is arming in self-defense.


Barack Obama, Gun Enthusiast
Dive for cover -- his aim is off!

As Hillary Clinton might say, who cares whether he shot skeet once in his life or sneaks away in the middle of the night to get his fix, what difference does it make? Not much, really, except that it reveals again the dishonesty on which Obama likes to base his emotional appeals for controversial policies. Emotionally, it makes a difference whether the person pushing for gun restrictions is an avid shooter or someone who doesn't know a magazine from a muzzle. Believing that a proposal comes from someone who is on your side causes people to lower their guard. Obama is banking on this to make a difference in the gun control debates in Congress. Gun control opponents now know not to let it influence their thinking. They should act as though the man pushing these measures is not at all one of them -- because he is not.

Teachers pursue 'more secure form of protection'

Utah Shooting Sports Council Chairman Clark Aposhian made headlines late last year by hosting a special concealed gun training course just for 200 Utah educators, much to the dismay of left-leaning teachers' unions.

Reached last week, Aposhian said he was stunned at the level of interest that he continues to observe in gun training for Utah educators.

"They are breaking down the doors to get in here," he said.


Senate to introduce gun control bill without assault weapons ban

***And now, back to yesterday game...just because you can't make this stuff up

1: President Pantywaist Wants a Softer Gentler Football Game

2: A Government Owned Stadium, Powered By Heavily Regulated Electricity, With 26,000 LED Lights, Pushed By Green Energy Zealots... What Could Go Wrong?"

3: Greenest Super Bowl in History Goes Dark Mid-Game

***GAWD! - does liberalism even know how funny it is?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 4, 2013 08:16 AM
106. Gun Control's Complicated History
Gun control was the flashpoint that launched the first shots in the Revolutionary War.

In the spring of 1775, British Gen. Thomas Gage decided to seize the Americans' cache of rifles, artillery, and ammunition stored by the Massachusetts militia in Concord. The night of April 18, he ordered two companies of redcoats on the march. Before the sun came up, America and Great Britain were at war.

... The right to bear firearms, if it is a right -- and if that right is derived from the U.S. Constitution -- is not a right to hunt deer or go skeet-shooting. The right, as it's understood by Second Amendment proponents, exists so that Americans can protect themselves from common criminals, yes, but also from an overreaching or tyrannical central government.

This line of argument gets dicey pretty fast. Seeking to undermine its logic on one of his recent gun-themed programs, CNN's Piers Morgan -- whose gun control sympathies are no secret -- baited two pro-gun activists by asking them if they believe the Constitution allows them to have a tank.

In one sense this is farce. Yet in ways understood by gun rights advocates, ordinary Americans' access to the same firepower as the police or military is precisely the point of the Second Amendment. Not everyone agrees, but this much is true: In the 1960s and 1970s, this very point was made by armed anti-war radicals, liberal activists, and proponents of black power.

Nor is the idea that there is some measure of safety in owning your own firearm limited to those who fear the federal government, either.

"I have a Glock 9 millimeter and I'm a pretty good shot," one prominent woman born in that era proclaimed in 2010. The speaker's name was Gabby Giffords.

*Emphases mine

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 4, 2013 08:33 AM
107. Rags, first, that line about pretending to pass gun control is brilliant. It could actually work.

Second, re: "The right to bear firearms, if it is a right -- and if that right is derived from the U.S. Constitution ..." It isn't. It's derived from natural rights and common law and common sense. It is "enshrined in" the Constitution, but it is not derived from the Constitution.

As to the tank argument, my answer to that is simply: "let's talk about tanks after you agree that I can have a simple semiautomatic rifle."

Oh and I just thought of something ... what about disabled people who might *need* a pistol grip or forward grip to handle a semiautomatic rifle?

Posted by pudge at February 4, 2013 08:54 AM
108. Going OFF TOPIC because I read variants of this theme in THREE articles today, in additon to one by Rove in the WSJ last week ... news of the domino's finally going mainstream? If only on the state and local level so far, it appears America is learning that CONSERVATISM = FREEDOM

America's governing party"
Republicans Are Thriving at the State Level

Last week, Pew released a new study showing that trust in the federal government remains near all-time lows. Worse, for the first time ever, Pew found that a majority of Americans believe the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

And it is not just Republicans who now see the federal government as a threat. A full 55 percent of independents agree with them, up from just 50 percent only two years ago.

But the story is completely different at the state and local level. According to a September 2012 Gallup poll, a full 65 percent of Americans trust their state government -- a 14-point jump in confidence from 2009.

Why is Americans' confidence in state and local government surging while their frustration and fear of the federal government are growing? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Republicans govern at the state level.

Republicans currently occupy the governor's mansions in 30 states, representing 58 percent of the U.S. population. They control both the governorship and legislature in 25 states, representing 52 percent of all Americans. Democrats enjoy such control of only 14 states, representing just 33 percent of the country.

And not only are Republicans governing more than half the country, they are objectively doing a much better job at it than Democrats are.

Democrats Struggle to Be National Party

Although it lost the Presidency, the Republicans picked up a large number of victories in November. The gained a Governorship and solidified their gains from 2010 in the House and in the states. The GOP now has 30 Governors, a record in modern political history. The control all levers of state government in 25 states. One would have to go back to the 1920s to find the GOP so ascendant in the states. The Democrats have complete control in just 12 states, an historic low. (The rest of the states have split control.)

***And guess what... WA's NOT ONE OF THEM!:

Gallup: Conservatives Outnumber Liberals in 47 Out of 50 States

The percentage of individuals who identify as conservative in 2012 outnumber those who identify as liberal in 47 out of the 50 states, in addition to the District of Columbia (D.C.) according to a Gallup poll released on Feb. 1.

Nationally, the amount of self-identified conservatives (38 percent) still outnumbers liberals (23 percent). The disparity between conservatives and liberals has remained consistent since Gallup began its tracking in 2008.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 4, 2013 09:05 AM
109. It's not just some guns that look ugly. Turning peaceful people into criminals by a mere act of legislation is ugly in the extreme.

Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms. -- Aristotle

Legal Gun Carrier Arrested For Carrying Gun

And what kind of question is, "Why do you carry a gun for?" No, not just that the cop's question ended with a preposition. I mean, why else would a person carry a gun but for self defense? Maybe Smith could have asked the cop the same question. Why does Cox get to not only carry a gun but point it right at the man and scream his head off like a mentally deranged individual with Tourette's Syndrome? Oh, for personal defense? So, the taxpayers that write the cop's paychecks aren't afforded the same rights to self-defense as he is?

Gun Photo of Obama Sets Bad Example for Children of America

The President is supposed to be an example for the children of America. What does a photograph of the President of the United States shooting a deadly weapon do to the mental health of young children? It's squeezes them between two moral dilemmas. Should they follow the example of the President of the United States or should they abide by no-tolerance gun edicts?

When it was learned that Bill Clinton engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, news stories reported that middle school and high school students were engaging in the practice because, as the president said, it wasn't really sex. Kids aren't stupid. They don't fall for the line, "Do as I say, not as I do." Kids can spot hypocrisy a mile away.

***Kids can spot hypocrisy a mile away. ... better than loud lefty's can spot unintended consequences...

Carney Tries to Walk Back Obama's Boasting on Skeet Shooting

Police forensic scientist at Newtown hearing: 'Assault weapons' ban won't work

and FYI re the 'suicide' reason to ban guns: Japan bans guns, yet have double the suicide rates of the USA. (Is that because of a *LACK* of guns?)

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 4, 2013 06:58 PM
110. One can find definitely numerous details like that to take into consideration. That's an incredible point to bring up. I supply the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly you will find questions like the one you bring up where probably the most very important factor is going to be working in honest beneficial faith. I don?t know if most beneficial practices have emerged about points like that, but I'm positive that your job is clearly identified as a fair game. Both boys and girls really feel the impact of just a moment's pleasure, for the rest of their lives.


[url=http://jerseys2013.humorme.info/]Cheap NFL Jerseys[/url]

Posted by MexyVetle at February 4, 2013 07:09 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?