Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Shot
I hope that the gun lovers here understand why your bloodthirsty ravings make us Democrats a little edgy.
A gunman entered the Arkansas Democratic Party headquarters Wednesday and shot the party chairman, who was hospitalized in critical condition, authorities said.
The gunman asked to speak to the pary chairman, Bill Gwatney , and fired three shots.
“He came in and went into this office and started shooting,” police Lt. Terry Hastings told reporters near the party headquarters.
Gwatney, a former legislator, was in critical condition, Hastings said.
The gunman has been arrested.
Will update as more news becomes available.
– via kos
And what gun law would have prevented this?
And how the hell am I “bloodthirsty” because I don’t appreciate being lumped in with CRIMINALS like this guy and having my rights attacked because of their actions?
I hope the chairman survives and makes a full recovery. I’m also wondering if Democratic Party HQ’s was a “gun-free zone?” I’ll bet it was.
Yo, Jason — this was in Arkansas, not Alabama.
close enough really.
Reminds me of a church shooting in Tennessee . . . how long ago was that? Oh yeah, last month.
How come we didn’t have all these church shootings 60 years ago when anyone could walk into a gun shop or hardware store with no background check or anything?
Easy. Because we didn;t have a bunch of weakminded losers listening to Sean Hannity and Ruch Limbaugh spew hatered of fellow American on huge national radio and TV networks.
BTW – I found this comment from one of your kinsmen somewhat bloodthrirsty.
You overwhelm your enemy, utterly destroy his ability to resist, blow him to hell with a mile wide airstrike and stomp on the ashes after you are done. Gun rights activists need the administrative versions of napalm, white phosphorus, VX nerve gas and those little mines the Sovs dropped to blow up kids.
I get that he is making an anology, but it demonstrates a hyper-violent bloodthristy worldview.
“Easy. Because we didn;t have a bunch of weakminded losers listening to Sean Hannity and Ruch Limbaugh spew hatered of fellow American on huge national radio and TV networks. ”
Right, so you’ll concede that gun laws are entirely ineffective? 60 years ago we had almost no gun laws and we didn’t see these shootings. Now we have tens of thousands of gun laws and the shootings are commonplace.
Avaliability of guns thus has nothing whatsoever to do with the prevalence of violent crime or shooting sprees. If access to guns were the problem why have 60+ years of gun control laws not had an immediate & obvious positive impact on gun crime?
Oh, and I’m waiting for you to explain how I am bloodthirsty, not some random commenter to that story.
Fixed the title. Arkansas is not Alabama.
Right, so you’ll concede that gun laws are entirely ineffective?
mike, you can’t play the “gotcha” game over here. it doesn’t work like that. No one believes that not even you. Once again, your ignorance displays itself
First they came for the Unitarians….
First they came for the Unitarians….
I had to laugh or I was going to cry.
…and Oh yeah. Back in the good old days of Mike’s imagination not many people had guns. Mostly farmers and hunters.
There are more than 200 million guns in circulation today so it makes snese that there are more suburban wackjobs going off.
So it is anyone else’s fault (like Hannity et al.) rather than the shooter’s? And, obviously, since one nutcase went all whacky with a firearm, no one should be allowed to have firearms?
And you honestly expect me to take you all seriously, with “logic” like that?
linoge doesn’t take us seriously….damn. Now I have to stop blogging I guess.
🙂
Suspect dead according to CNN.
Of course.
“…and Oh yeah. Back in the good old days of Mike’s imagination not many people had guns. Mostly farmers and hunters.
There are more than 200 million guns in circulation today so it makes snese that there are more suburban wackjobs going off.”
‘
So you’re seriously saying your argument is that 60 years ago not many people had guns (when there were virtually no gun laws) and now, as gun laws have come about and become increasingly strict private ownership of guns has flourished? How’s that logic work Jason?…
There were plenty of civilian held guns back before “gun control” became popular…….widespread civilian ownership of guns was commonplace 200+ years ago.
so you are seriously saying that that gun laws are entirely ineffective?
Define “ineffective” If we’re defining “effective” as keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and reducing violent crime rates, then yes, 99% of gun laws are entirely ineffective. That’s not the least bit surprising, since focusing on the inanimate object cannot address violent crime and it’s actual root causes.
“Gun Control – It’s what you do instead of something.”
Here’s a good question that goes to the heart of the issue.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx
“Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
“How come we didn’t have all these church shootings 60 years ago when anyone could walk into a gun shop or hardware store with no background check or anything?”
perhaps because 60 years ago, it was legal in almost every state for the congregation to carry guns in the church.
might also have been that 60 years ago, children were for the most part educated about gun safety and responsibility at a very early age.
might have been that families stuck together and a large portion of children had fathers in their lives to impose strict discipline and values on them while they grew up.
might have been that society as a whole had higher moral values and standards. in addition to that criminals were punished harshly and swiftly, and repeat offenders did not have a very long lifespan.
“so you are seriously saying that that gun laws are entirely ineffective?”
Were gun laws effective in this case? What law, gun law or otherwise, could have prevented this or any other random shooting?
Chris is spot-on! It’s not the guns, so why is gun control the solution? Gun control is a recent experiment and an abysmal failure. It’s time we end it and repeal about 19,000 of the 20,000 gun laws currently on the books.
perhaps because 60 years ago, it was legal in almost every state for the congregation to carry guns in the church.
Gun-totting church goers, my favorite type of Christian.
Dude, are you that big of a fucking idiot to not know that Unitarians are pacifists.
Nemski – Where did Chris say ANYTHING about Unitarians carrying guns in church? He said 60 years ago it was legal for pretty much anyone (except blacks of course) to bear arms in church. The fact that Unitarians are pacifists is irrelevant and in no way changes the validity of Chris’s statement.
Mike –
Nemski quoted it.
Jason – man you guys are slow. Chris said nothing about UNITARIANS carrying in church. The quote is right in front of you. It does not refer to unitarians.
Jason-
No, he really did not.
Reading comprehension – It’s fundamental!
Here is a little history lesson. In 1900 people made about $440.00 per year. A winchester cost $25.00 (but some low end single shot models were available for as little as $5.00), so it was nto the absensce of gun laws that keep guns them out of the hands of wackjobs, it was economics.
Now guns are cheap and easy to get. With 200 million in circulation in the United States, the question is not will more Democrats be targeted by these dangerous lunatics, but how many more.
One more thing. It is a common refrain here that gun laws are not effective. What would you lot suggest to fill the void?
Actually locking up violent criminals for a substantial amount of time would be a damn good start.
Anything beats focusing on the gun rather than the root causes of crime.
BTW – The guy just died.
Happy now?
See Jason- this is the kind of bullshit I don’t get from you guys. Somehow you believe those of us who value our 2A rights don’t feel empathy when an innocent man is killed.
I’m serious, what kind of fucked up question is “happy now?” How the hell do you folks confuse support for Constitutional rights with support for murderers and other violent criminals.?
Jason330, re: “History lesson”, i.e.
“…In 1900 people made about $440.00 per year. A winchester cost $25.00 (but some low end single shot models were available for as little as $5.00), so it was nto the absensce of gun laws that keep guns them out of the hands of wackjobs, it was economics.”
Um, two words: family heirlooms
…Dad passes gun to son, who passes to his son. Guns were very necessary to American rural farm families, which is what the majority of Americans were in 1900. Your historical understanding is flawed.
I’m an atheist, I’ve attended UU services before, I supported Nader & the Green party, but I’m also in the NRA, the GOA, have a concealed permit from my home state and I carry everywhere permissible by law. A concealed carry piece might not have saved the man, but it would have improved the odds of his surviving the encounter, or make the assassin decide discretion is the better part of valor, etc.
My condolences go out to Mr. Gwatney’s family.
linoge doesn’t take us seriously….damn. Now I have to stop blogging I guess.
Delaware, I don’t take you seriously when you express a blanket value that denies so many people a right that has been around since the inception of our country.
Folks,
somehow many of you have lost sight of the fact that everyone is responsible for THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
this can’t be blamed on conservative talk show hosts. I haven’t heard ONE of them condone murder..and I do listen to them..I also listen to NPR.
It can’t be blamed on the firearm. a firearm has no will of its own. to say that a firearm is responsible for a crime is ridiculous.
you’re welcome to ban them, like they did in Australia and England. then only criminals will have them and you’ll have more crime.
why not equate it with the columbine massacres..that makes about as much sense!
Jason, you are suggesting that we legislate our freedom away?
I would suggest that everyone take responsibility for their own safety! in other words, reach down, grab your ears and tug firmly until you see daylight.
JJR,
Thanks for the civil comment. So many of your kind go ballistic and let their bloodlust show through their attempts at discourse.
In 1900 I suppose family heirlooms might have accounted for some of the guns in curculation, but they were probably not repeating if they had been in the family for long. So my point stands.
Guns are cheap and available now in a way that they never were before.
Therefor it is not surprising that wackjobs have so much easy access to them.
Jason. Here’s some info on the number of guns in the U.S.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1722/How-Many-Guns-Are-There-Who-Owns-Them-OWNERSHIP-BY-PRIVATE-CITIZENS.html
Also Jason, in 1950 we didn’t have strict importation rules for firearms that we do now. Regardless, total # of guns then vs. now is irrelevant. It’s harder to buy a gun now than it was in 1950, which was exactly the point I was making.
RE comment #30
“happy now?” is a disgusting and inappropriate comment Jason. An innocent man just died and that’s what you think to post. Truly despicable.
I find it very telling that no anti-gun people leaving comments here have even attempted to answer Just One Question.
Until they can answer that there really isn’t any point in discussing things further. If they won’t or can’t answer but still insist on further restrictions on firearms you know the real reason for their desire for the elimination or restriction of a “specific enumerated right” (Justice Scalia words) is something other than the safety of the general population. In that case the proper topic of discussion should be what their real agenda is.
Joe, I’ve posted your “just one question” before, knowing I wouldn’t get a response.
Have you ever gotten an actual response to that question from an anti?
Once, I sort of got an answer but it was in the form of a question: “What colour is orange: True or False?”
I regarded them as insane and figured everyone that read that answer could easily conclude the same without my help and didn’t bother to respond.
Well that’s not exactly a coherent response to your question. Actually it reminds me a lot of the type of responses I get around here.
I’ve never ventured into DemocraticUnderground, but I assume it’s quite similar to Delaware Liberal.
Actually, I have answered the question, Joe.
You didn’t like the answer–so you pretend people haven’t answered your silly question.
This is another gunloon ploy. They will pose a question that they insist must be answered to their liking. For example, Joe states that there are only 3 possible answers to his question. If you answer with a fourth or fifth answer, they will claim you are dodging the question.
Joe’s rather dishonest question implies handheld weapons have, at some time, somewhere, been restricted. He then demands you provide an account of an event that has never occured.
JadeGold, you did? I don’t recall. I must have missed it. Did you send me an email with you answer?
Your last paragraph confuses me. Are you claiming handheld weapons have never been restricted? If so, you could have saved a lot of people a lot of time by pointing out the Washington D.C. gun ban did not exist and there was no need for the case to go all the way to the Supreme Court. What am I missing?
Joe – I guess he believes gun laws are not restrictons on handheld weapons.
I can’t carry my pocketknife in the city of Philadelphia, but I guess that’s not really a “restriction” on handheld weapons either…… since I still have my fists.
You’re missing much, Joe.
Handheld weapons have never been restricted. Thus, your initial premise fails.
“Handheld weapons have never been restricted. Thus, your initial premise fails.”
In what ridiculous parallel reality is your statement true Jadegold? Are the tens of thousands of laws restricting access to and carrying of weapons. Are they not “restrictions?” If not then I suggest you pick up a dictionary. How about the pocketknife example I cited above? Hell, It’s illegal for me to carry the swiss army knife I got in boy scouts as a kid.
JadeGold, is it your believe that the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was not a restriction on handheld weapons? And that further District of Columbia v. Heller was all over a mere misunderstanding of the law? Surely you jest. Please explain.
I’m just a red-necked, knuckle dragging Neanderthal and you will need to spell it out in great detail before I will be capable of understanding.
Joe: The answer is quite simple; your question is an unfalsifiable proposition. IOW, you’re demanding we ‘prove’ a negative.
I note you’re attempting to reframe your question. Apparently, you believe the only handheld weapons are handguns. Tsk, tsk.
Proving a negative? How so?
I do not believe the only handheld weapons are handguns. I merely call out the D.C. law banning them as one example of a restriction on handheld weapons.
You are going to have to go into a lot more detail because every sentence you write confuses me more. You say my question is an “unfalsifiable proposition” and IOW I’m demanding you prove a negative. As near as I can determine both of your statements are false and furthermore the second statement is completely different than the first rather than being merely a restatement of the first.
“I note you’re attempting to reframe your question. Apparently, you believe the only handheld weapons are handguns. Tsk, tsk.”
Jade – You said “handheld weapons have never been restricted”
I told you that I cannot carry a knife, even a swiss army knife in Philadelphia because it is illegal to do so. Therefore I have just shown you that your claim if flat out false even when we apply it to non-firearms.
Again, Joe is engaging in what is known as the Kent Hovind Challenge.
All my answers seem to confuse him; of course, this is a dodge as he would much rather not address the answer and his own dishonesty.
We are then treated to a constant rephrasing of the question. Handheld weapons are only handguns. “Anywhere” becomes “only DC.”
Jade – Care to explain how “handheld weapons have never been restricted?”
I just gave you an example.
Oh, and if you are right then why can’t I carry in Dover without a permit?
My dishonesty? Where and when?
I have never said handguns were the only handheld weapons. I have never said “anywhere” only meant “DC”. I merely gave a counter example to your claim that there have never been restrictions on handheld weapons.
I have to conclude we are talking past each other in some manner or, as suggested by Mike W., one of us is living in an parallel reality.
As no one is taking JadeGold’s side on these points and I have at least two people joining me in “scratching their heads” over his statements I’m inclined to believe it is JadeGold that is a few Fruitloops short of a full bowl.
JadeGold sez:
Just for the purposes of clarity, JG, please explain exactly what you mean by “handheld weapons” and “restricted”.
Thanks.
I could be wrong, but I think JadeGold’s position is that there has never been a restriction on ALL forms of handheld weapons. (I’m not sure that’s true, btw.) Obviously JadeGold thinks that invalidates Joe’s question.
Joe’s question, it seems clear to me, uses “handheld weapons” as a general category, one including restrictions on subcategories of handheld weapons, such as handguns or knives or (I suppose) other implements. I am mindful of the restrictions by governments in Southeast Asia that led to development of weapons such as the tonfa and yawara from farm tools, specifically because, I believe, all other types of handheld weapons were banned.
If JadeGold’s position is that Joe’s question is invalid because no one has ever restricted ALL forms of handheld weapons, up to and including your garden-variety rock, I’m not sure how to respond to that. Taking such a position seems rather silly to me and not responsive to Joe’s question.
David – He said “handheld weapons have never been restricted.”
That’s a pretty clear, concise, and patently false statement. I take it to mean exactly what it says. And as you say, even if we twist the meaning it in no way invalidates Joe’s question, nor even attempts to answer it.
I guess it all depends on your definition of “restricted” is. in Jadegold’s world the term “restricted” doesn’t mean what it means to the rest of the thinking public. In Jadegold’s world even a complete ban is not a “restriction.”
hey JadeGold? how many people are in that head of yours? i’m almost certain you’re not royalty, so drop the “we” shenanigans.
furthermore, stop smoking whatever you’re smoking and learn to both read and process facts correctly. you’re apparently incapable of doing this without direction.
We think you are silly, Fal.
and i think you’re a bloody lunatic, but that’s neither here nor there. answer my question, please – just how many personalities are lurking about in there?
Who’s “we” Jade? You, Jason, Pandora, and DBB. I consider it an honor to be considered “silly” by folks with your level of cognitive ability.
And Faln is silly, in a good way.
Again Jade – I can’t carry my gun in Dover but I can in the rest of the state. I can’t carry my pocketknife in Philly but I can here in Delaware. Care to explain how either of those are not “restrictions?”
Restrictions is what way, Mike?
We can’t carry sarin gas around or mine our front yard; yet, we don’t feel restricted in any way.
You want to carry a gun around? Enlist. Support your hero, George Bush.
Jade – You’ve already told us
“there are no restrictions on handheld weapons”
and then went on to say that the BANS in DC and Chicago are not “restrictions”
Such blatant lack of intelligence precludes you from being taken seriously by anyone with a passable IQ.
And don’t you DARE tell me to go serve if I want to carry a gun. I got enough of that crap from TT already. I would never be allowed to serve anyway, even if we had a draft.
In what possible way are Sarin or land mines germane to a discussion about handheld weapons used for self defense? Your hyperbole straw man grenade was ineffective, Jade. Try answering the questions you were asked.
It seems that the anti-firearms-rights crowd has no sense of proportion, that they see a pistol as morally equivalent to a WMD. Perhaps this is another manifestation of the inability to distinguish between protective violence and predatory violence. How do you have a rational argument with someone whose worldview is so irrational?
Jade, are you intentionally channelling Himmler?
Moderator: if you kill this post again, please email me and tell me why. Thanks.
John – Glad to see this comment make it through. Excellent comment BTW. I’d forgotten entirely about the Himmler quote.
“How do you have a rational argument with someone whose worldview is so irrational?”
It’s often like talking to a wall, which is why I was told I was “talking down to them.” I was, but only because they lacked capacity for rational thought on the issue.
Go back to Comment #19, by Chris.
Comment on the Causes within society, and how we treat each other.
===========
200 years ago, the per capita gun ownership was higher that ever. The West was still being explored, Farmers still hunted, and wars were waged. 100 years ago, people still respected each other, and gun violence was rare. Ask yourself, what has changed in this society and its demographics, because it is the people who do the actions. The weapons used in todays crimes have not changed that much in 50 years. But the use has. And comment #19 directly addresses the changes in society.
===========
I was at a recent meeting in Wilmington, concerning the response to the Murder on 300 South Van Buren Street. The police tried to brag that they confiscated 714 guns in Wilmington.
When asked if there was a diagnosis performed on the source of the guns, the officer was dumbfounded. He stated that the guns were sent to ATF, but no one has requested any synopsis on any statistics gathered, or study done.
When people presume to make suggestions for gun controls, but fail to take into account, actually trying to study the situation, we have insanity.
714 guns confiscated in Wilmington, a city with 70,000 people, is 1 gun per 100 people. Presumably these guns were used in crimes, or possessed by persons prohibited. And therefore rightfully confiscated. [ I hope.]
BUT to do NO STUDY to determine the source of the weapons? Such a failure to study the guns and the data they provide, just indicates the politics of the situation is driven by opinion and bias. That is why I am against those who expound on GUN CONTROL, it is mostly uninformed opinion and emotions. And may I repeat, It is an avoidance of the issues presented in comment #19.
.
“And may I repeat, It is an avoidance of the issues presented in comment #19.”
Paul. You can expect a lot of avoidance from these folks. They’ll even flat out tell you “you’re wrong” even if your argument is backed up with facts. They’ll spew lies on issues they know nothing about (Like DD and his insistence that the “Gun Show Loophole” is real, despite my repeatedly explaining to him how he’s mistaken) or JadeGold’s 100% false claim that guns were banned at the NRA convention this year, despite the fact that I was there and he was not.
Such a failure to study the guns and the data they provide, just indicates the politics of the situation is driven by opinion and bias. That is why I am against those who expound on GUN CONTROL, it is mostly uninformed opinion and emotions.
If we go drinking with them at Mikimoto’s,
5 – ish, Tuesday, the 26th, before the Triangle association meet the candidates night, 6:30 at Sallies.? .
Will they go to the gun range with us?
On Friday, to shoot silhouettes?
Not unless they don’t work. The range is open 9-3 Friday’s. (unless you shoot somewhere other than Ommelanden)
Ah, Ommelanden. Reminds me of the time I used to load trap for the WTA when I was still in high school. Used to work the one off of route 40.
Spending all summer’s day in a suffocating subterranean bunker with an igloo cooler and a radio. Still have the scars on my forearm from girls on lifeguard chairs with itchy trigger fingers.
Good money, though, for teenager in ’88.
New Castle, Mores lane… ??
Indoor range, 7PM Friday is Silhouette shooting.
Damn, No invite yet.
If we go drinking with them at Mikimoto’s,
5 – ish, Tuesday, the 26th, before the Triangle association meet the candidates night, 6:30 at Sallies.? .
Will they go to the gun range with us?
On Friday, to shoot silhouettes?