Self-Control Issues
I have largely stayed out of the whole “bring your guns to the rally” movement. I think it’s dumb and I think that it is a form of intimidation, but I’m not too worked up about it.
But I did get worked up about Joe Wilson calling the President a liar on the house floor during the joint session of Congress. I think that it was distasteful and I would have been offended if it had been done by Dennis Kucinich to George Bush. It is wrong.
What I find interesting is that Joe Wilson, an elected representative and presumably an upstanding citizen otherwise, lost control of himself and did something regretful. Surely, Mr. Wilson knew on some level that what he was doing was against the rules that he was supposed to live by in that chamber. Yet, he couldn’t control himself.
I wonder how much of a leap it is to think that an ordinary citizen that shows up at a town hall meeting with a gun on his hip might lose his sense of reality momentarily as well.
Tags: guns, Town Halls
That’s a good point, Geek. Self-control truly is becoming a commodity of the day. One mental-health TV talking-head put it this way (paraphrase and I can not remember who I saw or where I saw it): our society has shifted so far into instant self-gratification, that there is no concern over consequence to others, just elevated gratification of self in the quickest manner possible.
On a somewhat-related topic of Joe Wilson, I think the liklihood of his re-election is growing everytime someone brings up that he either hasn’t apologized enough or should be kicked out, neither of which you mentioned, of course, so I am not looking your way when I say that. As outrageous as his momentary behavior was (hey, I wrote a guest post inspired by the dolt), at this point, given his apology and subsequent acceptance by President Obama, it should be done and over with. Instead, we have a punditry that continues to breathe life into it, which the wingnuts are all too happy to rally behind him as a result. The unintended effect, in my view, is galvanized support for Rep Wilson and a cakewalk back into the house in 2010. It’s all part of my beware-of-the-consequences view on every action taken.
Yeah, if only I had thought of this aspect of the “Joe Wilson as Angy-Townhaller” story last week, I wouldn’t be elongating his shadow.
I wonder how much of a leap it is to think that an ordinary citizen that shows up at a town hall meeting with a gun on his hip might lose his sense of reality momentarily as well.
That’s the scenario that I envisioned. Not that someone would premeditatively start shooting at a town hall, but that they would lose their head and what was left of their sense. There’s a reason why (I think) most sane states ban gun possession at bars. Alcohol tends to override that part of your brain that stops you from doing dumb things. So does unfocused anger and fear, and being swept up in the emotion of a mob.
Incivility is burned into the DNA of movement conservatives. It works for them:
1980: President Carter accurately points out that Ronald Reagan opposed Medicare. Reagan condescendingly smirks “There you go again…”
2009: President Obama accurately points out that the current health care proposals do not cover illegal immigrants. Joe Wilson shouts out “You lie!”
Wilson didn’t have a cake walk into office on 2008 and I suspect that he will still have a fight on his hands this time too for the same reasons. Whether or not he has apologized has taken on a life of its own, but this is the same narrative that would have happened if a Dem had called Bush a liar on the floor of the House. The pundits would have had a field day — except that the pundits (aided by a steady stream of Rs and R analysts) would have been paraded through to insist that such disrespect requires sanction and a resignation. At some point, they would find Ds who would agree and sooner or later the offender would resign.
The difference is that hounding Ds over their bad (real or no) behavior is the normal narrative. This doesn’t happen nearly as much to Rs for whom the baseline seems to be that they are bad actors. If the punditry is having a field day with this guy, I say let ’em. It is Equal Opportunity Accountability for Bad Behavior.
And, it looks like Wilson may have lied about being an Immigration lawyer too.
our society has shifted so far into instant self-gratification, that there is no concern over consequence to others, just elevated gratification of self in the quickest manner possible.
If you read the Daily Kos Ayn Rand article linked at the Open Thread, you’ll see this statement fits in well with the Randian philosophy that the Right is embracing now. Complete and utter selfishness is seen as highly moral, while thinking at all of others is viewed as a moral failing. To the way I was brought up, it’s rather nauseating. Don’t these people have mothers?
That’s the scenario that I envisioned. Not that someone would premeditatively start shooting at a town hall, but that they would lose their head and what was left of their sense.
Maybe the other guy who brought a gun that has a cooler head would take him down.
Not starting a gun thread, but I could.
I think you’ve hit the nerve that’s plaguing most of us. With the level of discourse being witnessed at town halls, the 9/12 march, etc. it almost seems inevitable that someone’s going to snap. Add a gun into the mix, and the odds of a real tragedy greatly increase.
It’s really the way all this is escalating – So extreme so quickly. Seriously, given everything they’ve called and accused Obama and the Dems of doing (and being) where does this go from here?
And then someone else who supported the first guy shoots at the second guy, and no one else gets hurt because all these geniuses are expert marksmen. No, the “If everyone had a gun then we’d all be safe” idea is naive and ridiculous. The only thing more guns leads to is more of a chance that one of those is in the hand of someone who can’t/doesn’t want to control himself.
Why are we accepting Joe Wilson’s explanation that he lost control? It seems more likely it was premeditated.
I imagine a Mexican standoff with a Republican holding a gun on a Democrat who is holding a gun on a Libertarian who is holding a gun on the Republican…
Funny, anon. 🙂 But we’re already talking about guns, why’d you have to go and bring Mexicans into it, to? It really all does come back to Joe Wilson, doesn’t it?
Yeah, if only I had thought of this aspect of the “Joe Wilson as Angy-Townhaller” story last week, I wouldn’t be elongating his shadow.
Hopefully you saw that I dismissed you from my point that his fame and subsequent galvanizing popularity is due to continued attention to the “you lie” moment. Your post wasn’t about that, but on the correlation of that “instant gratification” problem. I only brought it up because the opportunity was there. Crap, did I instantly gratify mysel…ew, nasty. Nevermind.
I got it. Don’t worry, I won’t shoot you.
I think we’re seeing an epidemic of rudeness. It’s like we live in a noise-acracy now.
Well… they did lose an election. 🙂
Whether or not he has apologized has taken on a life of its own, but this is the same narrative that would have happened if a Dem had called Bush a liar on the floor of the House.
True, BUT…do you see what you just did? You did the “they did it first” (or would have done it first) response. I couldn’t give a crap about Wilson, I really couldn’t. Whether he gets voted in our out should be on the merit of his work, not that moment. The point that I was trying to make, but apparently again did a poor job by accidentally making it come off as partisan, was that the more that moment is hounded and used as judgement against him will only further rally the wingnuts to carry him back to DC. It gives the wingnuts more purpose, something I am sure most people, including me, don’t want. The wingnut worship of Wilson was destined to be temporary; but so long as the pundrity insists he continue to apologize ad nauseum or quit, etc. in disregard of President Obama’s acceptance of apology, he will continue to be the hero they worship around. The thought of giving the hysteria-prone more substance to consume is just very chilling.
An epidemic of rudeness, while prevalent in politics for sure, is a societal issue on whole, not just partisan politics. It’s all over the place.
all this for LG’s imaginary scenario… and not a word about a real Pro-Life demostrator shot dead this week.
Thanks for pointing out the fact that we haven’t been jumping for joy, like the anti-choice crowd, about someone being killed. Murder is a shitty way to try to win an argument.
BTW, the killer also killed someone else, but I guess that guy doesn’t make your radar.
You did the “they did it first” (or would have done it first) response.
No, actually, I didn’t.
I did note that for the first time in a very long time the punditocracy is actually calling out a R for Very Bad Behavior. This is not normal. And it should be. If this kind of behavior was called out, ridiculed, fact-checked, shunned or otherwise held out to be uncivilized behavior it would at least stop the mainstreaming of the thuggishness so idolized by too many of the right. There is NO Democrat who would have been able to survive this kind of attention — because many of their own would have publicly dissed him well before now.
OK, point now understood, but I am still sticking by what I am saying. I see the wingnut pundrity (the wingnundrity???) just gobbling all the negative attention up as if it were a feast and elevating this guy to levels that just don’t need to be. I just am chilled over what’s going on as a result of this guy and he’s being celebrated by the wrong group for the wrong reasons, yet I think it’s working for them.
Maureen Dowd hit the nail on the head….all that’s missing from “You lie” is “boy!”.
Why the poor grammar? Why not “You ARE lying”, hell even “You lied”….but “you lie”? It’s just dangling. Did he catch himself at the last moment? Given previous statements toward blacks, I wouldn’t be surprised.
“In 2003, Essie Mae Washington-Williams’ revealed that she was the daughter of Wilson’s former employer, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, and Thurmond’s black maid. Wilson was among those who publicly doubted her claim that Thurmond had a child out of wedlock. Wilson said even if her story was true, she should not have revealed it because “it’s a smear” on Thurmond’s image and was a way to “diminish” Thurmond’s legacy.[22] After Thurmond’s family acknowledged the truth of Washington-Williams’ revelation, Wilson apologized but said that he still thought that she should not have revealed that Thurmond was her father.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)
Yeah, deny your father because you’re an embarrassment, a smear, even though the relationship was previously acknowledged.
Assessment time:
Wilson is a bigot/racist based on his own actions and words, can’t really dispute that, unless you want to ignore data. Also, Wilson is the current darling of the conservative right.
Birds of a feather and such.
Breaking: Castle voted against censuring Wilson
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll699.xml
…and Barney Frank refused to support it by voting “Present,” JM. It was also a rebuke, not censure, there is a difference. I think it was a waste of time that further inflames partisan hackship. I will say that I did like Frank’s opinion much better, though (from msnbc):
My prediction: watch wingnut nation deposit another million in his coffer by end-of-week. I’m telling you, this dude is now the accidental, energizing agent the wingnut force needed for focus.
this dude is now the accidental, energizing agent the wingnut force needed for focus.
But they are still the wingnut force and they still don’t have much traction except among themselves and apparently cable TV. The thing that is needed is more media calling out and shunning. Time to call crazy like it is and stop legitimizing it.
I don’t think it should be legitimized, either, but as long as this guy has the spotlight left on him, he is their rallying cry and they will remain focused. Before him, they were scattered in all places among varying groups. Them bonding on common ground is the absoulte worst thing we (yes, WE, because I don’t prefer them probably as much as you don’t) want to see.
It was also a rebuke, not censure, …
Here’s the text of the resolution:
Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.
It seems thin-skinned to recoil from this mildly-worded resolution on the grounds that it constitutes a heavy-handed “rebuke.”
Before last week, Joe Wilson was pretty much an unkown, unimportant, hick of a congressman. Now he’s a right wing hero, a rallying point, and I daresay a first-tier GOP figure. My question is this: How long until other no-name politicians (probably from solid red districts) realize that being outlandish, uncivil, but newsworthy, is now a legitimate path to the front of the conservative movement? Follow-up question: What do they do to surpass Rep. Wilson?
ScottP, intentionally or not, sees my point. As I agree with Barney Frank’s assessment of it all, the time to move on was pre-yesterday.
Um, JM, the only reason I corrected you was because the media (MSNBC as well) didn’t even mention “censure”. I realize that rebuke and censure mean the same thing, but we have seen the use of the word “censure” to imply serious underpinnings in the past, regardless of the literal use of the word. In the media reports that I searched last night when looking for Rep Frank’s quote, not a single one mentioned the word “censure,” but instead chose “rebuke.” Not even the resolution mentioned “censure,” whereas older attempts to rebuke congresspeople have. Am I using semantics? Sure I am, but I also am using the same language as others and not trying to needlessly make it any more than it should be. Welcome to wading through wingnut hysteria.
I am deeply troubled how this guy has become a hero and I think everyone should be. Right now, the best thing to do is to take the spotlight off of him. I understand the desire to dog this guy over his decorum, but there is a time for that and while the bees are buzzing the hive, you don’t continue to kick it.
iSmitty, I think if Joe Wilson could turn back the clock, he would not have done what he did. He and his supporters are trying to make the best of it, but even his wife said he was a “nut.” The House is the place these people go to work – Wilson disgraced the place and most of his fellow workers just told him so.
All I am saying is wingnut hysteria now has a unified cause, rather than being splintered among several. Strategically speaking, it was the worst thing to do: enabling them. In my world, he would just get disrespect in mild doses from here on out. Dude, I am agreeing with Barney Frank! That doesn’t happen too often! 😉
Yep, self control issues are just a conservative issue — BUNK
About 100 demonstrators in favor of health care reform had gathered on a Thousand Oaks street corner for an event organized by MoveOn.org. About 25 counterdemonstrators gathered across the street.
Rice declined to say Thursday which side of the debate he falls on.
Ventura County sheriff’s spokesman Eric Buschow said a confrontation erupted after the biter crossed from the MoveOn.org side of the street to the counterprotest, where Rice was standing.
A loud scuffle ensued, punches were thrown, and the tip of Rice’s finger was bitten off, Buschow said.
The biter fled before authorities arrived. He could face felony mayhem charges.
“We don’t know the identity of the man who bit the finger off,” Buschow said. “We want to contact him and get his side of the story.”
Every day hundreds of thousands of people walk around armed and nothing happens for the overwhelmingly vast majority.
Thousands/Tens of Thousands of people have attended Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings and nothing happened.
A politician yells during a speech and suddenly you are envisioning “blood in the streets” yet again (hasn’t happened after states allowed concealed handguns, open carry). Sheesh, talk about melodramatic.
Guess when you don’t have any facts or data to back up your ideas wild speculation is the only thing left.
Oh, so the guys with guns are more reliable to stay level-headed than other people. Got it.
I wonder if there wouldn’t have been a body at your crime scene if someone was carrying a gun.
For Bob’s edification (yes, for his beneficial learning), I repeat, with a slight adaptation:
Liberal Geek,
Didn’t say that guys with guns are more reliable to stay level headed but the law does impose greater penalties for not staying level headed when a person is carrying.
Statistically speaking, concealed handgun license holders are less likely to break the law.
There are also laws ( you might try looking up the facts some times) about when a person can employ deadly force.
Shouldn’t your handle be “Typical Liberal” you ignore the violence — not incivility– done by a liberal and wonder if a conservative would have escalated the issue. Isn’t that a blaming the victim mentality?
An epidemic of rudeness (including lack of self-control), while prevalent in politics for sure, is a societal issue on whole, not just partisan politics. It’s all over the place.
Giant cop-out. Send your resume to CNN; you may have missed your calling as an MSM journalist.
There is a special disrespect Republicans show to Democrats. It is different. It started with Reagan, and continues with Joe Wilson and the teabaggers. It is rooted in a sense of entitlement to power and the refusal to accept the legitimacy of the opposition. It is now part of the Republican mainstream. As DD posted the other day, Dem wackos are on the sidelines, but GOP wackos are in Congress.
Bob – Obviously you are a little thick-skulled. I’ll try to type more slowly.
Do you think that Rep. Wilson considered the penalties when he broke the House rules and acted like an asshole? I contend that he did not.
At what point in my comment about your little vignette of violence did I suggest that the person that would have fired a shot would have been a conservative? I actually think that your story makes my point perfectly. The line between agitated speech does sometimes escalate to violence. In your case the most deadly weapon available and employed was teeth. I suggest that if there had been a firearm in that mix, someone may have died of high-speed lead poisoning.
anon – Cop Out? EFF OFF! If you knew an effing thing about the things I write, you’d know that I don’t go for the actual cop-out of pretending one-side’s shit doesn’t stink in this accusation. Yes, I see the crazies going loony-bat-shit crazy. I’ve worn out that topic in citing the now-able-to-focus on a single-issue wingnut nation, thanks to the continuing hero-worship of Joe Wilson.
The topic du-jour of self-control or lack thereof was not born soley out of Joe Wilson. No, it was a topic based on the rash of outbursts in less than one week in politics, sports, and entertainment. So, I will say again for your effing PARTISAN SNIPING ASS…
…while prevalent in politics for sure, is a societal issue on whole, not just partisan politics
Got that…it is EVERYWHERE! Serena? Sports. Kanye West? Entertainment. Joe Wilson? Politics. E-V-E-R-Y-W-H-E-R-E! I won’t touch political affiliations, because that wasn’t the point I was trying to make, you effing partisan HACK!
“Oh, so the guys with guns are more reliable to stay level-headed than other people. Got it”
Yup, as evidenced by the overall lawfulness of CCW holders.
I will say that the thought of a few of our DL Contributors carrying guns scares me given their relaince on emotion & general rudeness & incivility. (of course that doesn’t mean I would seek to keep them from exercizing their rights, though I can’t say the same for them)
I mean hell, could you imagine Jason, Pandora or Cassandra carrying?
In a more calm manner, I say to you, anon, “Feh!”
I do agree that wingnuttery has permeated the GOP Congress. I couldn’t deny that if I wanted to. I will not, though, agree with any notion that each and every member is part of that group. Wingnuttery, however, is not isolated to one group and any belief that it is, is either false or partisan hackship. Right now, it’s that many wingnuts have aligned into the GOP and crushed any internal opposition and basically closed the doors. Some normal beings are still inside, but not many. Unfortunately, they aren’t very loud.
“I wonder how much of a leap it is to think that an ordinary citizen that shows up at a town hall meeting with a gun on his hip might lose his sense of reality momentarily as well.
”
Getting angry while carrying doesn’t mean I’m going to pull out my gun and shoot someone, just like getting angry with someone doesn’t mean I’m going to punch him in the face.
A momentary loss of self-control doesn’t mean there will be violence. If it did then people would shoot or otherwise physically assault anyone who pissed them off. The majority of the population doesn’t do that, even in instances where their emotions get the best of them.
Someone driving a car could momentarily lose their sense of reality and mow down folks on the sidewalk. Do you live in fear thinking it might happen to you?
I don’t think that anyone is making this claim:
Wingnuttery, however, is not isolated to one group and any belief that it is, is either false or partisan hackship.
Just that the difference with Rs right now (which I think you point out) is that the R whackos are their current leadership and mainstream membership.
Mike – do you have evidence that the people that we are talking about “open-carrying” also have CCW permits/training?
What does having CCW permits or “training” have to do with your fear of the possibility of a carrier having a momentary loss of self-control and shooting someone?
Does a CCW permit bestow magical powers upon the person carrying the gun?
Do you have any evidence to suggest that you should fear those who open carry? Any evidence that you should fear them more than someone concealing with a CCW permit?
Hell, rationally you should be MORE afraid of those concealing, since they’re hiding their gun from you (like criminals also do) and you don’t know they’re a permit holder.
Sorry, I must have lost my self-control! 😛
Honestly, this is what got me:
Giant cop-out.
That’s utter BS. Taking my comment on the whole and not parsing it, one could see the scope was a societal one and not strictly politics. Yes, the wingnuts are effing batshit crazy and getting worse; however, and something I think is more important, all of society is falling into an instant, self-gratification hole that, in my opinion, is dangerous. We have to deal with the wingnuts, yes, but I don’t think we should ignore what’s happing in much closer vicinity to ourselves as a result.
That was the point I was making, one that I think the scope was quite obvious. In my view, anon hacked away at it for his/her own use and challenged me on it. I’ll argue the whole point, but don’t take one tiny part of it and then call the whole argument crap.
Someone driving a car could momentarily lose their sense of reality and mow down folks on the sidewalk. Do you live in fear thinking it might happen to you?
No, but I would be quite concerned if the person behind the wheel felt that the pedestrians on the street were their enemies. That is what we are talking about. The townhall meetings have devolved into us against them. And say what you will about the divide between disagreement and violence, there is a line and each time a group of teabaggers shows up, there is a chance of their anger turning violent, if for no other reason than mob mentality.
I wonder if Bob or you are just as comfortable with so-called “union thugs” showing up armed.
Mike – you are the one that said that CCW holders are more responsible. I am trying to figure out why you think that the open-carry people fall into that category.
That depends entirely upon the ACTIONS of the person(s) showing up armed. If, like the folks who have been OC’ing so far, they’re acting in a civil manner and not threatening people with violence then I have no problem with it.
If DD showed up with a gun strapped to his hip screaming “All Republicans should be lined up and shot!” I’d be really concerned. If he showed up and protested civilly I’d have no issue with it and would be proud of him exercizing his 1st and 2nd Amendment rights at once.
each time a group of teabaggers shows up, there is a chance of their anger turning violent, if for no other reason than mob mentality.
Yup, and that’s true of any large protest. One only need look at many liberal protest during Bush’s term to see that.
“Mike – you are the one that said that CCW holders are more responsible. I am trying to figure out why you think that the open-carry people fall into that category.”
Because I respect their rights and have no reason to have distrust be the default position. Do you automatically suspect that a cop with a gun is going to be violent or irresponsible with it? Can you tell the difference between a plainclothes cop with a gun on his hip and an average citizen open carrying? I can’t.
But your statistics aren’t valid for OCers, by definition. So why is it again that I should be reassured?
Sorry, I must have lost my self-control! 😛
Smitty – I should have framed it in less personal terms – that was a lapse on my part; I wasn’t trying to be an ass. I know your reputation as a moderate and a peacemaker. I was responding directly to the comment, not to your reputation.
I still say though that “epidemic of rudeness, societal issue” is a variant of the “There’s enough blame to go around” argument, which I define as an attempt to escape responsibility by smearing it around. It was employed extensively by Republicans during the recent financial crisis.
I’ll grant that in contezt of your posting history you might have meant something different, but I don’t see it yet.
“But your statistics aren’t valid for OCers, by definition. So why is it again that I should be reassured?”
Find me statistical evidence that OC’ers are criminals / violent individuals and I’ll say your fear is rational. Without evidence that they’re a problem why should you be so fearful?
Can you answer my question about cops?
Unless there’s been a rash of violent felons carrying guns on their hips I see no reason to fear someone merely for OC. Funny thing how criminals keep their guns hidden from view.
@anon: Well, I am a “somebody think of the children” type; but no, I am not Maude Flanders, thank you. 😀
Now who is using the spoon defense? You quoted the legal behavior of one group and I am discussing a different group. You show me that everyone with a gun is a law-abiding citizen.
I have not suggested that people do not have a right to open carry. As I have said before, context matters. Bringing a gun to a parent teacher conference, a townhall meeting or a night out drinking are all probably bad ideas.
To my mind, I don’t really care whether they’re carrying openly or not. In this context, the only difference is the OC (“Don’t call it that”…Sorry, Arrested Development reference) people are trying to make a statement. What that statement is is a different debate. The point is, while it is not inevitable that someone who has a gun will shoot me, it’s a hell of a lot more likely that I’ll get shot by someone who brought their gun than by someone who was smart enough to leave theirs at home.
“You show me that everyone with a gun is a law-abiding citizen.”
Has anyone ever made that assertion? No. Besides LG, the onus is on you to prove that we are not, not the other way around.
How would you know that someone carrying concealed at a rally was “law-abiding? (assuming you knew they were carrying at all) They don’t have their CCW permit printed on their shirt. You have no more assurance of their law-abiding nature if they’re CCW’ing than if they’re OC’ing.
BTW the above is equally true for plainclothes cops carrying openly or concealed.
Scott P. The chances of you being physically assaulted by a violent protester is a lot more likely if no one exercizes their right to free speech. Does the chance that someone might inflict violence against you mean that all protesters should refrain from exercizing their rights? Does the chance that someone might use a firearm criminally at a protest mean that everyone else who chooses to carry should refrain from exercizing that right?
Shit, it’s more likely someone will get run over by a car if people drive to the protests, so maybe everyone should walk. That way you don’t have to worry about whether or not some crazy guy will use his car as a weapon against the crowd.
Mike – I see you still live in la-la land. What’s the tax rate there?
A politician yells during a speech and suddenly you are envisioning “blood in the streets” yet again (hasn’t happened after states allowed concealed handguns, open carry). Sheesh, talk about melodramatic.
Guess when you don’t have any facts or data to back up your ideas wild speculation is the only thing left.
Bob S. – They’ve been screaming about how there’ll be “Blood in the streets” for DECADES everytime the pro-rights side gained ground and restrictions were loosened. Reality and the facts keep on proving them wrong, yet they continue their screaming and wild speculation.
LG – Nice dodge. Why am I not surprised?
First of all, the walking thing would be a very eco-friendly idea, but I doubt it would find much traction among that crowd. 🙂
Second of all Mike, I don’t think anyone is talking about not allowing people to express themselves or exercise their rights to free speech. I’m sure not. Frankly, it pisses me off. This is the same, either through stupidity or intentional disingenuousness, inability to distinguish between critisism and stiffling of free speech. This is the kind of thing Palin is good at.
The point of this whole discussion was about having the self-control and self awareness to realize that bringing a firearm into an angry crowd is not a good idea.
Mike – I cannot debate further if you cannot bring yourself to admit that having a gun it the room makes the room more dangerous than a room with only loud mouths.
Thanks for visiting anyway.
If you and Jason are going at it and I walk in with a gun holstered under my shirt is it instantly more dangerous?
If a cop walks into a room is it more dangerous because he’s there with his gun?
I love your 1 sentence responses that offer little to no substance. It’s hard to tell if we were actually having a debate with responses like that.
A gun is an inanimate object. Having violent people in a room makes it more dangerous.
Have any of these OC’ers at protests shown any propensity for violence? Nope, on the contrary they have been civil, decent and non-threatening. If a person is civil, decent, non-violent and non-threatening he remains such with a gun on his hip. (unless you believe guns use a vulcan mind meld to turn people into violent pyschopaths.)P
If you and Jason are going at it and I walk in with a gun holstered under my shirt is it instantly more dangerous?
This is an invalid argument because the people we’re talking about who are bringing these guns are not dissinterested bystanders or observers. They are active participants. The more valid comparison would be, “If LG and and Jason were going at it and Jason had gun, would it be more dangerous?” I say yes.
If a cop walks into a room is it more dangerous because he’s there with his gun?
If he’s angry and/or loony and/or looking for a confrontation, then yes. If he’s there as a voice of reason, trying to calm everyone down, then no. (Assuming he makes sure no one grabs his gun from him.)
Yes, it is more dangerous. It may be less dangerous with the cop, since he has all sorts of training in controlling his temper and controlling a situation, but the possibility of the incident ending in gunfire went from 0% to something greater than that.
If you walk in with a gun, it is higher still, as you seem to be impervious to logic and incapable of seeing the implications of your behavior. And if we start debating gun laws, or some other idea that you find distasteful, it goes up further still.
And if you had a screw loose (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here) the number goes up higher still.
In the end, we may have gone from 0% to 0.5%, but the likelihood of the interaction is more likely to end in gunfire. Your assertion is, and always seems to be, that the fear is unfounded. I am saying that the possibility exists and is made more likely when more guns are in the mix.
Have any of these OC’ers at protests shown any propensity for violence? Nope, on the contrary they have been civil, decent and non-threatening. If a person is civil, decent, non-violent and non-threatening he remains such with a gun on his hip.
I agree with you completely on this one. However, I believe there is still an air of implied violence and threat. Yes, there has been no violence from any of them yet, but if it continues the chances of that streak ending increase.
Oh yeah. And damn if I don’t think them there Vulcan guns would sell like crazy. 🙂 Although on second thought, wouldn’t a Vulcan gun be more likely to make someone calmer and more rational?
“[T]he use of life-threatening violence in this country is, in fact, largely restricted to a criminal class and embedded in a general pattern of criminal behavior.”
— Elliot, Delbert S. 1998. “Life Threatening Violence Is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention.” Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69, no. 4, p. 1085.
“Research consistently shows that populations of homicide offenders and victims generally have higher-than-average rates of arrest and conviction for a variety of offenses. The National Criminal Justice Commission estimates that about 30 million Americans–approximately 15% of the U.S. population over age 15–have an arrest record (citations omitted). Studies of homicide, however, reveal that typically about 70% of U.S. offenders have been arrested in the past (usually more than once; see [Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. P. 177]) and about 50% have been convicted of an offense (see Kleck and Bordua, 1983:293). …
“Less is known about the criminal record of victims, but the same pattern is evident. In Wolfgang’s (1958:175, 180) study of criminal homicide in Philadelphia during 1948-1952, almost half of the victims had a history of arrest.”
— Cooney, Mark. 1997. “The decline of elite homicide.” Criminology 35:381-407.
Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):
“Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred “[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release”–that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense.” source – http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
Seems like most gun owners aren’t the ones getting into trouble. Felony convictions prevent lawful ownership.
Mike – I cannot debate further if you cannot bring yourself to admit that having a gun it the room makes the room more dangerous than a room with only loud mouths.
You have two choices of where you would be:
1. A roomful of convicted felons with records for violent assault but they are unarmed as are you.
or
2. A roomful of armed members of the NRA.
Having a firearm in the room does not make it more dangerous. It depends on the person carrying the firearm.
that is moronic. what about a room full of people, some of them are told the current president wants to turn their children into socialists, and they are too uneducated to know what “socialist” really means.. they think it is gay nazi’s worshiping satan and promoting interracial sex….. what about a room where there is just one of those people with a gun… a gun he is told will be taken away from them by those gay nazi satan worshipers he has been told to fear… you know it is out there. just look at some of these tea partys..
we came unarmed THIS TIME? are you fucking kidding me? that is a threat of violence against the legally elected government of the United States…. what is that?
Yes law abiding NRA members is fine. but you know damn well that is never the case. Wake the hell up.
bob, you can decide to disagree with the president, you can decide to hate him, but don’t pretend for a minute that people whom you may agree with politically are angry, scared, armed, and are told their feelings of hate are ok. put a gun in their hand and tell them that ‘defending america” is patriotic. what will they do…. John Wilkes Booth knew what to do. lincoln had armed guards… everyone carried guns back then.
wake up and smell the hate.. smells like america
I think option 2 makes it a lot more likely that I get shot. And since you don’t claim that the first group is angry or acting violently, and I don’t care much for many NRA types, I’ll go with 1.
Also, as an aside, I can’t help but feel your options seem a bit elitist at best, and racist at worse (I’m sure you assumed all the felons were white and many of the NRAers were black). But I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.
Hey Jason, is it okay if I bring my handmade 18th century muzzle-loading flintlock to a Tea Party?
I said this before but it bears repeating.
“That depends entirely upon the ACTIONS of the person(s) showing up armed.”
Yes, it is more dangerous. It may be less dangerous with the cop, since he has all sorts of training in controlling his temper and controlling a situation.
Cops have “all sorts of training in controlling their temper.” Really? Says who? Are cops special? Do they possess superior impulse control and logic than non-cops?
If you 2 are getting into it and one of you attacks the other is it still more dangerous for the 3rd person to have a gun?
I’ve had someone confront me while I was carrying. I’ve gotten into arguments, and yet with easy access to a gun the situations were not more dangerous. Why? Because of my actions.
I agree with you completely on this one. However, I believe there is still an air of implied violence and threat. Yes, there has been no violence from any of them yet, but if it continues the chances of that streak ending increase
You said violence, not necessarily being shot..talk about moving the goal posts.
You brought race into the issue.I was focusing on the firearm which you claimed would escalate the level of danger. Now does the firearm make a difference or does the ownership make a difference?
Would trust a room full of your friends if they were armed
Scott P. – Bob S. didn’t say one damn thing about the race of anyone.
If anyone’s being racist it’s YOU.
I hate doing this to someone I don’t have issues with, but…
Actually Scott, not in any attempt to put down your argument, but a clarification, there are non-whites in the NRA and there are MANY white convicted felons very liable to commit a violent act on someone who simply disagrees with them. I know you didn’t intend it, but your comment-retort to Bob was backdoor racist on the surface.
“I didn’t come armed….THIS TIME!”
I mean, WTF?!?!? Are you trying to scare me, Big Boy? Well only only fella can express what will happen if one of you baby-penisers pulls a piece on me….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IONyLZn0pLI
Why do you pro-ignorance, anti-freedom types always resort to this:
if one of you baby-penisers pulls a piece on me…
Psychological Projection?
no not really….it’s a comment on the wannabe bad-ass projectors (and having a laugh at the cognitive dissonance that’s rampant throughout American conservatism), which in and of itself is not projection.
And pro-ignorance? that’s rich! lol – like Saddam was involved in 9/11, evolution is “just a theory”, deathers, birthers, etc?
your sloganeering sucks ass, texan.
oh, and I forgot – Anti-freedom? Yeah, go fuck yourself with a trident. Yes, you’re free to do that; I certainly do not want to take that pleasure away from you!
Sorry, but under your argument there are all sorts of things we should ban.
Take automobiles — after all, we could have that momentary lapse and try to run someone down or run them off the road.
Or knives — when I was in social services I had a client who one night simply snapped during an argument with her husband over who would was and dry dishes, so she shanked him with a carving knife.
The possibility that someone MIGHT snap is not a reason to people from ownership, possession, or use of cars, knives, or guns.
Who has called for banning? Umm… yeah, no one.
“The possibility that someone MIGHT snap is not a reason to people from ownership, possession, or use of cars, knives, or guns.”
wow, i agree with RWR on that one.
i just don’t understand why a person would bring a loaded gun to a health care protest.
Bob S. — I appologize, as I did not mean to say you were bringing race into it. I tried to make clear (but obviously did a poor job of it) that I was separating that comment from my main argument, and speaking only of the, I still believe irrelevant and non-real-world, situation you gave. I was not trying to link that to the overall discussion, or to bring it down or take it in a different direction.
You said violence, not necessarily being shot..talk about moving the goal posts.
I’m sorry, maybe we have an honestly different view here. To me, when someone is displaying a gun, it implies violence, and specifically the violence of shooting someone. To screw up a phrase, you don’t take a gun to a knife fight.
The more I think about it, maybe that’s one of the core problems here. The sight of a gun, or someone wearing one, can illicit different honest reactions in different people. I might see it as threatening, while you may not. What really matters is what it means to the carrier. I obviously can’t be in their heads, or know for sure what they intend, but to me at least, it is an implied threat of violence (meaning shooting). Maybe that’s not what they intend, I don’t know, but I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way.
I know folks who carry all the time. Why should they change their practice just because they attend a political meeting or protest? Indeed, why shouldn’t folks supporting the exercise of Second Amendment rights carry their guns in a legal fashion as a part of their political speech?
Indeed, why shouldn’t folks supporting the exercise of Second Amendment rights carry their guns in a legal fashion as a part of their political speech?
Unless I got off track somewhere (always a possibility) I thought we were talking about town halls and presidential appearences. These have nothing to do with “supporting the exercise of Second Amendment rights carry their guns”. These are about health care. Guns have nothing to do with the policy discussions on hand. And it is my point that they are using it as “a part of their political speech”. What I think they are saying with their displayed guns is “We will oppose this by whatever means necessary”. As I said before, maybe it’s just a perception problem, I’m willing to entertain the possibility, but I don’t think so.
that’s an uninspired boiler-plate reason, rwr. it’s not necessarily incorrect, but the action lacks a legitimate purpose.
for those armed protesters, it’s either a conflation of many perceived issues or an overt attempt at intimidation. given the silence of those same armed protesters during the Bush admin’s deficit spending, illegal wiretapping, and so forth, your argument that they’re just exercising their rights is a little disingenuous, or more lightly put – tongue in cheek.
ALL YOU RIGHT-WING GUN-LOVING WING NUTS BETTER HOPE MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE THAT NOTHING VIOLENT HAPPENS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA OR ANYBODY AROUND HIM. UNDERSTAND?
If anything does, there will be hell to pay. By you. Guaranteed. The aftermath would make the riots after Dr. King’s assassination seem like a picnic in the park, by comparison. The riots will be on your street and by your front door.
That you would risk the national catastrophe of such an occurrence so you and your ilk can strut around like peacocks with your killing sticks at healthcare meetings is beyond the pale.
Let’s see:
JFK: Killed by a Commie, not a conservative.
RFK: Killed by a Palestinian over his support for Israel.
Ford: Shot at by a couple of loonies with no political motive.
Reagan: Shot by a loony with no political motive.
Yep — looks like Obama has so much to worry about from conservatives.
But if your argument is that we who believe in the exercise of our constitutional rights should not do so out of fear that African-Americans are mindlessly violent, I’d have to argue that your position is FRIGHTENINGLY RACIST and worthy of any Kluxer — which seems appropriate to me, given that terrorist organizations sponsorship by the Democrats.
I thought you knew about shooting, rwr!
Ain’t no way Lee Harvey got those accurate shots off that quickly! Ha!
How unsurprisingly convenient that the pro-legalize-segregationist leaves off the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr by a white racist. And because of the white wash of the Warren report and Spector’s single pristine bullet theory, all we really know is that President Kennedy was killed in Texas, Rhymey’s home state.
Where did I say African-Americans are “mindlessly violent”? I didn’t. You did. That figures.
“Ain’t no way Lee Harvey got those accurate shots off that quickly!”
Warren Commision champion of the “single-bullet theory”: newly reminted Democrat Arlen Specter. You could look it up.
’nuff said, eh, Geezer? 🙂
“but the action lacks a legitimate purpose.”
So exercising your constitutional right to bear arms is not a “legitimate purpose?”
I cant wait until the next UAW strike and instead of signs they show up with M4 carbines….
you know, practicing your 2nd A through your 1st A…….it makes total sense now!
“So exercising your constitutional right to bear arms is not a “legitimate purpose?”
No. But exercising your Constitutional right to bare arms is fine.
I listed Presidents and presidential candidates, A1 — but I left off George Wallace so as to avoid accusations of playing racial politics. Somehow, though, you managed to ignore the common thread running through that list and turn it into a racial thing anyway. You are nothing more than a one-trick pony.
And absent any actual proof that JFK was murdered by someone other than the pro-Castro denizen of the Left that Chief Justice Earl Warren (generally considered the greatest chief justice by liberals) and his commission determined to have committed the deed, I’ll continue to accept that conclusion.
Also, i drew a reasonable conclusion from your comment about riots like those that happened after the King assassination. I view that as nothing more than your engaging in subtle use of racial code words for “the Negros are coming out of the ghetto to get whitey”. In other words, two can play that game, you racist asshole!
Cracker — given the history of violence by the organized crime syndicates known colloquially as “labor unions”, I’ll have concerns with their carrying guns. But then again, perhaps the NLRB will as well, given that the history of union violence could lead such a display to be declared an unfair labor practice.
So I see, one must have a “legitimate reason” to exercise constitutional rights, according to Von Cracker and Anonone.
i never said that, arsetunnel.
You’re nuts, Rhymey. The only person to make this a racial thing was (surprise!) you. There were riots in the streets of many cities after King was assassinated. That is a fact. It was unprecedented in my lifetime. Also a fact. I didn’t use any “racial code words” unless you think that “Dr. King” is a racial code word, which I guess that you probably do.
If anything happens to President Obama by one of your impotent gun-lovin’ wingnut bretheren, there will be an uprising by Americans of ALL colors, genders, and ages the likes of which you have never seen.
Consider yourselves warned.
Nah — admit it, anonone. You think that African-Americans are just not as civilized as the rest of us and they will engage in massive rioting and property damage — not to mention commit crimes against persons — if they as a community become outraged by events. Indeed, you held it up as a threat against individuals whose politics you dislike. I’ll bet you even look forward to such violence.
And as a student of History, I know WHO rioted when Dr. King was murdered. It was pretty clear that you intended to threaten retribution by that same group against the innocent in the event of any violence towards Obama.
You are just another racist Democrat douchenozzle.
Oh, and the best possible interpretation of your comments is that if anything were to happen to Obama, you would PRESUME it was the responsibility of your political opponents and start the killing.
Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is none is not a legitimate exercise of free speech. Carrying assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols to healthcare meetings is not a legitimate exercise of a Constitutional right. It may be legal, but it is not legitimate.
Having Fred Phelps scream “God Hates Fags” and telling the family that their dead veteran is burning in hell is legal (as it should be), but it is not legitimate.
Note that I am using the second definition of legitimate which is “able to be defended with logic or justification.”
You may be legal, but you are not legitimate.
Rhymey, that may be what goes on in your sick lying mind, but not in mine. Anyone can read what I wrote, and it ain’t what you said I wrote. Not even close.
But keep trying – it is fascinating to see how all this racist stuff oozes out of your pen.
You can try to deny the racism of what you wrote, A1, but it is right there below the surface.
Either that, or your comments have to be read as a threat to murder the innocent in retaliation for the acts of a single individual.
But no matter which it is, it shows the ugliness that lurks in your soul.
“given the history of violence by the organized crime syndicates known colloquially as “labor unions”
I’ll probably regret wading in here, but as a teacher aren’t you a member of one?
Rhymey,
Being called a racist by a documented liar and a pro-legalize-segregationist like yourself is laughable. There is a psychological term for what you’re doing called “projection.” You can look it up.
It’s interesting that, when discussing gun rights up until 2008, the majority of gun-rights advocates said, “We need the right to hunt; it’s a cultural thing; and we need to protect our homes!! (and our wimmen).”
Suddenly, in 2009, the gun-rights position is: “we need our guns at all times. At the ready! At health care meetings! Public places! Schools! Everyone needs to be armed! Especially anywhere the president is!!”
Hmmm, what’s changed?
Any ideas?
KTTPA,
What has changed is that more people are getting involved.
What has changed is that more people are waking up to see their rights being threatened.
Hunters have been in the fore front of the 2nd amendment groups for a long time but they aren’t the only ones.
More and more people are seeing the claims made by antis just aren’t true.
Blood in the streets and wild west shoot outs don’t happen when a state passes concealed carry laws.
Reasonable restrictions end up being complete bans ala Chicago or Washington D.C.
People are tired of getting their rights trampled, of being unable to effectively defend themselves while the crooks run through the revolving door of our “justice system”.
That’s whats changed.
What has changed is that more people are getting involved.
What has changed is that more people are waking up to see their rights being threatened.
That probably helps you sleep at night, but the fact is that the number of people “involved” are quite a small minority of Americans (one that couldn’t fill up the Mall on Saturday and one who couldn’t elect a President) who are very loud and colorfully ignorant. You might say Made for Cable TV.
Just don’t mistake the fact that cameras are pointed at you for any kind of majority. And remember those same cameras track every bit of dysfunction from Octomom too.
“People are tired of getting their rights trampled, of being unable to effectively defend themselves while the crooks run through the revolving door of our “justice system”.”
Are you serious? Where oh where are you living? People unable to defend themselves? From what? Al-Qaeda in the US? WTF?
This is EXACTLY the fear mongering that baits the kind of paranoia that creates the “Boogeyman” effect. It’s ridiculous.
Anonone~ Way to play right into RWR’s bait. That’s what we don’t need is a riot, there’s no warning needed and you just furthered their point that “We’re out to get whitey” crap…
Shortstuff,
Rape doesn’t happen, is that what you are trying to say?
Home invasions?
Muggings?
Sexual assaults?
Murder?
Crime is going down…could it be that concealed carry laws have something to do with that? I don’t know.
I do know that crime happens and people are getting sick of being told to stand by and be good witnesses instead of defending themselves.
Are you telling me crime isn’t a problem? Chicago with over 500 murders last year–yet they have a gun ban.
“People are tired of getting their rights trampled, of being unable to effectively defend themselves …”
Show me where the rights have been trampled, since 2008, at the federal level, since that’s what the “more and more” involved people are protesting. (people being able to effectively defend themselves is not the right of governmnet; you either can or can’t; you do or don’t. We’re talking about gun rights here, not people’s capabilities.)
What’s been trampled or what federal bills to start trampling can you cite that have occured since 2008. Because there were no protests in the last 8 years of this type, size or ferocity.
And how many open carry and concealed carry laws were improved for you gun-totin-law-abidin citizens in the past 24 months? (Hint: go to wiki and try “open carry”. You’ll discover that the vast majority of court cases on open carry in the past 24 months sided with the gun carrier.)
So I ask again, on the federal level where the shouting is directed, what has changed?
No talking points this time, please.
If gun nuts ever do follow through on their dark implied threats to use their weapons, either firing them or simply intimidating with them – they will not find themselves up against unarmed frightened liberals. They will be up against the police. They will be crushed and the gun laws will be restricted even more.
Bob S.,
These crimes have been going on even since the wild west when people were carrying guns all over the place. So, I’ll bite on your TP’s for fun. So, what you’re saying is that there has NEVER been any Rape cases, sexual assault cases, muggings etc. that have been deterred or prevented without a gun? There are many, many alternatives than carrying a loaded weapon and I’ll even go and say that how many people that buy a gun know how to use a gun? How many soccer moms out there know how to take the safety off?
Fear isn’t the reason to carry a gun and you’re exactly the wrong person to carry a gun if your whole premise behind it is Fear.
Just so you understand, I’m not against guns, I served in the military and I wouldn’t mind having a gun but I choose not to buy a gun. I’ve taught many a self defense class to men and women and if you want to talk about self-defense, then talk about self-defense exclusively outside of gun rights, they are mutually exclusive of each other. There are other ways to protect yourself other than buying a rifle or a handgun.
Fear mongering is what gets kids killed in the line of fire.
“could it be that concealed carry laws have something to do with that [dropping crime rates]”?
Actually, the group that predicted the drop in crime ahead of time was the demographers, who pointed out that most crimes are committed by males under the age of 35. Sure enough, when the low-birthrate trough arrived in the mid-90s, crime dropped virtually everywhere in the country. Lots of other programs got credit — Rudy Giuliani’s (actually Chief William Bratton’s) broken-window philosophy got much undeserved attention (other cities that adopted it saw no corresponding drop in crime rates) — but only the demograpic argument predicted it ahead of time.
people being able to effectively defend themselves is not the right of governmnet; you either can or can’t; you do or don’t. We’re talking about gun rights here, not people’s capabilities
What do you mean by “right of government?” Governments don’t have rights, they have powers. People have rights.
If we’re talking about gun rights then we ARE talking about people’s capability to defend themselves. The two are not separate issues.
Fear isn’t the reason to carry a gun and you’re exactly the wrong person to carry a gun if your whole premise behind it is Fear.
You are confusing preparedness and an understanding of reality with fear.
“That probably helps you sleep at night, but the fact is that the number of people “involved” are quite a small minority of Americans (one that couldn’t fill up the Mall on Saturday and one who couldn’t elect a President) who are very loud and colorfully ignorant.”
The same is true of liberals protesting Bush during his two terms.
Let’s face it Cass, you’re only dismissing these protestors because they’re protesting against your buddies. You’d be singing a different tune in the roles were reversed.
Mike — you word smithed, but you didn’t answer any of the questions.
Your capability to fire a gun effectively, that is accurately, sensibly and at the right time for the right reason is not the government’s responsibility or right. “effectively” was the word used by the original poster. I’m responding to “effectively”
You still didn’t answer any of the questions but you brought the thread back to the talking points nicely.
“The same is true of liberals protesting Bush during his two terms.”
If you’re talking about anti-war protesters, you’re wrong. A majority was against that consistently after its earliest days, so it was not a “small minority of Americans.” It was a small minority that showed up, but it represented a majority. Saturday, not so much, I think — but then, I haven’t seen polling numbers on how many people “want their country back.”
“You are confusing preparedness and an understanding of reality with fear.”
Being prepared how? By having a gun? Understanding Reality? Again, I’m asking the question as to how having a gun makes someone safer? Again, read my post, I did say there were alternatives. Having a gun is NOT the ONLY answer is what I said and IF you’re only basis is that “I’m afraid of someone committing a crime on me” than, yes you definitely DO NOT need a gun.
I’m not against gun rights, What I am against is people bringing guns to an HEALTHCARE DEBATE. THAT’s what I’m against. Again, in the context of what I said, FEAR is a driving factor of why these nuts bring their guns because they either want to encite FEAR or they FEAR what they don’t understand. Displaying your right to firearms has no place in a Townhall meeting about healthcare. Joe Wilson is a perfect example of what COULD happen if some nut who’s in FEAR of his/her country being lost to the “undocumented worker” who’s in the white house.
Personally, I am a little annoyed with myself that I started a gun thread. That said, I had to laugh when Bob S went from “You aren’t likely to be involved in violent crime unless you are already a criminal” at 4:26 yesterday to his suggestion that “the murderers are coming, the murderers are coming” at 9:34 this morning.
Thanks, Bob.
You aren’t likely to need a fire extinguisher in your home either LG, but if you do you’ll need it RIGHT NOW and it might just save your life. Of course it might not do you any good and you end up dead anyway, but at least you were prepared with an effective tool with which to attempt to preserve your life.
Better to have it and never need it than need it and not have it.
Bob S. didn’t say “the murderers are coming.” Nothing of the sort. He said violent crime happens, and it can happen to you. That’s reality, and being prepared is an appropriate rational response.
LG,
What I said was
Seems like most gun owners aren’t the ones getting into trouble. Felony convictions prevent lawful ownership.
That is true. The firearms related crimes, what was originally worried about, is being committed by criminals and MANY but not all of their victims are also criminals
Yet it is that “many but not all” that is the problem we seek to address in our preparedness.
Mike W. says it well.
Now, if we sat in our houses polishing our guns, afraid to go out in public you could call us paranoid and fearful.
Going about your daily life armed is no such thing. It’s also ironic to hear others call us fearful when they’re scared that people lawfully and peacefully open carrying might shoot them.
I think Laurel puts it very well
“That’s it, folks. There’s no tinfoil, no paranoia, no fear. It’s just a thing I do.”
http://www.politicsgunsandbeer.com/2008/11/22/more-on-the-survival-instinct/
“Going about your daily life armed is no such thing. It’s also ironic to hear others call us fearful when they’re scared that people lawfully and peacefully open carrying might shoot them.”
Funny how you post that when Bob S. posts this:
“Rape doesn’t happen, is that what you are trying to say?
Home invasions?
Muggings?
Sexual assaults?
Murder?”
So which one is it, that you’re just exercising your rights, having a good time or is it “Preparedness”… wait, wait… I hear it already it’s both… Ah yes, It’s both…
Well, the argument for “Both” doesn’t mix well because as I said before, how many Soccer moms actually know how to take a gun off of safety. Better yet, how many of them even know how to “clean” a gun which should be done on a regular basis to avoid issues when being fired AAAANNNNDDDDDD Wait for it…. How many people even know how to load a gun properly or to take a live bullet out that’s been chambered so that they can do routine maintenance on their weapon…
A run of the mill fire extinguisher takes little to no maintenance and little to no know how in order to operate correctly AND if it malfunctions you get a face full of white stuff. If a gun misfires, you get little red stuff that comes out from the hole the bullet just made.
And let me also just make one thing clear… It takes approximately 5 seconds to disarm someone of their weapon especially with the holsters these morons have been using. I don’t fear the people that carry the guns because more times than not, it’s just trying to compensate for something. Real soldiers don’t need to carry a gun around to feel “prepared”. I’m worried about the kid, who’s been listening to Beck and Limbaugh calling for a riot who’s head is so f’d up with b.s. that makes a conscious decision in a crowded arena to disarm the idiot carrying the gun and ends up killing Birthers, racists etc. alike. Although, I may not disagree with what someone believes in but no one deserves to die because an idiot showed up with a loaded gun who has no idea what exactly to do with that weapon.
Do you know how to clean a gun?
Do you know how to “take a gun off of safety?” (none of mine have safeties)
Do you know how to perform routine maintenance on a firearm?
Do you know how to properly load a gun?
Do you know how to “take a live bullet out?” (It’s not called a bullet btw)
I can spend a few hours with someone who has NO firearms knowledge whatsoever and teach them everything you’ve just discussed. Then again, I think it’s pretty clear you’re ignorant on this subject.
Firearms are fairly simple tools.
because more times than not, it’s just trying to compensate for something.
Like what exactly? being old, physically weaker than their attacker, disabled, a woman, or perhaps just compensating for the fact that they cannot effectively defend themselves from multiple attackers without an effective tool. Or are you fixated on the size of my dick like some of the other folks here at Delaware Liberal?
no one deserves to die because an idiot showed up with a loaded gun who has no idea what exactly to do with that weapon.
So because YOU quite clearly would have “no idea what exactly to do with that weapon” you assume everyone else would be just as ignorant and incompetent?
It takes approximately 5 seconds to disarm someone of their weapon especially with the holsters these morons have been using.
And you know this how? Your vast array of knowledge and experience I bet! (haha) That said, if you’re going to carry you should take weapon retention into account.
If a gun misfires, you get little red stuff that comes out from the hole the bullet just made.
Actually when a gun misfires no round is expelled from the muzzle. Even if that weren’t the case, why would there be red stuff unless it was pointed at another person when it “misfired?”
Shortstuff,
Do you have life insurance?
You will only need that one day…so do you only carry that on that day?
Nope, because you never know when you might die.
Because I recognize that crime can happen, that crime does happen does not mean I am living in fear. No more then you are living in fear if you carry life insurance.
You are being prepared for what MIGHT happen.
how many Soccer moms actually know how to take a gun off of safety.
So you’ll support a plan to use tax payer money to teach people firearm safety?
We use tax payer money to teach sex ed, to exchange needles to keep people safe…why not use money to teach firearm safety.
And you would be surprised at how many soccer moms know how to use firearms. Many just don’t talk about it, why should they. It is no one’s business if they know how to operate firearms.
Of course, I’m not surprised sexism was brought into the discussion by the liberals either. Didn’t mention soccer dads ….nope you assumed that women are less likely to know how than men. Sexist.
A run of the mill fire extinguisher takes little to no maintenance and little to no know how in order to operate correctly AND if it malfunctions you get a face full of white stuff.
Wrong, if it malfunctions when you need it, you get an out of control fire that can kill people. Just like a car that malfunctions can kill people. Yet no one is talking about making people walk to the rallies and protests, eh?
To those of you who carry, or support carrying, openly at rallies and such…
…honest questions:
Do you take guns to the parent-teacher meeting? To the kids’ sports games and music concerts?
Do you take them to church? To the grocery store? To the convenience store?
Why or why not?
Do you know how to clean a gun? Yes.
Do you know how to “take a gun off of safety?” (none of mine have safeties) Even better! No safeties, nice, what I’d like to have with 2 kids around…
Do you know how to perform routine maintenance on a firearm? yes.
Do you know how to properly load a gun? yes.
Do you know how to “take a live bullet out?” (It’s not called a bullet btw) Nice, no it’s not called a bullet, you’re right. I guess everyone on this blog would know what it’s called without implying the obvious, right?
“I can spend a few hours with someone who has NO firearms knowledge whatsoever and teach them everything you’ve just discussed. Then again, I think it’s pretty clear you’re ignorant on this subject.”
~ Doesn’t that just prove my point that MOST people DO NOT KNOW how to do it. You’re a f’n idiot.. But yes, I’m ignorant on it.
“Like what exactly? being old, physically weaker than their attacker, disabled, a woman, or perhaps just compensating for the fact that they cannot effectively defend themselves from multiple attackers without an effective tool. Or are you fixated on the size of my dick like some of the other folks here at Delaware Liberal?”
~ Wow, you’re really off the handle aren’t you? Compensating for the fact that their “scared” you limp a$$ moron… Again, I have nothing against firearms but their are alternatives…
“So because YOU quite clearly would have “no idea what exactly to do with that weapon” you assume everyone else would be just as ignorant and incompetent?”
~ Yes, Mike me and a few million other people in the country that have no idea how to handle a weapon. That’s exactly my point.
“And you know this how? Your vast array of knowledge and experience I bet! (haha) That said, if you’re going to carry you should take weapon retention into account.”
~ Better yet since I brought up the point since you know so much more than I do, prove me wrong… I’ve got a 1000 dollars saying it takes no less than 5 seconds to disarm a man. Well, if you really want to know, go ask your local police on the matter since their trained and no matter what I say, you’ll disagree since you know more than I do.
“Actually when a gun misfires no round is expelled from the muzzle. Even if that weren’t the case, why would there be red stuff unless it was pointed at another person when it “misfired?”” ~ And I guess because a gun is really “never” pointed at anything then I guess it wouldn’t do any damage, right?
Ok… Here’s the deal Mike. You’ve got some serious soul searching to do because A. You’ve got some serious, serious deep rooted issues that I guess some in Del Lib has taken out on you. But that’s ok because I’m easy going, I can take it as much as I can dish it. But Thanks for proving my point about how people don’t know how to use or maintain a gun and on how misguided some of you gun owners really are.
In case you need a reminder, I said that there were alternatives to guns. I’m not against GUNS and for the HUNDREDTH time, I’m against morons carrying a loaded weapon to a discussion on Health Care. And the point of this discussion which you’ve proven quite eloquently is what happens when a Republican gets all rapped up… Well, you just gave that example, right?
Shortstuff- Do you own any guns? Have you ever shot one? Have any familiarity with them at all?
Why would you assume those who are carrying are as dumb as you?
Bob,
Life insurance can’t be wrestled from me. Life insurance won’t hurt anybody else if it gets in the wrong hands… Wait, well maybe depending on who it is…
There are A-L-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-V-E-S to guns. Plenty of alternatives to “protecting” yourself. If there wasn’t, the military, the police etc. wouldn’t use alternatives to disarm or to protect people.
“So you’ll support a plan to use tax payer money to teach people firearm safety?”- ABSOLUTELY 100% If people are required to take a test to get their drivers license, why not a gun license? Absolutely teach people firearm safety. There are programs to teach people how to ride a motorcycle so there should be something for firearm safety.
Wow~ Sexy soccer moms that know how to shoot… Sounds like something out of a Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie movie… Yep, you’re right, their all undercover assasins.
I won’t steep down to your comment about being sexist because the reason why I used “Soccer Mom” was simple, it was used by your VP candidate if you recall to identify the regular women out there, remember? You know, those that don’t know much about politics and such… Hey, I’m a soccer Dad so I must be sexist to myself… I’m going to go beat my own a$$ later…
“Wrong, if it malfunctions when you need it, you get an out of control fire that can kill people. Just like a car that malfunctions can kill people. Yet no one is talking about making people walk to the rallies and protests, eh?”
~ Tsk, tsk, tsk… Playing with a fire extinguisher is very different from playing with a gun. AND it just shows how “scared” you are by comparing driving a car vs. carrying a gun to a HEALTHCARE DEBATE… Lost, my friend, you are certainly lost…
Mike~
I’ll bite… Even though I really shouldn’t entertain this, I’ll bite. As I said in my earlier posts, I don’t oppose guns, I CHOOSE not to own one. Yes, I’ve fired guns in the past. It takes a person to fire a few of those things to earn an expert-marksman rating in the service.
Yea, a lot of us dumb folks actually have touched those things in the past. Not much but a little…
You shouldnt’ be “playing” with a fire extinguisher or a gun. They’re not toys and if you can’t bother being responsible you shouldn’t own either.
We do not license constitutional rights Shortstuff. I
If there are so many awesome, highly effective alternatives to firearms then why havent our police and military gotten rid of all their guns?
“You shouldnt’ be “playing” with a fire extinguisher or a gun. They’re not toys and if you can’t bother being responsible you shouldn’t own either.”~ Agreed, that’s why I don’t own one… I have two boys that no matter how well behaved they are, they are boys… Hence, no guns.
“We do not license constitutional rights Shortstuff. I” ~ And yet again Mike, I don’t want to BAN YOUR RIGHT TO GUNS. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT! THe constitution doesn’t prevent us from providing common sense approache to things.
“If there are so many awesome, highly effective alternatives to firearms then why havent our police and military gotten rid of all their guns?”
~ if there aren’t alternatives, than why does the military and police spend so much on research and development on alternatives? Yes there are plenty of alternatives but the problem like everything else is it takes time and money. AND there are still people out there with guns that want to kill other people regardless so law enforcement and the military MUST carry a weapon.
And why do they carry? Because despite alternatives, a firearm is still the most effective tool.
I didn’t say you wanted to ban anything. I said “we do not license constitutional rights.” Read it again slowly if you were having trouble understanding. There’s nothing “common sense” about licensing my rights. It is an infringement, plain & simple.
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm
See above link. Murdock v. PA (1943)
“And why do they carry? Because despite alternatives, a firearm is still the most effective tool.” at what? Killing people, yes agreed 100%. That is why they carry is in the event they need to kill people. See, the difference is that Police and Soldiers carry not to look cool or because they have to “uphold” their rights to carry. It’s because it’s their job to serve and protect all of us.
No one said anything about licensing your constitutional rights either,Soooooooo, rrrrrrreeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaddddddddd the post SSSSSSsssssllllllllllooooooooowwwwwwwwwwlllllllllyyyyyy~ your buddy Bob S. asked if I’d oppose using tax payer money to teach gun safety. I illustrated a point that if we’re required to take a drivers test, there should be at the minimum a basic safety course in gun safety.
Yes, yes… I know, it always turns into YOUR rights and no one elses and yes, yes, we’re all infringing on your rights… (yawn) Is this it? Is this all you have to argue for specific to “Self control”? This is why I left the Republican side, too many angry folks with not a point to be angry about. Even when I agree with your rights, you find a way to disagree… hmmm, isn’t that why we can’t all get along…:)
Shortstuff,
There are A-L-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-V-E-S to guns. Plenty of alternatives to “protecting” yourself. If there wasn’t, the military, the police etc. wouldn’t use alternatives to disarm or to protect people.
So you are okay with people defending themselves with knives (which can kill), sticks (which can kill), Tazers (which can kill), but not firearms because firearms can be taken away (a criminal act)?
Uhh, run that logic by me one more time.
The police use alternatives and I can and do use alternatives…gun control people want to prevent me from having that last option. There are times when no alternative but a firearm will work, wouldn’t agree? That is why no matter what else the military and the police may use, they also carry firearms.
No one is preventing you or anyone else who chooses an alternate from carrying one, but there are many cities and a few states that won’t allow firearms to be carried or even allowed in the home.
As far as alternatives, consider that some people have issues that make those alternatives unsafe. I have asthma. Using pepper spray or mace isn’t recommended for people with breathing difficulties, wouldn’t you agree?
ABSOLUTELY 100% If people are required to take a test to get their drivers license, why not a gun license? A
Great, then 16 year olds if they can pass the test get to carry, right? Just like a car?
How about my carry permit being recognized and accepted in every state, every city the way driver licenses are accepted?
Will the cost of a carry license be inline with a driver’s license?
I paid $26 for 4 years for my Texas DL, but I had to take a $75 course, pay a $140 fee for 5 years for my concealed carry license.
Since you are on the subject of licensing constitutionally protected rights, you’ll be comfortable supporting licenses to blog or comment on blogs, right?
How about a license to go to church or one allowing you not to attend church?
Willing to pass a test before you can “peacefully assemble” with your friends, family or other groups?
Yep, let’s license all of our rights that makes sense.
Bob,
Awesome take on why I left the Right. Everyone on the left is trying to take your rights away and license and regulate EVERYTHING. Again, harmless vs. harmful. Very different but again, that’s why I left because with the Right (well I should temper that by saying “most” of the Right) it’s all or nothing. There isn’t any common ground that can be found. Misled you are…
Again, reading comprehension fails you.
You said,
“If people are required to take a test to get their drivers license, why not a gun license?”
Which caused me to respond that we DO NOT license Constitutional Rights in this country.
I’m glad you agree cops carry because guns are the most effective tool they currently have to protect the public. It makes sense then that a citizen like myself would want to carry the MOST EFFECTIVE tool with which to defend myself (just as cops do)
Should their be a literacy test for voting? A competency test before you can write a blog (or a government license to do so?) Must you take a test on the justice system before asserting your right to counsel or jury trial? Do you need a government license to exercize any of those rights. Nope.
BTW – What makes you assume I’m a Republican?
SS,
Awesome take on why I left the Right. Everyone on the left is trying to take your rights away and license and regulate EVERYTHING.
You suggested the licensing and regulation of a right. I asked if we are going to do one, why not do all?
Again, harmless vs. harmful.
So, fraud is “harmless”? Threats are “harmles”?
Both of those are part of the consequence of allowing free speech.
Slander, libel are also parts of that consequence…are those harmless also?
Gang, drug cartels – right of peaceful assembly or harmful? Who gets to decide?
If want to license one constitutional right, where do you stop Me, I don’t want to license the right to keep and bear arms…you said it was a good idea.
Why just firearms though? Should we have a license and test on anything that can be taken away, anything that is dangerous?
Knives -England is trying to restrict the right to keep and bear knives after they went after firearms…how is that working out for them?
Fertilizer and fuel oil? The Oklahoma City bombing proved how dangerous those two common items can be.
Clorox and Ammonia? Two common cleaning supplies?
Where do YOU draw the line on what is licensed?
Mike,
Again, in the context of what I was writing about a gun safety course is not infringing your rights and I have no problem with you stockpiling as many guns as you want… Whatever floats your boat big guy… Wait, let me re-phrase that since you may think I’m referring to something else since we here at Del Lib are all obsessed with your body part. Again, READ CLEARLY~ a gun safety course, read it slowly….
Hell, if you’re not Republican, I might go back…
You want to REQUIRE a “gun safety course” in order for me to get a LICENSE from the government before I can exercize my right.
As I said before “We do not license Constitutional Rights in this country. Do you want to have to get a government license to start a blog, to invoke your right to trial by jury etc. etc. etc.?
Willing to apply your same standards to other Constitutional Rights? If not then why not?
“Everyone on the left is trying to take your rights away and license and regulate EVERYTHING.”
Well you just advocated doing exactly that is this very thread….
Bob S,
Nice way to try and steer away from the fear but here’s the bottom line, a gun safety course is not infringing on your rights. Again, read all the way up to my first post or any post I have regarding Gun Rights, I’m all FOR IT! But again, as fear dictates the premise of your argument, this is why it’s an all or nothing…
Here’s the bottom line, gun toting nuts don’t belong at a healthcare debate chock full of kids, men, women etc. No one is talking about gun rights at those meetings. Second, a gun safety course that I said had nothing to do with being a pre-requisite, you and Mike W. just love to zero in on that as you know there is really nothing in your argument that makes sense because A. I don’t oppose gun rights and B. I’m not in support of taking them away and C. what I’m saying is that if protection which was your initial point is the case, there are alternative ways to protect yourself but of course as normal, the topic becomes something about infringing on your rights.
Until you come up with a better argument about the initial posting you had which dealt with “protecting yourself” from the Rapists, murderers and such out there, don’t make it a topic about rights.
Yes Mike, because self control is all about regulating everything… SHUT DOWN the institution… Lock up those who don’t agree with what we believe in… Kill those that don’t believe in what we believe in…
~Wait, isn’t that what all the morons on the right are saying now? Don’t we have a pastor “praying” for Obama’s death? Don’t we invade other countries and impose our “belief” in democracy because it’s the “right” way to do things?
“gun safety course is not infringing on your rights”
You’re right. If I CHOOSE to take a firearms course that’s not an infringement, it’s a good idea.
If I am REQUIRED to take said course as a CONDITION of obtaining “permission” (A license) to exercize my rights then it is an infringemenmt.
Again I must remind you what you very plainly stated and now are trying to disown. Will you apply the standard you set forth to the rest of your Constitutional Rights? Why or why not?
“If people are required to take a test to get their drivers license, why not a gun license?”
REQUIRED. As in, the government says you must take this “safety course” in order to get a permission slip (LICENSE) and THEN you can exercize your rights. If I have to ask the government for permission it is no longer a right.
gun toting nuts don’t belong at a healthcare debate chock full of kids, men, women etc.
So we shouldn’t carry and exercize our rights because women & kids are present? That’s true of any public place? Where else do people lawfully exercising their rights not belong?
You know, there were once folks who held the same viewpoint about blacks, and that position is just as vile as yours.
I see shortstuff is dodging the questions. Seems to be a trend among DL Liberals.
“You want to REQUIRE a “gun safety course” in order for me to get a LICENSE from the government before I can exercize my right.”
Mike,
Again, taking it out of context, because if you read the rest of what I said, I also talked about motorcycle safety which DOES NOT require you to take the safety course BEFORE you take the TEST to get your motorcycle license. What I said was that a gun safety course would be a good idea to offer to teach your “Angelina Jolie assasin soccer moms” how to really operate a handgun… As well as your “Brad Pitt baseball dads” how not to lose a finger.
So nice try in trying to take it AGAIN to we want to infringe on your rights… Common sense must at times elude you. I’ll look for more posts by you now to hope that you’re not that lost.
“So we shouldn’t carry and exercize our rights because women & kids are present? That’s true of any public place? Where else do people lawfully exercising their rights not belong?”
~ Common sense eluding you…
“You know, there were once folks who held the same viewpoint about blacks, and that position is just as vile as yours.”
~ Nice! Hmmm, comparing wing nuts like yourself to what we’ve taken here in the U.S. as minorities. Awesome, that pretty much solidifies the fact that you really are “compensating” for something… Oh well, I tried to steer you to the water but you won’t lead yourself to drink…
There’s the discussion in a nutshell, you can’t argue the point that was being made so let’s make it something else. No wonder Del Lib folks think you’re an a##…
ABSOLUTELY 100% If people are required to take a test to get their drivers license, why not a gun license? Absolutely teach people firearm safety. There are programs to teach people how to ride a motorcycle so there should be something for firearm safety.
These are 2 separate ideas with the same meaning which you say should be applied to firearms. In one you say if we require a TEST for a LICENSE to drive why not REQUIRE a test for a LICENSE for guns. In the other you talk about motorcycle tests.
There “should be something for firearms safety” as you say, and the “something” you just advocated is a TEST you must take as well as a LICENSE you must receive from the government before you can legally perform an action.
So, you are advocating government testing and licensing of a Constitutional Right.
Since you are on the subject of licensing constitutionally protected rights, you’ll be comfortable supporting licenses to blog or comment on blogs, right?
How about a license to go to church or one allowing you not to attend church?
Willing to pass a test before you can “peacefully assemble” with your friends, family or other groups?
Yep, let’s license all of our rights that makes sense.
These are Bob S.’s questions above. Funny how you can’t / won’t answer them.
When churches, blogs, and assemblies start ripping holes through people’s abdomens every Saturday night, they will be licensed faster than you can blink.
Anon,
Ever hear of the “Crusades”?
How about World Trade Center? Examples of churches “ripping holes”
Estimates are around 275,000,000 to 355,000,000 firearms in the USA.
Less than 17,000 murders a year, approximately 200,000 firearm related injuries per year means that 0.0789% (using 275M) of firearms are “ripping holes” in people on Saturday nights.
We have licenses for cars, we have licenses for bars and restaurants to sell alcohol but that doesn’t stop people from getting drunk in bars and restaurants and driving does it?
More people are killed by alcohol related accidents then firearms –both accidents and murders!!!
Comment by Geezer on 17 September 2009 at 7:24 am:
“given the history of violence by the organized crime syndicates known colloquially as “labor unions”
I’ll probably regret wading in here, but as a teacher aren’t you a member of one?
Nope — God bless the Texas legislature for making us a right to work state. I flat out have refused to join the NEA and AFT affiliates in my district — though I have joined a state teacher’s association for the insurance and the legal representation/advice if needed. And I get it for a fraction of what the NEA affiliate charges down here.
And since there is no collective bargaining for public employees down here anyway…
Mike,
Nice way to twist everything so that you have an argument… In any case, you didn’t win this one as you can tell because your hostility is still on “Your Rights” and AGAIN for the umpteenth time moron, I’m not trying to infringe on your rights but it’s ok bro’, that’s why I left. I finally realized thru the years that really all the fear mongering, all the angry cries for the boogeyman was all just fake… The point behind this whole thread which you so eloquently lost in the haggard and tiresome debate on your rights to hold your johnson was “Self Control” and how Bob indicated that guns were for “Self Defense”… Again, to reiterate what I stated before, FEAR, being scared you’re going to get raped, assaulted etc. is not the reason to buy a gun. There are plenty, PLENTY of Non Lethal alternatives to buying a gun.
What you and Bob have so easily demonstrated by your unending pursuit for an argument was that for some specifically people like yourselves, probably shouldn’t own a weapon for the mere reason that ANYONE, ANYONE who feels that for the good of ALL, we should have some common sense approaches to owning a weapon is infringing on your rights. It doesn’t even matter that I actually AGREE with gun rights just so that because you feel “threatened” that someone is going to take away your pacifier. I, like many like myself do not advocate for “licensing” or “regulating” everything but you like most of the right is an all or nothing proposition. There never can be a common ground reached because even when someone is staring you in the face telling you that they are with you, you’d rather stomp on them to “prove” that “You’re Right”.
This is why no decent conversation can be had with you as it relates to any actual factual issue because it always turns to some ridiculousness about black/white, length or lack thereof of your… Well, let’s just leave that to your imagination. I do believe there are actually smart gun owners out there. Many that have a vast array of weaponry, good friends of mine that pretty much look at your points of view and laugh.
True patriots don’t pound themselves on the chest preaching they need their guns. Confidence doesn’t need to be worn on a shoulder harness or on your hip. One thing one of my drill instructors used to tell us over and over again, Guns don’t protect the country, Soldiers and Sailors protect the country.
“I do believe there are actually smart gun owners out there.”
It’s clear that you’re not among them, that’s for sure.
There are plenty, PLENTY of Non Lethal alternatives to buying a gun.
And yet you conceded that cops carry guns because they are the MOST EFFECTIVE means of ending a violent assault. While I’m not opposed to less-than-lethal defensive tools the fact remains that they are not an effective substitute for a firearm, which is why citizens and cops alike carry them IN ADDITION to a firearm.
I find it sad that you cannot address questions posed to you nor offer a rational counterargument. The best you can do is bitch, moan and call me a moron. The hallmark of someone who knows he’s lost the debate.
Oh, and the dick jokes. You quite clearly have no substantive points or facts. If you did you wouldn’t need insults and dick jokes. We bring facts, logic, case law (which you conveniently ignore) and you have namecalling and dick jokes. Typical.
“We bring facts, logic, case law”
Also a probably unhealthy obsession with your guns. It’s just a tool, right? What would I think of someone who wrote so frequently about his hammer?
Geezer,
What we have here is a failure of reading comprehension.
Also a probably unhealthy obsession with your guns.
We talk about our rights and you see it as talking only about firearms.
We talk about the laws and you see it as talking only about firearms.
We talk about liberty / freedom and you see it as talking only about firearms.
We have an healthy obsession with our rights and defending them. We will not allow them to slip away as they did in England.
Call it infringement or “reasonable restrictions” it is limiting our rights. These same people support people’s rights to choose: be it an abortion or who they marry yet they tend to want to limit or restrict a person’s right to prevent a mugging or rape.
Tazers don’t work through thick clothing or coats. Pepper sprays don’t always affect people. It takes more physical force then some people have to use batons or hand combat techniques….I know of very few people that can not effectively aim and fire a handgun.
If find it interesting that groups / philosophies such as liberals who say they support rights are so interested in limiting rights of people they disagree with.
you talk about your rights TO HAVE FIREARMS. it is always a fear that your guns will be taken. people cry for their rights while waiving guns… neither of which are in danger.
Bob, i think you, as some other people who don’t understand the “liberal agenda to take my guns” have a much different life experience than those who are opposed to guns. I don’t know what it is of course, but i wonder if you in your own personal life have ever been effected by gun violence (non military)
Liberals dont want to take away anyone’s ability to defend themselves, but it is insane to sell bullets or guns that can punch through armor to every day people… why? because they are usually used against cops. It is irresponsible for any state to allow someone to guy a gun without establishing a criminal history. (some states do) my proof of these statements are the slew of recently murdered philly cops, school shootings and every other single gun death in America’s cities..in THOSE cases it is agreed by law enforcement and everyone else with a brain that MORE GUNS would have resulted in more deaths. maybe not in hegemonic middle America, there are tons of responsible gun owners..
IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU.
i’ll say it again
IT
IS
NOT
ABOUT
YOU!
Keep your guns white.. sorry right wang… damn right wing. Try not to use them against commies, or what you think are terrorists, or brown people, or socialist politicians… do what we do.. vote against them….but keep your guns.. we in “fake America” will continue to make it safe… because we live here.
again bob I don’t know who you are or where you live, I don’t really care. My point to you wan a general rant against all the “MEMEME”
paranoid right wing whackos who want the government to oppress them… anything to start another civil war and cleanse America right?
A.Price,
You are simply showing your ignorance.
Liberals dont want to take away anyone’s ability to defend themselves,
Then why does Chicago insist on keeping a firearm ban? Why did Washington D.C insist in keeping its clearly unconstitutional laws?
Why are there so many groups out there calling for the banning of fireams?
Some liberals do want to take away our ability to defend ourselves.
but it is insane to sell bullets or guns that can punch through armor to every day people
Ordinary hunting ammunition and firearms can “punch through” a standard police vest. So can some handgun ammunition.
Is seems that you want to restrict people’s rights to keep and bear arms because….of what some criminals MIGHT DO. Should you loose your right to speak because others may commit fraud? Slander?
It is irresponsible for any state to allow someone to guy a gun without establishing a criminal history.
Let’s see if we change a few words of your sentence if you still feel the same
It is irresponsible for any state to allow someone to marry without establishing a criminal history
It is irresponsible for any state to allow someone to speak without establishing a criminal history
It is irresponsible for any state to allow someone to peacefully assemble without establishing a criminal history
It is irresponsible for any state to allow someone to attend church without establishing a criminal history
If you are going to restrict one right, apply the same standard to all the rights protected by the Constitution.
It is irresponsible for any state to allow someone to have kids without establishing a criminal history.
There has been a recent trend of moms killing their kids in bath tubs…does that we should prevent people from having kids until they undergo pysch exams and background checks?
Sorry but the criminal actions of a few do not provide a reason to deprive me of my rights.
There has also been a rash of wrong way accidents in Dallas Texas. Since those people can’t use a tool responsibly and people have died, should everyone have to suffer?
My point to you wan a general rant against all the “MEMEME”
paranoid right wing whackos who want the government to oppress them… anything to start another civil war and cleanse America right?
This is hilarious. You say I am paranoid that people want to restrict my rights….in the same response where you are saying people shouldn’t be able to exercise their rights.
anything to start another civil war and cleanse America right?
Psychological project much?
but it is insane to sell bullets or guns that can punch through armor to every day people… why? because they are usually used against cops.
Ah, an anti-gunner speaking from a position of profound ignorance. Whats new?
Cops wear level II or IIA soft body armor. They are meant to protect against HANDGUN rounds, that’s it. Any centerfire rifle round (I.E. anything larger than a .22) will punch right through a cops vest. This includes rifles that are 100+ years old.
What are you going to do, call for the ban of virtually every centerfire rifle made in the last century and a half because they are “usually used against cops?”
And of course they are NOT usually used against cops. Criminals by and large carry handguns.
Per FBI UCR Stats for 2007, rifles (of any kind) were used in 4.46% of all murders committed with a firearm. That percentage is about the same each year from 2003-2007.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
So, have anything substantive to bring to the discussion, or just more BS that I can easily refute with facts?
Fact: You can put armor-piercing ammo in handguns.
A. Price,
DOn’t bother because honestly neither one are worth the aggrevation. They see their victories in their own eyes and for some reason it turns to the fact that someone else is denigrating them when in all, it’s pretty much just them that went down and stooped to that level…
Here’s the deal Mike, You still don’t get it, that’s why you keep pounding your chest… You bring FACTS? FACTS as in what FAUX NEWS? Or what you believe to be FACTS? Case Law? On what? SELF CONTROL? You’re an idiot Mike and you know you lost this one because it’s the same lame argument about your rights and so forth… Hey, here’s even a better one for you to think about, THIS IS WHY YOU LOST PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF BECAUSE the right unfortunately is so obsessed with their “rights”. No one is trying to take your rights away nit wit… The Obama SS hasn’t surfaced. The fourth reich of the Black Man hasn’t imprisoned you and for the love of GOD, The Soviet Union is dead.. Hey moron, go look at the thread and find who thought I was talking about his “shortcomings” when in fact it wasn’t even in the discussion but yea, you’re right, You bring facts brother…
If what you bring is Facts, GOD HELP US ALL… To close, I’d say a fair job on the debate. I think overall, you have some points but this wasn’t about gun rights rather Self control and how possessing a firearm affects that issue. The problem is sticking to one point of the argument and going from that perspective. Defend your position based on the initial argument, don’t drag it on to nit picking out what someone typed and trying to use that as the sole basis for demonstrating that it’s an infringement on something. I would’ve seen your point if you both stuck with the argument on Self Defense but it’s a weak argument so much so that Self defense is a very, very slippery slope when it comes to manslaughter cases. What you both fail to see is that the nonsense that you’ve both wrought here proves the very point of every bleeding heart liberal out there that the right is out of control, the racism, the bigotry, the massive hysteria of it all. Prove your point and try and prove it thru logical arguments not some “Alice in Wonderland” reference to taking away ALL our rights because someone suggested an alternative to firearms.
“Fact: You can put armor-piercing ammo in handguns.”
Define “armor piercing”
The only modern handgun that can penetrate a level II or IIA vest is the FN Five-Seven. It fires a small, expensive, crappy, ballistically inefficient round. Oh, and it can’t punch through a cops vest. There are two designations of ammo in that caliber, one of which is capable of penetrating a police-issue vest, the other which is not.
Take a guess which type of ammo is legal and avaliable for sale on the civilian market?
I suppose criminals could buy a nearly $1000 pistol which shoots expensive, hard to find ammo and somehow procure armor-piercing ammo for it from Mexico or somewhere else on the black market. (illegally of course)
Don’t bother trying to discuss the topic if you’ve got no clue what you’re talking about.
Shortstuff – I don’t know what world you live in. Did you see me reference Fox News anywhere, provide any links to Fox? Nope, so why bring it up? In the real world links to relevant case law are considered “facts” as are data from FBI Uniform Crime Reports. That you ignore them and go on your little rants doesn’t make them any less relevant.
Would you rather have me discuss things the way you do? By avoiding points presented, By insulting and personally attacking those with a dissenting opinion? By stating my opinion without bothering to back it up with substance or empirical evidence?
I don’t do that because it’d make me look like an ignorant fool.
THIS IS WHY YOU LOST PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF BECAUSE the right unfortunately is so obsessed with their “rights”.
#1 – You seem confused. Defense of Constitutional Rights is not a Left/Right issue.
#2. – You say the right is “obsessed with their “rights”” as if that’s a bad thing. Defense of Constitutional rights is never a bad thing. Our founders had an obsession with their rights as well.
“extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
-Barry Goldwater
Oh REALLLLY {attempt at Jim Carey impersonation}
. No one is trying to take your rights away nit wit
DIANE FEINSTEIN (California Senator, author of “Feinstein Amendment” which became the ’94 gun ban): “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.” (60 Minutes episode, CBS) [Sen Feinstein holds a CCP]
“If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns…” Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998.
“No presidential candidate has yet come out for the most effective proposal to check the terror of gunfire: a ban on the general sale, manufacture and ownership of handguns as well as assault-style weapons.” The Washington Post editorial entitled “Guns Along the Campaign Trail”, Monday, July 19, 1999, Page A18.
How man more lies do you want to tell about “no one wanting to take away our rights”?
Those are just some of the many quotes and statements out there about people trying to do exactly that.
and
The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!
Judge Garwood: “You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?”
Meteja (attorney for the government): “Yes”
Garwood: “Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?”
Meteja: “Exactly.”
Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn’t enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn’t protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.
Garwood: “Membership in the National Guard isn’t enough? What else is needed?”
Meteja: “The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard.”
(Excerpt of oral arguments in U.S. v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 13, 2000)
The [American Academy of Pediatrics] believes handguns, deadly air guns and assault weapons should be banned.
American Assocation of Pediatrics, Where We Stand, available at http://www.aap.org/advocacy/wwestand.htm (visited Jan. 21, 1999) (boldface added).
Naa, no reason to keep up the efforts to protect our rights, eh?
bob you are a moron. equating BUYING A GUN…. the only purpose of a gun it to kill to MARRIAGE? slippery slop i get it…. or maybe your marriage is an instrument of death… who knows. but those bold font idiotic sentences are your entire argument? and you call ME ignorant.
why do you think Chicago and DC and liberals fight for gun control? is it so when we let gay people fuck your kids you wont have any way of shooting at us?
or is it something a little more practical…. like allowing guns to flow freely in an area where a ton of people live per square mile might be a bad idea given human’s history of acting violently toward one another.. deregulating guns is as irresponsible as deregulating business… eventually some people will find a way to use them to control and hurt everyone else
i really want to know why do you, BOB.S, think we are trying to take away your rights to have guns…. and marriage, and speech, and children’s play time?
REALLY? MARRIAGE? SPEECH? THAT IS THE LINE YOU DRAW?!??! W F T
I can’t help but notice that the Framers considered the right to keep and bear arms an essential liberty — so much so that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights. Yet your fear of guns is such that many of you seem intent upon restricting and limiting — if not outright eviscerating — that essential liberty. Do you believe yourself wiser than the Framers? And which other rights would you similarly restrict, license, or eliminate through statute?
The “Framers” were wrong about a lot of stuff.
Then get the Constitution changed, don’t simply ignore it.
the framers also allowed slavery, but we fixed that mistake. they were wise enough to allow the constitution to be changed if it needed to be you RWR as a teacher should know that. You as a republican willfully forget it when you need to.
Then propose and pass an Amendment Repealing the 2nd Amendment. Go ahead. Of course remember once you’ve done that you’ve set precedent to start repealing the rest of the BOR depending upon which freedoms those in power deem “mistakes.”
Are you sure you bigots really want to go down that road and support repeal of portions of the BOR you don’t like? Go Ahead, repeal it. I suspect you’re too shortsighted to see what that would mean for the rest of the BOR.
You’ll have to repeal the 4th among others as well.
Of course even if you were to get an Amendment repealing it and the 4th, good luck actually confiscating guns. Good luck finding people to do it for you.
I suspect inherent & inalienable mean nothing to you?
Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make it go away anymore than repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights would allow the government to kick in my door and rob, beat, imprison and torture me with impunity. The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don’t “grant” me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution.
RWR – If we were proposing the restrictions they advocate for the 2nd Amendment for other parts of the BOR these “progressives” would be screaming bloody murder about their rights being infringed. They are hypocrites and bigots, plain & simple.
The Fourth Amendment and First Amendment have already been rendered moot. I guess you were too busy fondling your guns to notice or care.
So this turned out to be a gun thread after all.
we’re very good at doing that.. my promise as a loyal commenter… i will turn friday bacon blogging into a gun fight… no pun intended 🙂
Self control is over-rated. When Mike W shoots someone (and he will) they will have it coming, even if that someone turns out to be himself.
a.price — i actually made that point in a comment. I’d love to know where that comment went to.
“Self control is over-rated. When Mike W shoots someone (and he will) they will have it coming, even if that someone turns out to be himself.’
I guess this is the kind of shit Delaware Liberal considers appropriate…..
The Fourth Amendment and First Amendment have already been rendered moot. I guess you were too busy fondling your guns to notice or care.
And does that mean you should stop fighting to protect those rights?
So this turned out to be a gun thread after all.
Yup, with you and your ilk doing what you do best. Running away from the debate after being thoroughly trounced.
Mike still has scabs that are 10 years old. Closing the comments down, since no one of importance is actually commenting on this thread anymore.