Why Does The NRA Block Policies That End Up Benefiting Criminals?
Yes, another gun post. Sorry, but the fact that everybody is still talking about this is a good thing. And may I personally thank Wayne LaPierre, the NRA, and other gun nuts for making my case to the American people. Keep up the good work.
David Frum has a piece today that asks a lot of pertinent questions. Go read the whole thing, and then ask yourself why the NRA is pro-criminal. Not one of the steps Frum lists would lead to gun confiscation, but they sure do make killing someone or getting away with murder/crime easier.
But here are two things that can make a real difference — without a vote in Congress.
First: The president can direct the surgeon general to compile a scientific study of the health effect of individual gun ownership.
Remember… “Congress in the mid-1990s forbade the federal government to fund its own research into the health risks presented by guns.” This always strikes me as absurd, especially given the way gun enthusiasts are always citing (questionable) examples of how owning a gun makes you safer. If they really believed that then they would welcome research. But they don’t. Why not?
There are other steps that could be taken – steps that wouldn’t lead to a single gun being confiscated.
So many gun accidents occur because guns almost never indicate whether a bullet is present in the chamber. A gun owner might remove the gun’s magazine and believe the gun unloaded, when in fact it still contains one potentially deadly shot. Why not require guns to be equipped with indicator lights? Why not require that guns be designed so that they will not fire if dropped? We have safety standards for every consumer product, from children’s cribs to lawnmowers, except for the most dangerous consumer product of them all. Not only that, Congress has actually immunized makers of that product against harms inflicted by unsafe design.
Gun makers often design their weapons in ways that present no benefit for lawful users but that greatly assist criminals. They don’t coordinate the issuance of serial numbers so that each gun can be identified with certainty. They stamp serial numbers in places where they can be effaced.
They reject police requests to groove barrels to uniquely mark each bullet fired by a particular gun.
They sell bullets that can pierce police armor.
They will not include trigger locks and other child-proofing devices as standard equipment.
They ignore new technology that would render guns inoperable by anyone except their approved purchaser.
Why? Why? And why?
Why? Because the NRA and gun manufacturers do seem more concerned with assisting criminals. How else do explain their being actively against all the suggestions above – suggestions that would greatly benefit lawful users?
Sure looks like the black market is a profitable avenue for the NRA and gun manufacturers. Being able to identify guns and bullets, knowing if a gun is loaded, no safety standards (and given all the stupid gun owners accidentally shooting themselves and others this industry desperately needs safety standards), body armor piercing bullets, trigger locks, making guns inoperable to anyone but the approved purchaser are all common sense approaches that wouldn’t result in a single gun being taken away, but would greatly reduce accidental shootings. But, I get that it would also put a crimp in their black market sales.
I’m with Frum, the NRA and gun manufacturers aren’t representing lawful gun owners. They aren’t defending the 2nd Amendment – they simply use that amendment as a way to keep their black market open for business… and after they make life easy for criminals they turn around and tell lawful citizens that they need to buy more guns to protect themselves from the very criminals the NRA has armed.
Tags: guns
If you are going to make body armor piercing bullets illegal, why not make cans of soup and airplanes illegal?
FIRST!!
“They reject police requests to groove barrels to uniquely mark each bullet fired by a particular gun.
They sell bullets that can pierce police armor.
They will not include trigger locks and other child-proofing devices as standard equipment.”
They ignore new technology that would render guns inoperable by anyone except their approved purchaser.”
Because that’s all fantasy BS. WTF is he even talking about with the first point? Groove barrels? Barrels are already rifled, and any “markings” you might be able to implant on a lead slug are going to be unrecognizable once sent through a barrel at ~1000FPS, not to mention that slug then hits other objects and deforms and or fragments before coming to rest.
It’s not the manufacturers responsibility to provide a trigger lock. It’s the owners responsibility to teach kids gun safety and keep loaded firearms out of the hands of small children.
Bullets that can pierce body armor? Inaccurate anti-gun fearmongering. ANY centerfire rifle round can pierce standard level II or IIA police vests. They are designed to stop common, small-caliber pistol rounds, you know, the rounds cops are most likely to be shot at with.
The “smart gun” technology doesn’t exist and would be impracticle anyway. The moment “smart gun” tech is reliable enough and robust enough that police and military are ALL using it, then maybe we can talk about it. Until then, it will never fly.
Do you actually believe the crap you read Pandora, or do you attempt to learn something before making posts? You say you’re a “responsible gun owner.” Educate yourself then. Ignorance is irresponsible.
Do you read all the crap you read, Mike? Is that why you’re so frightened you feel you must arm yourself?
Oh good lord, you’re dense. They sell Armor Piercing bullets. Who’s buying them, and why? What sort of person specifically buys armor piercing bullets? Answer: Someone who should not own a gun.
“It’s not the manufacturers responsibility to provide a trigger lock. It’s the owners responsibility to teach kids gun safety and keep loaded firearms out of the hands of small children.”
You guys are doing a bang up job with that.
We’ve made almost every product safer. Frum cites cribs and lawnmowers, but we could add cars, airplanes, power tools, child proof caps, etc. Why not guns? Granted the gun owners that keep shooting themselves is a solution that would make Darwin smile, and I guess it is sort of a public service, but… come on.
And why no research on guns, Mike? You love to cite your stories, but don’t seem to want anyone looking too closely at your tall tales. What are you so afraid of, ya big fraidy cat?
But here’s what you’re really afraid of… the idea that owning a gun and arming yourself to the teeth is in danger of no longer looking cool. And if you lose that “coolness” factor, what would you have left?
“Granted the gun owners that keep shooting themselves is a solution that would make Darwin smile, and I guess it is sort of a public service, but… come on.”
Ah, this is the kind of classy stuff I expect from despicable anti-gunners like yourself. A desire to see people you disagree with dead. Why is it that liberal anti-gunners, and so many of them right here at Delaware Liberal continue to espouse such views?
Exercising and defending a constitutional right isn’t about some “coolness factor” pandora. Not that I’d expect you to understand individual rights.
Is gun. Is not safe. A gun that won’t fire with as close to 100% reliability as possible when you need it to is worse than useless. Any police officer or member of the military will tell you exactly the same thing. It’s common sense.
Pandora, are you trying to remain ignorant RE “armor piercing bullets?” Do you just have an aversion to actually learning something? Or is it that you know you’re full of it and spewing crap that’s just factually incorrect but you have no shame in doing so? Which is it?
ANY centerfire rifle round is “armor piercing.” This is not a difficult concept to grasp, so why are you having so much trouble?
Define “arming yourself to the teeth”
I suspect it really means
“Arming yourself with anything that someone as ignorant as Pandora happens to have an irrational fear of.”
I could probably paint an antique single shot shotgun black, put some black furniture on it and you’d be afraid of it, call it an “assault weapon” and want it banned because it’s a “weapon of war that belongs on foreign battlefields.”
And yet you call pro-rights folks paranoid. You call us paranoid because “no ones coming for your guns” when in fact, Anti-gun democrats are doing just that. It must be terrible to live in such abject denial.
Big word salad, but never and answer as to why the NRA is pro-criminal.
Oh, and since I expect you to back up your claims Pandora, go find me thse “armor piercing bullets” that you or I could buy legally. I will expect links to actual websites (Midway USA, Brownells for example) showing that I can purchase said bullets.
That should be a piece of cake if what you say isn’t a load of crap, right?
Oh, and since one of us actual backs up his claims. Here’s a link to the actual 1986 bill that banned armor piercing bullets.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/hr3132
Still, I expect you’ll be backing up your claim with links any day now.
“What are you so afraid of…”
One can see that conservative fear is pervasive and includes well, just about everything; including fear of crime, fear of government, fear of the apocalypse, yadda yadda. I’ve always been curious as to why there are so many people who are afraid and conversely why there are many people who seem to be unafraid and why they seem to be divided up between those who are conservative and those who are not. Don’t mistake lack of fear with lack of concern though. There should be concern for things like one’s safety, but I mean real fear.
Well, it turns out that there is a study that answers some of those kind of questions. Published in the American Journal for Political Science (January 2013) a study concluded that the conservative politics of fear is actually a biological response and they really are afraid. That is, people who are afraid are more conservative than those who are not. People do not not become conservative because of principle. Rather it is because of fear.
Since the possession of guns is primarily a conservative meme/principle, I assume this same biological component is at work. They need guns because they are afraid.
The entire article can be read/found at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12016/full
Still, I consider myself somewhat conservative (or at least not a left wing, commie, pinko, whatever, etc) but I’m honestly not afraid of very much, except maybe snakes. I kind hate snakes. But I don’t live in fear of the apocalypse or home invasions, or shoot outs at the OK corral, or even tanks rolling down RT 1.
So it turns out folks like Mike are really really afraid and we don’t understand what is scaring him and he doesn’t understand why we aren’t scared, but regardless he needs his guns because he is afraid.
Projection, you have it. It really is sad that anti-gunners project their fears onto everyone else. Honestly, I wouldn’t even mind that if they didn’t use those fears to infringe upon my rights.
Why should my tax dollars go towards “research” dedicated solely to the infringement of a constitutional right? Surely you can see the logic in prohibiting the government from using federal funds to undermine a constitutional right?
It’d be like the Feds using your tax money to publis bogus “studies” about how harmful abortion is and suggesting how we can infringe upon abortion rights. Except of course that the 2A is a specifically enumerated right.
Simmer down. How do you know what the outcome of the study will be? Also, your measly tax dollar probably couldn’t fund a diet coke, so get off your high horse.
Mike – we do research on Constitutional rights whenever prudent. We can study how religion influences society, or how freedom of the press is impacted by a monopoly of a single source of information. We do research to decide what method of execution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Why should the research to determine the proper regulation of our militia be forbidden?
Looks like there have been government studies on abortion trends. Here’s one the CDC did. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm?s_cid=ss6108a1_w
and has been doing/updating regularly since 1969
Maybe so, but if they study the proper regulation of our militia, what next? Studies of soup? Once the narrow edge of the wedge goes in, there will be no end to government soup tyranny?
Goodness, you are hysterical. I’d tell you to calm down but every time you and your buddy Wayne LaPierre launch one of your rants a gun control advocate gets their wings.
And Mike’s against government research because he knows it will say what all private research says… but we’ll add conspiracy nut to his resume.
Pandora, Do I think complex plots are being put into motion by powerful hidden forces in the Government in order to abridge my rights to enjoy soup? Yes.
Does that make me a conspiracy nut? No.
FIRST!!
You are amazingly good at that, J!
What about my right to live safely, to travel, to not have to worry about canservatard crazies like Mike who one day lose it and open fire in a public place? Guns are meant to kill and there are 300-something million out there in society right now. It is anything but safe having millions of guns in the hands of the fearful, paranoid, mentally unstable.
This whole issue will go down as just another right-wing fallacy that never comes true. 20 years from now all the gun nuts will still own their guns, nothing will have changed in terms of annual murder/suicide rates (worse in fact) and conspiracy lunies like Mike will still be crying how the gub’mint is coming to take my guns away.
The “bullet in the chamber” indicator thingy does exist in a couple of different designs. I still always visually inspect the chamber when cleaning, handing off, or disassembling. Also, many modern designs will not fire when dropped. The best selling Glock line, for example incorporates this technology into their design. I’m not sure it can be done with revolvers though. Trigger locks can be be dangerous to apply, which is why the industry prefers a breech lock that not only disables the firearm, but also makes it obvious that it is unloaded. Every new firearm I have ever considered buying includes one and I’m not sure about the ones I’ve not considered buying. I like the idea of biometric locks but as Mike says, biometrics are not quite ready for prime time yet.
None of these are substitutes for educated and responsible ownership. And none of these would effect the suicide by gun rate either.
Why do liberals think that people who would murder someone with a gun would have any guilty feelings about obtaining a gun illegaly to comit said murder?
@RD “Why do liberals think that people who would murder someone with a gun would have any guilty feelings about obtaining a gun illegaly to comit said murder?”
Because about 90% of all gun deaths are family and friends. #1 gun murder crime? Killing spouse.
@Dave “That is, people who are afraid are more conservative than those who are not. People do not not become conservative because of principle. Rather it is because of fear.”
Yep.. Most gun owners are basically cowards. The comity here is that those cowards actually think they’re braver than the rest of us (with bravery purchased in hand with good money). Nope… Still cowards.
Why do liberals think that people who would murder someone with a gun would have any guilty feelings about obtaining a gun illegaly to comit said murder?
Well, we could start by not making it so easy for criminals to get a gun. For some reason, the NRA is against this – and the reason they’re against it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Lots of words, and no answer to my question: What are you so afraid of, Mike?
Rustydils is right. There really shouldn’t be ANY rules about anything because people will just break them.
I mean, why do we liberals think that people who would run a red light would have any guilty feelings about running a stop sign? It is ludicrous. Red lights and stop signs are completely pointless.
Why is murder even illegal? It isn’t like a law is going to stop someone from doing something.
“Well, we could start by not making it so easy for criminals to get a gun. For some reason, the NRA is against this – and the reason they’re against it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.”
What, pray tell does it have to do with, oh all knowing Pandora?
Oh, and it’s pretty damn easy for a criminal to get a gun. You know why? Because they’re criminals. The same reason it’s easier for one of them to score coke or crack than it’d be for me, which, by the way is not in the least bit impacted by the fact that crack & coke are illegal.
You really think people whose livelihood involves committing felonies on a regular basis are going to be deterred because you passed yet another law to go along with the 20 others they’re routinely breaking?
@Mike, “Oh, and it’s pretty damn easy for a criminal to get a gun. You know why? Because they’re criminals.”
Good comment Mike. Let’s pull that thread a bit ok? Just where do criminals get their guns? I’m assuming there are no criminal gun factories or criminal gun shops down the street. So where do they come from? Wouldn’t you agree that all guns originate as the possession of non-criminal owners and gun manufacturers? How do they make that transition from legal, non-criminal to illegal criminal?
I’m also going to suggest some of you, Pandora especially, read this. It’s short and I don’t think it’s too difficult for you to understand.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2013/02/quote-of-the-day-archer.html
followed your link….
Defending the city from the ramparts….. is that honestly how you see American society mike? a bunch of ‘good people” pointing their guns off into the unknown, defending “your land” and “your people” from “them”? That is sad and awful that you feel THAT threatened all the time.
I don’t know. I’m starting to agree with Mike. Gun shops, gun shows, straw purchasers, family members, – there are simply too many ways for criminals to get guns. Therefor the only sensible solution is gun anarchy.
Also – black people.
to make a gun-nut’s head explode…. ask them why they can have a gun, but Iran cant have nuclear energy.
Oh my, that article was funny… and paranoid. Take a look at the first sentence:
We all know that “gun control” does not work at its professed purpose – reducing crime and making people “safer”.
Really? How do we know this? Can someone show me the research?
nazis
How much more proof do we need of how delusional and scared mike and his boys are? Seriously, I don’t think that there are an American cities left with real ramparts.
I just don’t understand how you live with expecting the worse around every corner – how you live every day imagining you’re a super hero able to protect yourself and others. That’s not being responsible – that’s arrogance. Arrogance plus a gun leads to a very bad place.
My life experience with people who make arguments like this is that they have something going on in their life that makes it hard and makes them feel vulnerable. Being the victim of a crime, feeling inadequate in dating or marriage, a disability etc. This vulnerablity is solved by an arsenal. Most of my friends who are gun owners who don’t have something like that in their background are willing to have a rational discussion about guns and certain forms of regulation.
2 things to add:
1) Most cities don’t have ramparts, but NOLA did have the Danziger Bridge, so there’s that.
2) Mike has revealed in the past that he does, in fact, have reasons to feel vulnerable to violent crime. I don’t want to minimize that fact. It doesn’t excuse his behavior as it relates to hiding his guns from his parents in his home or his behavior in the regular hijacking of threads.
Question LG – If you felt that a member of your household would not be responsible if he/she had access to a firearm, would you allow them access? I wouldn’t and I didn’t. End of story.
Socialistic Ben, did you even READ the POST linked? Can you or Pandora even attempt to intelligently refute the points therein, with logic and facts?….
i read what you linked to…. which was a paranoid rant about how unlimted access to guns makes people safe and how liberals want to enslave everyone. the rest was “hell yeeeeeeehhhhhhhaaaaa” comments by other paranoids.
if you want an intelligent response, try making an intelligent argument.
Question LG – If you felt that a member of your household would not be responsible if he/she had access to a firearm, would you allow them access? I wouldn’t and I didn’t. End of story
right. because kids always do exactly what you want them to do all the time. even when you arent looking.
“I just don’t understand how you live with expecting the worse around every corner.”
I agree pandora. How does that work for you? It must be terrible, running around paranoid, afraid, expecting the worst araound every corner to the extent that you have a pathological need to see your friends, neighbors, and fellow countrymen disarmed all because a tiny, identifiable subset of the population commits the majority of violent crimes and violent crimes with guns.
In the end it all comes down to trust. You are so fearful of your fellow citizens that you do not trust them to freely exercise their rights.
If you felt that a member of your household would not be responsible if he/she had access to a firearm, would you allow them access? I wouldn’t and I didn’t. End of story.
But you did bring a gun into that scenario, didn’t you?
Also, I remember your post about your parents – no talk about your concern for a family member. Lots of talk about how your parents didn’t like or understand guns so you hid them from them.
For people who don’t want to clink on Mike’s blockbuster link that makes his points more eloquently than he can….
In fact, it says barely anything. The first part is the flimsiest of straw men. The second part is just a clumsy statement of what this person “thinks” about gun control. There is nothing to refute.
Carry on Mr. Jittery.
Not surprised that SB can’t intelligently refute the post or discuss the invalidity of the primary assumptions of folks like him, as so clearly laid out in the post.
What? Nevermind. Forget it. I am done with you.
Pandora – Based upon the things you’ve said here you wouldn’t know what a “responsible gun owner” was if 50 were standing in the same room with you, all armed.
You can’t even define your criteria for the term, which is really nothing more than “A gun owner doing anything that piques my irrational fears or owning anything I’m afraid of because of my ignorance and prejudices is “Irresponsible.”
What exactly do you want me to refute mike? not BS links. is it what Jason just reposted? because all that is, is an opinion that isn’t backed up by anything. If COURSE I can’t refute it. can you refute that I’m not actually a collection of micro-robots made by super-intelligent pigmy-rhinos? no. You can’t because that’s stupid. Just like what I saw on the link you provided.
tell me what you want me to argue against. i promise i’ll respond.
“Also, I remember your post about your parents – no talk about your concern for a family member. Lots of talk about how your parents didn’t like or understand guns so you hid them from them.”
Then you have reading comprehension issues since I know I discussed the fact that there were family members that I didn’t trust with a gun.
“In the end it all comes down to trust. You are so fearful of your fellow citizens that you do not trust them to freely exercise their rights.”
And you don’t trust them to not assault you. Just because you can’t understand your own motivations doesn’t mean they aren’t plain for the rest of us to see.
I notice you have no answer for this. Just shut your eyes and the question will go away, I suppose. Another “brave” gun owner.
Mike… sigh… let me see if I’ve got this straight…
You had firearms in a household in which someone lived that was of questionable responsibility with firearms? And to add just another grain of danger, no one else in said household knew that the firearm was in the house.
Let me put it to you another way… Suppose that someone that was permitted to be in the house came into the house at a time that you weren’t expecting anyone to be in the house. Maybe you pull out the gun (that no one else knows is hidden in a box under your bed, for example) to be prepared. This person walks quietly down the hall and opens your bedroom door not expecting you to be there (and certainly not expecting an “armed you” to be there). When they scream because they are startled by your presence, do you pump 2 or 3 rounds in them before you realize it’s your aunt?
The presence of a gun in the house raises the stakes on interactions like this that we have ALL had at some point or another. Failing to make it’s presence known is irresponsible. And as outspoken rights advocate, you should make it clear to at least your freaking parents that you are exercising your right to bear arms under their roof.
the fact that you kept a gun in the house where there were people that you, yourself wouldnt fully trust with a gun makes you an irresponsible gun owner and a danger to society. You want MY definition of people who shouldnt have access to guns….. you’re it, dude.
I dont care how good you think you are at hiding it. You’re part of the problem.
It isnt a porn or drug stash. it isnt something that, if found, is a little embarassing and everyone moves on. It’s a damn killing machine that accidently ends the lives of thousands of children every year because of “responsible” people like you.
to LG’s point. Mr. V has guns (I know, right? Liberal lady like me with a gun owner?).
Years ago, one night at like 4 am he heard noises downstairs of someone entering the house. Since his teenage sister was sleeping over at a friends house and his mother had been sleeping for hours, he grabbed a gun in his room and from the top of the stairs yelled “who’s there?” and cocked the gun(is that the right word? made the clack-clack noise)in an attempt to ID/scare whoever away. No answer.
So he goes down (in his underwear) to investigate with gun, loaded, comes around to corner to find….. his sister and three of her friends. Up all night and deciding they’d rather come back to her place. Scared the shit out of him, scared the shit out of them (they hadn’t heard him yell), and was an important lesson to everyone. Thank goodness nobody was hurt.
Here’s the logic I’m hearing from 2nd Amendment fans: I need to own military-style weapons because I might have to fight government tyranny. How will we tell when the government turns tyrannical? When they come for my guns.
This is circular logic. If you don’t have the guns, the government won’t come to seize them, and therefore would not be tyrannical.
I’m in favor of registration, not banning specific weapons. But nobody on the 2nd Amendment side has been able to make a logical case for why they can’t live without those weapons. If you can’t make a case, don’t be surprised when you’re ignored.
Wait second– am I to understand that Mike keeps a firearm in his parents’ house without their knowledge!?
TC, yeah…. he doesnt trust them with guns either…. but it’s ok because he is SUPER responsible
Here’s one of Mike’s posts:
Love the use of the singular – gun. But that wasn’t true, was it? Scroll through the comments and you’ll find this:
Obviously, I never forgot this post of Mike’s. It made a big impression.
Oh my.
do you think gun owners compare themselves to gay people when it comes to telling their parents?
I mean, they already consider themselves horribly oppressed victims.
Oh man. We might have been one med error away from learning Mike’s last name on CNN.
So it’s basically a daddy issue for Mike. How sad. And how glad I am that he lives in Texas.
According to his blog, he lives in Hockessin.
“no one else in said household knew that the firearm was in the house.”
The person in question did not know.
LG – Your comment is a perfect example of why pro-gun and anti-gun folks are a world apart. We will never “think” like you, and we do not act in the manner so many of you do. (thank god)
We aren’t even even half as irresponsible, bloodthirsty and trigger happy as your caraciture of us assumes.
The actual “gun culture” and the “gun culture” that anti’s have built up in their minds are so divergent that I find it amusing, and also very, very sad on the part of the anti’s. You fear and ridicule that which you don’t understand. You treat “those people” with bigotry, and you vociferously refuse to actually learn something, because sadly you prefer to take this approach to people who believe in civil rights.
Gun issues aside, call me old fashioned but MY Dad told us that as we got older, if there was stuff we wanted to do that he didn’t condone we were free to move out.
Dad’s house, dads rules. Mike sorta sounds like a coward. Hope he’s paying rent.
“We aren’t even even half as irresponsible, bloodthirsty and trigger happy as your caricature of us assumes.”
Until you are.
:”You treat “those people” with bigotry, and you vociferously refuse to actually learn something, because sadly you prefer to take this approach to people who believe in civil rights.”
There it is! we’re bigots because we dont approve of your choice to keep, in your posession, something that can kill lots of people very quickly. (oh right, you did a super effective hiding job.(
you’re such a victim mike. You never DECIDED to be a gun owner. you were just born that way. SAY IT LOUD! IM ARMED AND IM PROUD.
Another responsible, not bloodthirsty, or trigger happy testifies to the responsiblity, non-bloodthirstyness, and non-trigger happy nature of gun owners.
“There it is! we’re bigots because we dont approve of your choice to keep, in your posession, something that can kill lots of people very quickly.”
Nope. You’re missing the point. You’re bigots because of your treatment of those people, and because you actively seek to deny their constitutional rights and deny them free choice because it’s not the choice YOU would make.
You don’t want to own a gun? Don’t want to carry one? Fine by me. It’s your choice as a free man. Pro-gun folks aren’t the one’s who are anti-rights, anti-free choice.
Jason – IMPOSSIBLE! CA has strict gun control!
Tell me Pandora / Jason etc. I’d like to see a post that describes in detail what your gun free utopia would look like if you could get everything you wanted without those evil freedom loving American’s standing in your way. What does your gun-free utopia look like? What steps, (in detail) are necessary to get to that utopia? and How do you intend to make it happen?
Please point out where I’ve ever called for a “gun free utopia” or for confiscating guns. Go on. I’ll wait.
Oh, and this is exactly what anti-gun proposals do. They’re not about crime control, they’re about attacking the law-abiding and reducing civilian gun ownership by making it as onerous as possible. Too bad it doesn’t lower crime.
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/17/the-nation-toughest-gun-control-law-made-massachusetts-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html
OK Pandora, the nearly gun-free utopia you want, without “crazies” doing things like CCW’ing, or peacefully exercising their right to open carry, or owning simple firearms that make people like yourself tremble in fear?
By the way, have you been able to grasp the “armor piercing bullets” concept yet, or is that beyond your intellectual ability?
Here’s what’s hilarious (in a totally not funny way), Mike expects us to believe that he is ready for any of a number of scenarios that his possession, brandishing or discharging of a gun will prevent. Remember that good guys with a gun being the only defense against a bad guy with a gun. But my scenario, which was actually backed up by another commenter, is invalid and indicative of what I think about gun culture.
Not only did V explicitly explain a situation that was incredibly close to being fatal, I have a similar story in which I was the 2 year old potential victim.
But I guess your scenario of a home invader coming to kill your family or the government coming to take away your guns or an armed rebellion against the elected US government are all valid arguments. Mine are BS. Got it.
Sheesh, will you stop linking to unscientific opinion pieces that prove nothing. How do you know that crime wouldn’t be higher without these laws? Answer: You don’t. I get it, math is hard. Please, step up your game.
BTW, a commenter points out: “Murders per 100,000 in Florida are much higher than in Mass. although Florida has very little gun registration regulations and those that it does have are loosely enforced.”
@ liberalgeek,
“But I guess your scenario of a home invader coming to kill your family or the government coming to take away your guns or an armed rebellion against the elected US government are all valid arguments.”
That’s really the crux of it though. Folks like Mike honestly fear such things as you stated. Ignore whether their preparations (including gun ownership) do anything to mitigate that fear. Just consider the fear. Why are they afraid and you and I and lot’s of other people are not afraid?
Is there a real threat of a home invader? or of the federal government taking him away to some reeducation camp? I mean Mike really fears these kinds of things enough to take some action to protect himself. Is he, and others like him, predisosed to fear? Certainly it’s understand that anyone who experience a home invasion would have some experiental reason to have fear.
I’m wondering if perhaps we are looking at the gun thing incorrectly and we should be looking at it as a response to fear. So why is Mike afraid and you aren’t? Though he lives in the same world maybe sees the world through a different lens than normal people.
Homicide rates are at their lowest levels nationwide since the early 1960’s, despite record gun sales for the past 5+ years, loosening of gun control laws in the majority of states, not to mention CCW. Meanwhile homicides are up 16% this year in Chicago, which has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, a magazine ban, an assault weapons ban…..and no CCW.
If people carrying was turning the country into a violent gun free-for-all you’d have plenty of statistical evidence saying so, only you don’t, because all of your fears & all the crap anti’s said would happen……hasn’t. Reality has been quite the opposite in fact.
Guns in Bars? Anti’s like you scream “ZOMG this is crazy! Gunnies are going to be getting sloshed, picking fights & shooting up the place!” Yet time and time again it doesn’t happen. In fact, crime goes down.
In Ohio people like you folks began your hysterical fearmongering and claimed crime, shootings, all manner of bad things would happen. It didnt. VIolent crimes in bars, and even crimes with guns in bars went down.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/30/carry-fear-silenced.html
You threw out the same tired crap when VA decided to allow guns in places that serve alcohol. Again reality proved you wrong. Crimes involving guns at places in VA that served alcohol dropped.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/archive/gun-crimes-drop-at-virginia-bars-and-restaurants/article_07eae8c7-9e74-56d6-8928-a9fe2add8ebf.html
CCW holders are soooo dangerous! Only they’re not.
Kansas since enacting CCW in 2007. Only 0.09% of all permit holders with a crime involving a firearm. The rate drops even lower when you consider those actually convicted rather than just charged.
http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html
Or you could look at the data for Florida, where the revocation rate for CCW holders who actually used a gun in a crime is so low as to be damn near statistically significant. 168 total since 1987 out of nearly 2.4 million licenses issued (or roughly 1.01 if you prefer to use only those licenses that are currently valid)
PDF warning http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-usa-florida-guns-idUSBRE8BB1SR20121212?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22
For Pandora, since she claims to like facts.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html
Illinois, the only state left with absolutely NO provisions for legal carry.
Murder rate of 6 per 100,000
And we’ll use florida since she brought it up.
Murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000
Or how about two neighboring states
Maryland, very strict gun control, defacto CCW ban. No open carry. magazine restrictions, waiting periods, state assault weapons ban already in place.
7.7 per 100,000 murder rate
Virginia, Very good, lax gun laws, shall issue CCW, OC – 4.4 per 100,000 murder rate
Massachusetts – 2.6. Vermont, where you don’t even need a permit to carry at all. 1.1 Need I go on? Nope. The facts don’t lie.
“Not only did V explicitly explain a situation that was incredibly close to being fatal, I have a similar story in which I was the 2 year old potential victim.”
And LG Your point is what? It would have been close to being fatal if he’d crept around the corner and damn near stabbed a relative in the chest with a large kitchen knife too. Millions of people have stories of being alive and well today because they were armed. Those people aren’t telling you you have to go out and buy a gun, they just want to be left the hell alone by people like you.
I don’t think I or anyone else here said there are no potential negatives to owning a gun. They have the potential to be used recreationally, they have the potential to be used to save a life, and they have the potential to be used to cause harm, just like any other tool.
My, I do get the most interesting referrals sometimes.
Of course it is not. That very distrust of one’s fellow citizens that seems so very systemic amongst those who support “gun control” has been expressed, repeatedly, in this very thread; most notably, that visceral, reflexive distrust reared its ugly head in this all-too-cute-but-specious comment:
After all, why should I be disarmed – in part or whole – or why should my actions be limited or “controlled” if you trust me? I have broken no laws. I have been convicted of nothing. So without the benefit of due process, the only factor remaining is trust.
Those who support “gun control” lack it.
I completely agree that Archer could have written that sentence a touch better, but the fact remains that those who support “gun control” adamantly believe that One More Law will stop the law-breakers from breaking the law. Otherwise, why pass them?
And lest you go on some idiotic tangent about, “If criminals are going to break the law anywise, why not get rid of ALL laws?!//1/11!” do try to educate yourself about the difference between “malum prohibitum” and “malum in se”. “Gun control” is the former, murder is the latter; try not to conflate them.
Finally, with regards to the whole “defending our rights from the ramparts” thing (by the by, if you are going to quote something, quote it right), you all certainly have a difficult time with the notion of metaphors, do you not? Rather says something about your thought processes… Oh well.
Mike – Bullshit. Absolute freakin’ bullshit. The kitchen knife falsehood is exactly that. There is nothing similar to the effort needed to stab someone with a knife and that needed to put a .45 caliber hole in someone. This is EXACTLY why you bought a gun and not a really sharp kitchen knife.
And guess what, your parents KNOW that they have kitchen knives in the house.
Linoge said “bla bla bla bla latin stuff”. Please note that Japan, Great Briton and Canada, all have strong gun control(Mala prohibitum)and significantly lower murder(mala en se) rates when compared to freedumb loving USA. Besides wasting space on this thread, what is your point? Your avatar may sum it up, some folks just don’t feel safe unless they are locked in their castle with an assault rifle in hand.
Crickets from pandora due to intellectual cowardice, and she still can’t intelligently discuss “armor piercing bullets. Surprise, surprise.
I wonder Pandora, do you know you’re wrong and just say what you do out of malicious hatred for a part of the constitution, or are you really as ignorant as your posts and comments suggest?
I mean, people like you should be able to speak at least semi-intelligently about those things which you want to ban, right? Or am I expecting too much from Delaware’s anti-gun liberals?
*gets popcorn*
Then what’s this? Seriously, what is this? It’s amazing what I’ve seen advertised as AP ammo.
Laws, or not, it seems like this ammo (or ammo promoted as this)is available. It also seems that certain gun owners are asking for this type of ammo – which leads to a possible dishonest marketing strategy, like a fake Rolex or penis enhancers. If this stuff doesn’t exist for civilian purchase, then it exists for a marketing purpose of feeding a (really sick) demand.
Not to mention that several high profile gun enthusiasts (politicians/NRA members) are fighting to to make AP ammo legal. So they see no problem with them and want the ban lifted.
I don’t have malicious hatred for you. I do think your past behavior concerning hiding guns in your parents’ house makes you stunningly immature and irresponsible. I would like to see you redirect your passion into a healthy relationship that doesn’t include an inanimate object.
may i make a request?
Mike and Pandora…. please, without using the words “constitution-hating bigots” just say what YOU consider to be “armor piercing” ammo. It’s quite possible that mike isn’t counting teflon coated rounds that can fly right through police vests. That would be insane, but it would at least be good to know if you are comparing grapefruits and clementines, or nails/candy bars.
I dont expect a response that doesnt insult someone or something.
bonus to mike….. after pandora makes her case, please tell the class why she is wrong. (i assume you’ll think she is wrong)
FWIW, I’ll guess that Teflon coated rounds won’t count, since the Teflon doesn’t actually affect the penetration of bullets.
They seem to only protect the barrel and prevent ricochet.
Pandora – I am sorry that you consider having a passion for the Bill of Rights as a bad thing that is “unhealthy” but then I’m also not the least bit surprised by such an admission.
The ammo you linked to Pandora, is USGI military surplus M2 30-06 that is steel core. 5.56 ammo designated SS109 M855 is also steel and thus sometimes labeled as “AP” Will these rounds penetrate hard barriers moreso than other ammo in those respective calibers? Yes.
Not even considered “armor piercing” under California law
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12316.php
(I linked to the Federal law earlier in this thread FYI)
Will they punch through a police vest? Yes, but so will any centerfire rifle round, whether the bullet is lead, steel jacketed, steel core etc. etc.
Do I assume correctly that your (and anti’s in general) issue with “armor piercing” rounds is that they will go through ballistic (police) vests? If so, all centerfire rifle rounds will do so, including common hunting rounds, because, as I explained in detail earlier in this thread, police vests are not meant to stop centerfire rifle rounds nor have they ever been designed to do so.
“Armor Piercing” as used by anti-gunners is no more than baseless fearmongering that isn’t even grounded in any kind of definition. They use it the way they use terms like “assault weapon” “assault style” “military style” or a new one your ilk has come up with “assault magazines.” I guess this is a tactic to appeal to the fear emotions of ignorant people by putting “scare words” in front of things they want banned.
Also, the ammo you linked to is, IIRC, reliable surplus ammo for use in the M1 Garand (a desireable collectors rifle carried by my grandpa in WWII)
It only makes sense that someone who owns a Garand would want it, especially given the current scarcity of ammo.
Maybe, just maybe some actual facts sunk in and you learned something. Or, at a minimum someone else in this thread is now not so ignorant when they hear some anti-gun talking head on TV talking about scary, evil “armor piercing ammunition.”
FYI I never claimed you had malicious hatred of me. Wouldn’t even care if you did, as that would only reflect poorly upon you. I said of the Constitution.
Mike,
Now that the pedantry is out of your system, please tell me which of the currently proposed measures would be found to be unconstitutional?
They sell Armor Piercing bullets. Who’s buying them, and why? What sort of person specifically buys armor piercing bullets? Answer: Someone who should not own a gun.
By the same logic, if DHS places an order for 450 million hollow point bullets that are illegal according to geneva conventions then the same questions arise. Yet you’re not seeking out people in Obama Inc. and asking them what they’re afraid of… too afraid to do something significant?
And why is DHS apparently afraid of pregnant women and the other non traditional targets that they’ve been buying for target practice?
Will they punch through a police vest?
How often has that actually happened in reality? I.e… a law abiding private American citizen goes out and buys a gun and bullets that can shoot through police vests and then shoots through police vests, etc.? If only one of the people supporting the central bankster’s police state had made that illegal, then their auxiliaries would be safe. Safety first!
Note, DHS calls AR-15s “personal defense weapons” when they buy them. It’s a matter of style! It’s all merely expensive forms of entertainment, until that day when it isn’t. Given current trends it would seem that all AR-15 owners should join DHS and then they could use tax money to entertain themselves with the idea of shooting other people with their “personal defense weapons.” Someone should propose a bill in Congress… or at least get the mainstream/military industrial media reporting on the story, i.e. reading their scripts off of teleprompters. More investigative journalism incoming…
bonus to mike….. after pandora makes her case, please tell the class why she is wrong. (i assume you’ll think she is wrong)
It’s too bad that debates among law abiding citizens probably no longer really matter at this point.
Entertaining in the meantime, though…
Police are too heavily armed these days. I am of two minds about citizen parity with police weapons. Maybe if police would stop blowing people away in cold blood there would be less demand for armor-piercing bullets. I don’t really want to see more armor piercing bullets, but I would like to see a de-escalation of the weapons and tactics available to police.
Kind of funny that DHS’s “non traditional targets” all seem to be little white kids, old people and pregnant women. (When they’re not too busy with wasting even more of the bankster’s paper ponzi entertaining themselves with the idea of killing zombies or moving their stacks of ammo around. Side note, they have enough to fight the Iraq war for 30 years or to shoot every American five times, although accounting practices in the military/industrial complex vary.)
I guess these new “non traditional targets” of the emerging police state are because it used to be used to target other people… traditionally:
Police are too heavily armed these days.
Any word yet on you guys on the Left becoming armed or “prepping” like DHS for the debtopacalypse that the banksters are creating as we entertain ourselves?
You should meet at Starbucks to talk about it.
I wouldn’t mind if you and other local people owned AR-15s. (Or as DHS puts it… “personal defense weapons.”) It’s probably safer than all the military drills they’ve been doing in American lately, without even warning people. Helicopters and sounds of gunfire incoming!
Although I guess I’m one of you pansies and would like it if everyone had less guns all the way around too. Solidarity and all that.
Here’s an idea… we join the Occupy movement and wander around protesting things while leaving the police state with all the guns.
We’ll decentralize the power structure that the central banksters have built with our signs, drums… and arts and crafts!
No decentralized weapons or even the threat or possibility of ownership of them necessary, just more drums and arts and crafts… fun times.
Given up all forms of decentralized weaponry, that’s always worked out well throughout history.
@mynym “Side note, they have enough to fight the Iraq war for 30 years or to shoot every American five times”
I’m not going to spend any time debating this, but DHS did not take delivery of the ammunition you keep on going on about. What DHS did was to award a strategic sourcing contract, using strategic sourcing guidelines to save money. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)contract with a base year and four option years. Much of the ammunition will be used in training by local law enforcment agencies, includiing DSP. IDIQ contracts contain a ceiling in both contract amount and product. It simply means when they want to order more, they don’t have award a new contract.
I recognize that you enjoy conspiracy, alien visitation and the like, but you are far too intelligent to keep pattering on about something that you should know is nothing. Now Area 51 on the hand…
@puck “Police are too heavily armed these days.”
I agree or rather I would agree if the police have not just escalated to maintain parity in the arms race. Unfortunately you have to look at the firepower they are faced with and realize that if they do nothing they would be seriously outgunned.
If you see a similiarity with arms merchants who are in the business of arming both sides, you would be correct. If I manufacture Glocks I can sell one to the criminals, which then forces law enforcment to buy one as well. Sort of a twofer. Arms merchants have been doing that for years.
No, Glock is not directly selling to criminals but criminals get their guns from somewhere.
I recognize that you enjoy conspiracy, alien visitation and the like, but you are far too intelligent to keep pattering on about something that you should know is nothing.
Well, the DHS ammo orders fit with other patterns of evidence as far as people in America “prepping” and DHS entertaining themselves with zombies*, etc.
Ironically… when the theatrical production of the debtopacalypse hits it will probably be turned into a reality show, at this point. But that won’t mean that it won’t be effecting people, in reality.
*(At least they apparently put what they thought were some “Muslim looking” clothes on some of the people so that they looked like “traditional targets” in the rather profitable war on terrism. Well… if you want to entertain yourself by continuing to try to look at it that way, as if no one will ever turn those techniques on Americans too. Especially given their recent purchases that include “non traditional targets.”)
It’s true that I haven’t researched it down to the last possible explanation or probability. I’ll take a look at what you’re writing later.
But debtopacalypse and the bankster’s central government arming everyone incorporated into its paper ponzi beginning with those closest** to the closed source networks at the root of it all… coincidence? Maybe. Sometimes people seem to evolve these systems where they build their own cages, by happenstance.
But in any event.. if everyone else is choosing the explanation that seems most entertaining to them then I may as well join in! After all, I don’t have time to research everything that I may want to.
**The irony of it being that the auxiliaries at the base of the bankster’s pyramid $cheme may be too incompetent to carry out enforcement of shifts in their debt/money at this point. (Interesting that in that respect, whether it was a conscious conspiracy to build a collapsing central system rooted in paper ponzi or just happenstance doesn’t really matter.)
If you see a similiarity with arms merchants who are in the business of arming both sides…
Interesting thing about that, they’re not renewing their contracts with the police in New York and other places close to epicenters of paper ponzi… etc.
So now I guess that NYC police may have to get their guns from international arms dealers like the Stoner Arms Dealers in order to protect the banksters that own the politicians. Just kidding. I would hope… but no sooner do you begin hoping for something than it’s turned into hopium these days. What has Obama changed in reality after all his promises about ending the wars, respecting civil rights, treating the national debt like a matter of national security and so on… again?
Well this thread just went into crazyland eh? Back on topic please rather than going into conspiracies about DHS buying up ammo.
I notice Pandora has disappeared, which is not at all surprising. Some people prefer ignorance. Their ideology would crumble if they learned things.
Keeping current with your ill-considered gibberish is nobody’s job.
so, there’s pretty much a large part of the population (mike and mymnynmnyn seemingly included) who are READY to go to war against America. They are ready to shoot at police, or US military, or American civilians. That’s what i hear as your base augment. When all other idiotic notions of personal protection from thugs, or valiantly stopping mass killer…. what’s left is “I’m arming myself against a hypothetical tyrant” which also is “someone you didnt vote for, who won the election because most of the people don’t agree with you”. You don’t like that your views aren’t the ones guiding American policy, so your response is KILL EM ALL!!!!!!!!!!! (yeeeehaw)
tell me boys….. after your glorious revolution of freedom and rock,flag,eagle, what does your “real America” look like? Is it a total right wing characature where no one pays taxes and everyone has a job, because all the lazy people have been…. dealt with?
SB – Why don’t you ask your buddies here about the “KILL EM ALL” mentality?
After all, it’s the anti’s who seem to be the ones getting violent and threatening to people they disagree with. We simply don’t have the same violent tendencies that anti-gun leftists do.
See Kavips and DelawareDem as two great examples.
Jason – She asked a question, posted something that showed she didn’t understand what she was talking about, and so I explained it. Her response can be to scream “la la la I can’t hear you” and bury her head in the sand for all I care. That’s her choice. Choosing wilfull ignorance is a sad choice on your part, but hey, it is your choice. I’m sorry you hate facts and intelligence so much. Too much for you to comprehend, eh?
Mike: Why won’t you answer the question? Why are you so afraid you feel you must arm yourself?
And frankly, when it comes down to it Pandora’s entire post was factually deficient.
Because your ignorant question starts from a false premise, that anyone who is armed is at all times “afraid.” I’ve carried amongst friends, people whom I don’t fear at all, and yet I still carried.
And of course, you anti’s like pandora cannot answer the inverse. That is, why are you so afraid of your fellow American’s your neighbors, that you have a pathological need to disarm them. What are YOU so afraid of?
Hell, you people are afraid of inanimate objects, yet somehow WE are the fearful ones. Hell You’re afraid of magazines, nothing more than a steel or polymer tube with a spring in it. Your irrational fears would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetically sad.
“tell me boys….. after your glorious revolution of freedom and rock,flag,eagle, what does your “real America” look like? Is it a total right wing characature where no one pays taxes and everyone has a job, because all the lazy people have been…. dealt with?”
Looks to me like you have a desire to kill off lazy people. Ah, a guy who uses “socialistic” in his handle has a desire to kill people off. Not surprising. Fits perfectly with the bloody history of your ideology.
oh i get it! i’m a nazi. Let’s just not bother to mention that there was absolutely NOTHING socialistic about the Nazi party (other than the name) and, like their symbol which they stole and bastardized) it is one more thing that small minded people are unable to separate. Since everyone else on the planet was able to understand what i meant by my post, i’ll just let you continue to have things fly way over your head.
all im seeing from your comments mike, is someone who really shouldn’t be owning guns, because you dont seem to understand how dangerous they really are. You don’t understand the danger of allowing people like yourself to amass huge stockpiles of ammunition (that you try to squirrel away)for… what? you haven’t answered that exactly. When will you use your arms against the government? you basic argument is that you need them for that. When is that going to be? Because right now, you are one of thousands of people who are chest thumpin about your killing potential.
I mean do you actually need it explained to you that yes, a gun is just “an innocent widdle peice of metal and pwastic and bang bang”… that, when used properly…. or even improperly, ends lives instantly… do you not get that?
Mike said “Fits perfectly with the bloody history of your ideology.”
And I’m still laughing…
I do not call for Americans to disarm, so you’ll have to find another ad hominem attack for me. Believe it or not, I find you hopelessly stupid and clueless even though I’m not in favor of banning guns.
“Your ignorant question starts from a false premise, that anyone who is armed is at all times “afraid.””
That’s not what I said, that’s how you heard it. Pandora isn’t “at all times afraid,” either, but that hasn’t stopped you from characterizing her that way.
There must be some reason you own guns. What is it?
“I’ve carried amongst friends, people whom I don’t fear at all, and yet I still carried.”
Why?
did your friends know you had a gun on you…. or did you keep your lethal potential a super-secret from them too?
“There must be some reason you own guns. What is it?”
Mike, The only reason that makes sense, statistically speaking, is to one day kill a spouse/girlfriend, parent, acquaintance or yourself.
Is that why you don’t want to address Geezer’s question? Is one of those in need of murdering? Your father perhaps?
line, meet jason….. what? he passes over you every day on the way to coffee break? how nice 🙂
I said, “statistically speaking.”
A vicious deadly man circle, to say the least. Play the ‘guys with guns’ against the ‘guys with guns.’ Sell ‘the product’ coming and going – double the sales. (Gun lobby says thank you politicians – you deserve to be re elected as the greatest gun ‘enablers’ and gun ‘salesmen’ ever.)
Except for the fact – when a good guy pulls the trigger on the innocent, he ‘is’ the bad guy. When a so called ‘good’ guy murders, (look away, look elsewhere instead) – because ‘more guys have to have guns and double the sales. And do notice, how a shooting of 20, 5-6 year olds, such as at Sandy Hook, clears guns off the $helve$. Bonanza.
After all, politicians are their own ‘special interest’ individuals, that feel they need to comply with ‘weapons special interests,’ in order to get re elected.
When the bullets fly and kill the innocent, it is because special interests have passed the buck to ‘lawless lawmakers.’ The triggers are pulled by ‘men with guns.’ Pretend ‘good guy’ is actually the killer- in an INSTANT. Who’s to blame? Politicians and law enforcement – the only people who can and must be held responsible to control the 300 milion loose gun – free for all.
If lawmakers and enforcement refuse to keep order (enact laws and enforcement to stop gun violence) it is the lawmakers and enforcement, who are responsible. If they refuse to handle the job description, they need to accept blame and be removed from the job of lawmaker and law enforcer as failures. What other employment would retain men responsible for enabling murder? None. Removing guns from those who shouldn’t have them, is more important than pulling someone over for going 7 miles over speed limit. Let the traffic cameras do that job. If one drove on RT 1 any day, (Milton to Smyrna,) one would see 5-7 such law enforcement officers hiding in the bushes, overpasses. How about collecting those illegal guns stashes instead? Law enforcement is needed to remove guns from those who shouldn’t have them. That responsibility and liability lies with law makers and law enforcement only- no one else can legally do it. They need to do their job of removing illegal guns they allowed – through lack of laws and lack of enforcement.
Can’t just blame it on gun special interests and NRA, because the real ‘enablers’ are the weak, special interest politicians and lack of gun law enforcement they allow, which allows -‘criminals and crazies with guns.'(‘Good guys’ are only a diversion from the truth. Good guys aren’t even in the picture. Good guys aren’t shooting anyone.) The politicians and enforcement who presently allow 300 million guns to float around willy nilly unmonitored are the guilty irresponsible parties, as politicians and gun law enforcement ignore and fail to enforce even the existing laws.
For example, should the court house murderer have had guns? What lawmaker or law enforcer will answer yes? Please speak up. Weren’t the X family already known as dangerous, kidnapping, robbing, delinquent known criminals who shouldn’t have had guns, yet they had a stockpile. If these weren’t criminals, crazies, who is?
Imagine the life of those little girls, kidnapped, told their mother is dead, to only have their father continue to refuse to comply to laws, instead preferring them to be motherless. How many gun laws were the X in-laws from hell breaking? Imagine the life of the young mother, with known criminal X in-laws, who was living in daily fear for her girls, attemping to fortify her home from crazy, criminal X in-laws of kidnappers, thieves, law breakers, because she knew – she was alone in dealing with ‘enabled’ lawless crazies – as the laws, courts and enforcement – did nothing to stop the crazy X family with known guns, but instead allowed them a stockpile guns until the young mother (and innocent public as well,) were stalked by crazies who ‘pretended’ they were a law abiding ‘good guys with guns,’ seeking relief at the court house. And law enforcement and the courts pretended the X in-laws from hell were sane ‘good guys’ who should be able to stockpile guns and continue to purchase guns – legally.
That is a case study of- lack of laws and lack of enforcement – for ‘good’ guys.’ Or a book on “How to Sell Guns to Mad Men and Get Re elected.
And that’s not mentioning that the shooters are mainly men – Mad Men with Guns – the ‘manly’ subject mainly law’men’ refuse to even mention. Sounds nicer when you call them ‘good guys.’ even though 40% of guns were purchased without any background check,which means to – ‘whomever.’ Willy nilly lawlessness. The result – millions of guns are in unknown hands, as well as in the hands of otherwise, known crazies, hereto after, referred to as ‘good guys with guns.’ Even though lawmakers and enforcers have no idea who or what those 40% actually are. One can be certain, they are not all ‘good guys.'(What they rather you not think about is, the next shooters that should never have been allowed to be near guns – likely already have plenty.) The bad men with guns, are the bad men that the lawmakers and law enforcers “permitted,” by negligence of duty at every level of government, across the country. Quite the oversight, to have happened by accident. Call it what it is – political job security.
If the lawmakers can’t come up with ‘safe gun laws,’ instead of laws (and lack of laws,) for men in general, it’s time to hold the politicians accountable for the ‘man with gun’ damages, as politicians are accomplices to male violence, as they are indeed complying by default and negligence – gun laws shot full of holes.
Today’s political gun irresponsibility is similar to “legitimate rape.”
Instead, meet the victims. Politicians make it the victims’ fault for getting shot, getting raped. That way, lawless men aren’t held responsible. Any bad man would say, I’m the innocent gun firing ‘good guy;’ she however, asked for it. Hence “Legitimate.”
Time for politicians to face the ‘guy’ problem, which is, man must have it ‘his’ way, or else.
“did your friends know you had a gun on you…. or did you keep your lethal potential a super-secret from them too?”
They were carrying too! OMG!! 😛
“I’ve carried amongst friends, people whom I don’t fear at all, and yet I still carried.”
The only reason for that would be that some part of you was concerned either to/from or during hanging out there could possibly be something that happened that you would need to be armed to protect yourself or others. Or you know, to show your friends what a badass you are. That’s fine. But own up to it.
Mike owns and carries guns because:
1. He is afraid of something and thinks he may need a gun.
2. He wants to use them.
5. It makes him feel better when he has one(see 1 again).
None of these reasons, regardless of which one(s) is something he would care to admit and so he cannot answer the question without either being afraid or having desires which he does not want to share.
I think he is afraid and I’d like to know what exactly he is afraid of and why. I doubt we’ll get any answers though.
So why do you own guns, Mike? It can’t be that tough a question. You have plenty to say about the motivations of other people. How about speaking about the motivations of the only person you might have some insight into — yourself?
You are quite welcome to read my blog Geezer. I’m quite certain I’ve touched on the many reasons.
Man, some of you folks have serious issues with rational thought.
So I’m going to carry concealed around a bunch of friends who are also carrying “so I can show them how badass I am?”
First, that is absolutely childish, so I’m not surprised you thought of it. 2nd, How would that work exactly. How would carrying a firearm that they can’t see “show them how badass I am?”
Did my friends suddenly gain the powers of X-ray vision?
The motivations of those people who seek to infringe upon my rights are absolutely relevant and are something I will discuss on my blog, for obvious reasons.
cop out.
Nice intelligent response.
Does anyone believe Mike could carry a concealed weapon and not talk about it? Thought so.
Yeah, everytime I’m CCW’ing somewhere I announce that I have a gun, pull up my shirt to make sure everyone gets a good look, or if I’m pocket carrying like yesterday, I take it out and slam it loudly on the counter while screaming “LOOK AT MY PIECE!!”
So sad that the above is the caricature you have of CCW holders Pandora. Sad but predictable, and frankly, do you not understand the concept of “concealed means concealed”
Hell, if She bothered to actually read my blog she’d see that In DE I open carry and that I like the fact that it doesn’t tend to draw attention to me. The small minority of open carry folks who OC just to be as socially grating and confrontational as possible are awful, yet in any group of normal folks who just go about their business while carrying, you have some who have to be “look at me, look at me!” attention whores.
Considering how often you put down people in your responses it sort of feels like your ownership has something to do with feeling powerful. because you can. because it’s your right. that’s fine. you call us all stupid because we don’t agree with you. Clearly we’re dumb because we disagree with you and you’re smarter. that’s fine too. but own it. if you’re reasoning for owning firearms is “because i said so” that’s cool, but be honest.
It’s actually a shame. There are thoughtful points in your posts sometimes (for example the arbitrary definitions of what is and isn’t considered an “assault rifle” in most gun laws). But it’s really hard to get to those points because you’re being such a dick about it.
We talk about what we’re passionate about. Do you think I only discuss politics on a blog? Of course not – just like there’s not one person who believes you don’t discuss your guns ad nauseum.
Actually V, I am overly sarcastic towards pandora. That said, I am quite polite with her given her the outright disrespect she and her co-horts show me. I am overly sarcastic with her because she shows a consistent inability to offer intellectual substanative responses and bring facts to bear, as I do on a regular basis.
If ANYONE is “being a dick” it is Pandora, Jason, and the rest of the folks here. Go back and read their responses if you’d like. I will ALWAYS take the moral high road with these people, and frankly, given how low they travel that’s not hard.
You want to see the low road? Case in point
http://delawareliberal.net//2013/02/18/why-does-the-nra-block-policies-that-end-up-benefiting-criminals/#comment-331870
And that is extremely mild for the folks here. I will never stoop to their level. Never have, never will. I’m a better man than that.
Keep telling yourself that, sport. We’ll just add it to your other fantasies.
@Mike “You are quite welcome to read my blog Geezer. I’m quite certain I’ve touched on the many reasons.”
I’ve read your blog and I am quite certain you did not state why you carry. Yes there are other stories about other people, not about why you feel the need to carry a firearm.
It was a simple question, which could be answered just as simply. Either you are uncomfortable stating your reasons or you are unsure what your reasons are.
If insurance companies can handle every billing and claim; if banks can account for every last cent; if motor vehicle departments can register and inspect every vehicle; if the web can handle every click; and public offices can record every legal transaction; than lawmakers and law enforcers can provide laws and enforcement enough to insure that every gun is legally accounted for. Of course it’s easier (and beneficial for many) to pretend it’s a task that can’t be handled. Of course it can be. Although gun manufacturers prefer the ‘business’ of man turning against man, as nothing sells guns like violence and nothing sells more guns like more gun violence.
Remember when the tobacco industry used other industries to promote tobacco usage. Wouldn’t be surprised if the entertainment, film and music industries promote gun violence. Expect the familiar denial, and more “business as usual” from other powerful lobby groups, if the issue of America’s violent culture is approached at all.
Hmmm, the fact that violent crime is at 50+ year lows yet gun sales, CCW, etc. are booming should tell you that “”nothing sells guns like violence and nothing sells more guns like more gun violence” is completely and utterly false.
Pandora – if anyone would be an expert on fantasies you’d be it. A woman who honest to god thinks that declaring any place, including a campus as “gun free” actually keeps the people in it safe lives in a shockingly delusional fantasy.
Made all the more sad by the fact that people routinely keep getting victimized in your utopian places where guns are off-limits.
People who engage in your kind of magical thinking might want to just declare all college campuses “rape free zones” and put up signs. That way rape won’t happen. Hey! It obviously appears to be a sound policy proposal in your fantasy world for guns, so why not apply it to other things?
Put up a sign in front of your home stating that it’s proudly gun free. Do it. If you have an objection explain logically why that’d be a bad idea. I mean if it works to make college campuses and women on campus safe then surely you’d want it for your own home, right?
The logic of the anti-gunner explained in a short youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
It’d be funnier if it weren’t exactly what people like Pandora believe.
Watch it.
Geezer – In as short an answer as I can give. Personal sovereignty. The very concept this nation was founded on. The very thing statists hate above all else, and the reason why historically the left is so diametrically opposed to individual gun ownership.
Sure, there are plenty of other reasons in addition to that, but if you stripped away all those that’s the underlying reason. I suspect it’s the answer for most gun owners who truly value individual liberty.
You can accidentally blow your own damn head off of you want to, damnit. I get it. Im ok with that answer.. I dont agree… but i accept it. I use it for drinking. sure it’s bad for me, but it’s my body, I will put it in danger if i feel like it
BUT
What about our personal sovereignty to not get hit by a stray bullet? Many places have banned indoor smoking in public places. I agree with these bans… you probably dont. DO you have a non-lefites-are-so-dumb response to that? Why should YOUR freedom get to pose a threat to MY freedom? BTW, not one person…. not one…. has said we should “get rid of all guns” as you are so fond of painting the “anti gunners” You’re arguing against a point that hasnt been made.
Aside from the fact that the nation was founded on the principle of “We The People” not “I The Person,” your right to do something has nothing to do with anything. I have the right to slit my throat, but I don’t have the need.
Because you conceal carry, you cannot suggest that you are proclaiming your “personal sovereignty” to the world. Therefore, you must carry because you feel the need which is no different than putting one’s wallet in their pocket before leaving home. Don’t leave home without it, is appropriate for a financial instrument because it is likely someone is going to buy something when they are out.
So, your decision to carry is not an expression of “personal sovereignty (akin to “I do it because I can”). It provides you with a sense of well being because you feel threatened in some manner. What we are trying to get to, which you continue to evade, is what is the threat to your well being? In short – what are you afraid of?
If I was going into an area where my personal safety was threatened, I’d certainly just say so. Someone may feedback to me that that I could simply not go into those areas (which is what I do), but at least I would have some reason why I am carrying.
If I saw someone open-carrying, I’d just call 911 and report “Man with a gun” and let them figure out.
No question. I would not let a minute pass between seeing the gun and calling 911. Not with all we know about the typical modern gun owner.
I dont see it as a show of “personal sovereignty” i see it s a show of “personal force”. You arent telling people you’re free. going out in drag, or with a really offensive t-shirt, or assless chaps or telling people you’re free. Roaming the streets with a gun tells people you can kill them and all you have to do is move you’re little finger.
And you’d better hope those cops who show up have kicked their steroid habit and switched to decaf.
I would call the police if I saw a person with a gun. Why wouldn’t you? Why would anyone give the benefit of the doubt to a stranger with the ability to kill you?
Are we supposed to make judgement calls on why the guy at Target is armed? Are we supposed to know the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal?
“Hey, Bob, that guy over by picnic table/produce section/bar has a gun.”
“Don’t worry about him, Joe. He’s a lawful gun owner. You can tell that by…”
I got nothing.
comparison of gun owners to gays/blacks/jews in 3…..2………….
“I would call the police if I saw a person with a gun. Why wouldn’t you? Why would anyone give the benefit of the doubt to a stranger with the ability to kill you?”
If he has it in his hand and is waiving it around, actively threatening someone with it, or shooting at people then yes. If I see someone just going about his business with a holstered sidearm, then no.
Also, this quoted bit is indicative of both your fear and your lack of trust in your fellow citizens.
Call me crazy but yes, I am afraid of a man with a gun. I even prefer to spend as little time as possible around an armed policeman.
What if the gun’s in his holster because he hasn’t reached his intended victim yet? 🙂 Seriously, you are asking people to be mind readers.
isn’t you carrying also indicative of your lack of trust in fellow citizens? You carry in case you need to defend yourself do you not?
Of course it is, V. Mike is in quite a quandary. Does carrying/owning a gun make him afraid or brave?
This is why he can’t answer the question of why he carries/owns guns.
Who said anything about “proclaiming it to the world” Jason? And I open carry far, far more often than I CCW, because I’m a law abiding citizen.
Dave – Wow, the nation was founded on the concept of Individual rights, on the notion, new in human history at the time, that the individual was sovereign. Try again. You need to read up on U.S. history.
“Are we supposed to make judgement calls on why the guy at Target is armed? Are we supposed to know the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal?”
Yes, you’re supposed to. Making false calls to the police is a crime, and it wastes police resources. Intelligent people are capable of this all the time, as I know quite well since I OC. Of course I’m speaking based on several years worth of experience with the average Delawarean, not twitchy, scared, utterly freaked out hoplophobes like yourselves.
“What if the gun’s in his holster because he hasn’t reached his intended victim yet?”
Pandora, this says more about your state of mind than it does anything else. Sad.
Mike, the idea of whether the nation was founded on “we the people’ or “i the person” was settled when the greybacks (new slur for confeds) lost their glorious revolution. Self governance means all the people govern all the people.
I like puck’s thought to just call 911 when you see someone with a gun. After all, there is always the possibility they intend to use it or are looking for a reason to use it. Why else would they be carrying? Since we can’t know someone’s intent, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
I suppose we will never really know why Mike really carries. Perhaps he doesn’t know himself. I would bet that it has to do with feelings of inadequacy. He feels more confident with a gun; more in your face, fast cars, heavy metal, etc. In short, more manly. I could be wrong but you can tell by his evasion that he is uncomfortable with sharing his reasons.
Do his reasons really even matter? He’s deadly and proud. That is all I really need to know about him.
Of course it doesn’t say anything about my state of mind, but I get that you have nothing.
Calling the police if you see someone with a gun is something the police will tell you to do.
I hadn’t really given much thought to specific situations until you told me that people are supposed to know the difference between law abiding gun owners and criminals.
Now that I think about my off the cuff comment about waiting to take out your gun until you reach your intended victim I’m reminded about those shooters who walked through reception areas with their gun holstered only to pull it out when they reached the office of their boss or spouse’s spa area (as in that last mall shooting).
Socialistic Ben doesn’t have the faintest clue what personal sovereignty and “individual rights” means apparently. Of course why would a socialist who hates such things bother to understand such quaint ideas, even if they are at the heart of our nation’s founding.
Pandora -Some people have sound judgment and are not paranoid. I am sorry you don’t fit that description.
I really can’t let this bit of idiocy go…
Me: “Are we supposed to make judgement calls on why the guy at Target is armed? Are we supposed to know the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal?”
Mike: “Yes, you’re supposed to.”
Did Mike just solve the crime problem? Who knew we had the capability to simply look at someone and know they’re about to kill someone. Given that Minority Report vision we could simply shoot those people before they did anything.
define socialism
Here’s what i think the problem is. We have two very different ideas of who the “bad guys” are, and it’s coloring both sides arguments.
Mike has a gun. He is not a bad guy. His friends who have guns are not bad guys. He is able to tell who the armed bad guys are and who the armed good guys are by looking at them/assessing his surroundings. He gets really upset when people think he could be a bad guy because he is so obviously not. He is prepared to protect himself and others from these bad guys with his gun.
Everybody else has a much greyer understanding of what a bad guy is. We can’t really tell. Sometimes we can by looking/assessing surroundings. Sometimes “good guys” snap out of nowhere due to their life circumstances and quickly become bad guys before you can do anything. Sometimes someone you love can be a bad guy. Sometimes a good guy can have an accident. Everybody else wants to err on the side of caution and just lower the stakes so we don’t have to do that much assessment.
Actually Pandora your “ZOMG call the police because ZOMG anyone with a holstered gun is obviously itching to kill” is indicative of the anti-gun mindset. It goes directly to why you are so anti-gun, and in fact why you are liberal.
Lack of trust. If I see someone at the Charcoal Pit eating dinner with his family with a gun on his hip I don’t reflexively call the cops on him, nor run from the place screaming like a chicken with my head cut off.
And frankly, that you are SO afraid of the very people who are statistically speaking the least likely to be a threat to you is enlightening.
Of course I suppose I can’t expect someone who thinks declaring a place “gun free” makes people magically safe to be able to exercise sound judgment, now can I.
Why be worried about someone with a holstered gun at all if you believe so strongly in magical “safe zones?” Just put up a no gun sign, and right next to it a “No hurting anyone” sign. Viola. 100% safety!
Pandora sees the worst in everyone and assumes they are a criminal bent on predatory violence right off the bat. She can apparently ascertain this based only on the sight of a properly holstered firearm! This is just sad.
You haven’t answered whether you’d post your house in such a way? Why not?
pandora never said that mike, and even a hair brained liberal like us knows that a sign isn’t going to stop anybody that wants to do what they way to do. that’s why nobody suggested it. drop that argument. it’s silly.
“If I see someone at the Charcoal Pit eating dinner with his family with a gun on his hip I don’t reflexively call the cops on him, nor run from the place screaming like a chicken with my head cut off.”
I would signal the waitstaff that I wanted my check. Quickly pay the bill and the leave. Once outside I would call the police and tell them there is a guy with a gun inside the Charcoal Pit.
No one carries to go out and eat dinner. It’s not like making sure you have your wallet, which you would need to pay your check. Even if you are sane, if you are carrying you must be in a place where you think it is necessary. If you think it is necessary, why in God’s name would I want to be in the same place? Either you are the problem or you expect to encounter a problem. It’s a clue for most folks with common sense to get far away.
I’m meeting friends for lunch today. Since I won’t be armed, I hope I make it home alive. Wish me luck! 😉
(And carrying a gun into the Charcoal Pit with all that hustle and bustle and narrow aisles between booths would be nuts.)
“No one carries to go out and eat dinner. It’s not like making sure you have your wallet, which you would need to pay your check. Even if you are sane, if you are carrying you must be in a place where you think it is necessary.”
and here again is where we’re speaking different languages. Mike DOES carry to go out to dinner. It IS just one of those essential things he needs when he leaves the house like his keys or his wallet. And for apparently reasons of “personal soverignty” he thinks EVERYWHERE is a necessary place for him to carry. And we won’t be able to convince him otherwise. We’re stupid and bigoted and fearful because we disagree.
Good luck Pandora! That’s free choice for ya, you know, the free choice you hate so much when other people exercise it? While yourself and your fellow liberals wish death or physical harm upon pro-gun folks I do not wish the same upon any of you.
It’s called decency. Anti-gunners lack it, particularly here at DE Liberal.
“We’re stupid and bigoted and fearful because we disagree.”
Why do you keep saying that? It’s not the case. Bigoted? Yes Fearful? Absolutely. Stupid? Arguably so, but not because we disagree. It’s not your job to convince me otherwise. All I ask is that you leave us freedom loving americans alone to exercise our rights in a way you choose not to. Free Choice. ZOMG!
because we think what we think (ie not what you think) you have called us all those names. you just agreed with the statement. while also adding in that we hate freedom.
playing semantics with you is exhausting.
Because they aren’t semantics, they’re an important distinction. I don’t care one way or the other if you disagree with me or not. I don’t care if you don’t want to own guns, don’t want to carry etc. etc. etc.
You do not simply “disagree” You seek, and openly advocate stripping people of their rights, and you do it with dishonesty. That is far, far more than simple disagreement.
Disagreement would be something like this “I think guns are bad, I don’t trust myself with one, I would never want to carry one at all, but I respect your rights and your choice to do so, even though I choose differently.”
That would be disagreement, and you know what? Pro-gun, pro-freedom folks would have no problem with that at all. In fact we would support you even though we disagree…. if you left it at that.
Disagreement is good, but that’s not the crux of things for anti-gunners. It’s about control. Always has been. Hence pandora’s “Everyone on a college campus should be disarmed.” One guy shot up a school, so lets attack gun owners and launch a relentless attack on the rights of ~100 millon people because one guy broke how many laws AND walked right through a “gun free zone” forcefield.
Something bad happens, and you go after the millions who didn’t do it, then paint us as the “bad guys” for simply standing up for indivdual liberty against those who lack respect for it.
i have guns in my house. i have no problem with responsible gun owners. i have thoughts on gun restriction that have been revised after talking with people who have more knowledge about guns than i do. calmly and respectfully. even then it was hard to speak the same language.
what i do have a problem with is dangerous and irresponsible ones. i would assume you would too. i’ve known some and i assume you’ve probably known some too.
i dont think freedom will disintegrate if we have rules in place and enforce rules already in place that make people a little safer from crime and accidents. the problem is that we can’t even BEGIN to have a conversation because if we do you go off about tyranny.
We have regulations and restrictions on EVERY enumerated power in the bill of rights. Every single one. They aren’t completely unfettered. And acting like we’re shrieking crazies for wanting to talk isn’t helping. If some of the rules proposed are bad it’s fine to be like ‘ok here’s the problem’ but when you drip with condescention and sarcasm the whole time you’re only making it worse for yourself. It’s really hard to take you seriously.
grow up.
Hence pandora’s “Everyone on a college campus should be disarmed.” One guy shot up a school, so lets attack gun owners and launch a relentless attack on the rights of ~100 millon people because one guy broke how many laws AND walked right through a “gun free zone” forcefield.
I never said that the reason I didn’t want guns on college campuses was due to one guy shooting up the place. What I’ve said countless times is: Allowing guns on college campuses and in dorm rooms is an accident begging to happen. Guns at a kegger, anyone? Because, lord knows, college kids epitomize moderation. Not that they’re supposed to. Part of the college experience is learning to moderate your new found freedom; to learn how to study, get enough sleep, and when to have fun without Mom and Dad’s rules.
It is also a period of big emotional changes. For most kids it’s the first time they will live on their own. It can be very difficult and challenging. It can be very stressful. Suddenly kids are not only responsible for their grades, but also for feeding themselves, doing their laundry, living with different personalities, their dating life – or lack of dating life, handling a bully, a bad break up, putting themselves to bed and getting themselves up, homesickness, etc. That’s a lot.
Mass shootings grab our undivided attention, but what worries me when it comes to college campuses is stupid accidents.
If you want to argue with me, please argue with what I’ve actually said.
Oh, and as for your ridiculous claims that “no one is coming for your guns”
I refer you back to a post written on this very site recently. Suggest you read it.
http://delawareliberal.net//2012/12/18/we-are-coming-for-your-guns/
I’d laugh if you folks weren’t so sad.
You quoted yourself genius.
“And acting like we’re shrieking crazies for wanting to talk isn’t helping.”
Except you don’t want to talk. You do not want to “compromise” with the pro-gun, pro-freedom crowd. You want surrender. You want complete and utter capitulation. Anti-gunners do not “talk” with us. They lecture, they demagogue, they use BS emotional appeals and lies to attack those who seek to preserve their rights.
Oh, and they never ever stop.
At what point will your ilk back off and say “OK, NOW we’ve got enough “reasonable regulations” Anything more would be an infringement?”
You believe that the number and access to guns is the problem, therefore logically the “solution” is to lower that number to as close to zero as possible. You claim you are “reasonable” but then you show your true colors (as we have all seen since newtown) You claim “no one wants to take away your guns” and then you call for confiscation.
Why would those of us who love freedom cede an inch to you? What do we get out of doing so? There’s no “compromise” because everytime we succumb to some new infringement we get nothing in return except another attack on our rights the next time you see a political opportunity.
Uhh, you are right Jason330. I am an idiot. I said “no one is coming for your guns” above, then quoted myself later in the thread as if someone else was saying that. My bad.
Genius, You quoted yourself.
got it i hate freedom. i give up. and every time i do get a point in (like how i totally pulled apart your contention that a delaware straw-purchase felony law would be be AUTOMATICALLY unconstitutional because such laws already exist) you just ignore it.
you win. that’s what you wanna hear right? i hope it makes your friday a little brighter. I hope you have a great weekend with as much ammo as your little heart desires.
like talking to a wall.
V – Mike will not be commenting here anymore. I kicked him out for being stupid and boring.
Plus I don’t want to eventually be shot by him when he inevitably wigs out for being called on his boring stupidity – like the time two minutes ago when he invented quotes then quoted himself.
So that’s that. Sensible, sane people are free to keep the conversation going.
jason – while im sure this will in his mind prove his point about how he feels about liberals, my developing ulcer thanks you.
miss you, mike. LYLAS.
Yep. I can take stupid. I can take boring. But stupid, boring and unhinged is my limit.
Is this the time for me to apologize for putting up a gun post?
is this a record for longest thread? i’ve never seen one this insane before.
Mike you summed up your week long circular rant with your statement “I am a idiot”. Well stated and goodbye to you!
I’ve been reading this thread nearly every day since it started. Thanks, Pandora, for starting it and asking the hard questions. As always, it’s been educational, revealing, and very amusing. Since the conversation seems to be meeting an untimely death, I thought I would chime in on a couple of issues before the last breath.
I remind you that I am authorized to carry, but very rarely do, and
would like to see ‘some’ tighter control on gun ownership and carry permits. Not in the form of bans or confiscation, but in the screening process, and better enforcement of existing laws.
Dave makes some interesting statements and questions:
“It provides you with a sense of well being because you feel threatened in some manner. What we are trying to get to, which you continue to evade, is what is the threat to your well being? In short – what are you afraid of?”
I posit that some people have different circumstances under which they may require some additional protection. I recently discovered that my doctor, of all people, carries concealed at times. Normally, I wouldn’t find this unusual, given a physician’s access to a variety of drugs kept in their office, and in their bags. Yes, this doctor still makes house calls on occasion. What’s more interesting is that she has a small practice, hiring only her mother and an office assistant. They both carry concealed, as well. (Hey, this is Sussex County) Given the nature of their profession, why would they leave themselves vulnerable? They are more likely to be a target/victim than, say… a carpenter, accountant, book publisher, etc.
Pandora says: “I would call the police if I saw a person with a gun. Why wouldn’t you? Why would anyone give the benefit of the doubt to a stranger with the ability to kill you?”
Although, I believe there are some reasons to carry concealed, I can’t think of ANY reason a person would carry open, other than to make a statement (what?!), or to piss off the progressives. I think it probably does more harm than good to incite people, and may be counterproductive.
That being said, one would hope any competent 911 dispatcher would try to determine, by asking the right questions, whether or not the caller is actually reporting a potentially dangerous situation, before sending the cavalry, or if the caller is trying to make a statement of their own. RE: Is it holstered? Is she waving it around? Is she behaving suspiciously?
When an enforcement officer, I was called out countless times where the complainant wasn’t exactly serious. On one memorable occasion the caller, when asked if they wanted to file charges, replied “No, I just want you to fuck with him for a while”. To which I replied “I just drove 6 miles at 85 MPH to get to a reported assault in progress, so… someone’s getting arrested. Your choice.”
Bottom line: I can’t understand, or agree with the need to carry open in public, but would consider someone calling in a legal activity, without thinking it through, as a form of harassment, and a waste of police resources.
Yep, aside from the ad hominem attacks and some rather childish attempts at ridicule, it’s been a sweet thread. I find it somewhat ironic that it was effectively ended by the one person who had little else to contribute but derision and the usual flaccid attempts at humor.
So miscreant is suggesting, if you see someone with a gun, get used to it. How about a gunmen standing outside a theater, a sports event, a crowded mall, on a street where kids play, getting on a bus, outside the court house door. Or he might be outside his former employer’s business, his former girlfriend’s haunt, outside a town hall meeting, a politician’s gathering, a pre school outing, etc.
It’s one thing for a person to have a legal gun to shot a stranger coming over his window sill in the middle of the night – it’s the gunmen’s ‘territory,’ – there’s real reason to be alarmed. But for any idiot to be able to strap on a gun and go out to public places and for miscreant to suggest that people should get used to the sight of any armed man and assume that that gunman is a trained,’legal’ gunman who is protecting his right to shoot to kill at any time and place – is hideous. In a backhanded way, miscreant also suggests reporting a ‘man with gun’ should be a crime.
That gunman could be a criminal, a drug person overseeing a deal, a suicidal man, the local gang member(s), the angry man waiting for his X, the pediphile, an harasser, a thief, a mentally ill man, the car jacker, the raper, (endless list of nasty criminals would step out with their guns.)
Miscreant describes circumstances for a continuous, illegal state of armed mad men to infiltrate the public as if those men, legal or not, should be able to ‘just do it,; no questions asked. He also suggests 911 personnel, take their time when the public calls – and decide if the call is – necessary or not.
It is plan stupid to assume a man with a gun in a public place – is a legal sight, or assume the man is a sane man, or that that gun is legally possessed. One’s first response would be alarm and fear for the public, that that man could likely be a nut case who thinks he should be in control of strangers on public property, as if the public has no right to life at all.
The public has a right to be free from roaming gunmen. The only thing a gunman on the public square is saying is, he has the ‘power’ to decide if you should live or die. Miscreant is dangerous, in trying to influence the public into assuming a ‘man with a gun’
roaming about in the public – has the right to kill by gunfire and should be ‘assumed to be a legal sight, and should be a ‘normal’ condition that the public must accept, or perhaps be arrested for fearing a ‘man with a gun.’
Do tell, miscreant, ‘how’ the ordinary persons on the street should know – a ‘man with a gun’ – is automatically ‘legal?’ ‘How?’
Also explain why you would want any criminal to be ‘enabled’to walk around with a gun, unquestioned.
Don’t police check guns found in cars, etc. Should they too, assume everything is ‘legal.’
What miscreant suggests, is extreme chaos of the worst sort – criminals walking about in public, with guns loaded, no questions asked.
I agree that there are some professions (your example of a doctor) who have reason to carry. Considering the ends to which addicts would go to get a fix, the doctor and staff have a higher degree of risk than I do running out to get gas.
Yet, here is this Mike, not in an occupation where there is any real threat; not frequenting places where his well being is at risk; not on his way to training at the firing range; with no express purpose or intent (in theory) feeling the need (or desire) to carry. These are the ones that scare me. These are the ones that should scare everyone.
Exercising one’s rights unilaterally does not mean society’s rights can be infringed unless one chooses not to live in society. We don’t ever want to deindividualize people to generalize them or make them stereotypical. However, the general welfare of society must always be a consideration in exercising our individual rights. Individual rights cannot trump the rights of society (or vice versa). We must always seek the proper balance between the two since the needs of society naturally constrain individual rights and behavior.
A key discriminator of a mature society is the manner in which it attempts to balance these competing interests, not just for the good of all, but for the good of each one of us.
Sorry, anonymous, but what you wrote isn’t what Miscreant said.
Of course not, pandora, and rightfully so. What I wrote is what I wrote about what miscreant said. Try to catch up. I don’t reprint dictates from miscreant. If you want to, feel free.
I question miscreant’s use of the three women as ‘his’ example. How “manly’ of miscreant to ‘out’ his own female Sussex County doctor, and her mother and one assistant in her employ as – three concealed gun ‘carrying’ women. Might miscreant have considered that ‘concealed’ now means ‘exposed,’ exposed by a person who posts by the name ‘miscreant. ‘(def: archaic. holding a false or unorthodox religious belief; heretical. n. 3. a vicious or depraved person; villain.,a heretic or infidel.)
Do the three women even know they are now miscreant’s ‘exposed’ example, as he posted at 2 a.m. Did he check with these three women first, before using them? Is miscreant going to tell the three women that he has exposed them, as his senseless gun rant example? These legal gun owners are more likely to be target/victim….says Miscreant. How protective? of women you are miscreant, how honorable?, how trustworthy? Instead of mentioning why you need to protect yourself (if you choose to use a real life example,) you instead chose to use three women, a doctor, her family member, the doctor’s office, as your ‘man on the street with gun,’ example instead. Are you going to ask the women to come to this blog thread to read about their ‘concealed guns,’ their profession, their fears, their access to drugs – their exposure to the public? so they can at least – ‘defend themselves from miscreant.’
Concealed, definition: Keep from sight; hide. Keep something secret; prevent from being known or noticed.
Methinks someone here doesn’t want to engage in a meaningful dialog, but would rather attempt to provoke, and degrade, the discussion. That’s rather unfortunate, for you. So… I’m not taking the thinly veiled bait. I suggest you read the entire thread again to get some context, and report back.
There will be a test.
One could say, miscreant copped out, you know, taking the easy way out to avoid the sticky truth.
Question for miscreant remains unanswered. Here it is – again.
Do tell, miscreant, ‘how’ the ordinary persons on the street should know – the ‘man with a gun’ in the public square – is ‘legal?’ ‘How?’
“How?”
A perfectly legitimate question miscreant won’t answer.
Instead he dodged, he ducked, he tried to turn the tables, but he won’t answer because …he doesn’t want to – admit the truth.
So I’ll answer the question.
The truth is, one can’t.
The pubilc can’t look at a man with the gun (carrying) and tell ‘a bad guy’ from ‘a good guy.’
Ops, another humongous, screaming, bloody, liable loop hole, that sucks of destruction, hate, revenge, anger, pain, death and all the horrors a man with a gun can deliver.
Not only does a good guy with a gun look like a bad guy with a gun, it is lawmakers and law enforcement’s job to see that citizens aren’t exposed to such incredible deadly nonsense.
Guns are hate. Guns are death. The gunman can be old, weak, dumb, ugly, poor, rich, vile, young, insane. All he needs to do is pull a trigger.
The politicians know the loop holes exist as guns are unregistered, guns are in hands of those who shouldn’t hold a fork, used by criminals, are untraceable, are prohibited, stolen, traded,too powerful, imported without laws, regulations, requirements. The politicians have ‘enabled’ it.
Pandora says: “I would call the police if I saw a person with a gun. Why wouldn’t you? Why would anyone give the benefit of the doubt to a stranger with the ability to kill you?”
Most people would call, because most people don’t want men walking around with guns.
Quote from miscreant, “That being said, one would hope any competent 911 dispatcher would try to determine, by asking the right questions, whether or not the caller is actually reporting a potentially dangerous situation, before sending the cavalry, or if the caller is trying to make a statement of their own.”
Aww, that’s so nice of miscreant. Blame the public.Give the 911 caller the third degree instead of a gunman on the street. Now why would miscreant suggest that?
They were miscreant’s own words in above quote. Now…how can a 911 caller 1) prove the gun is in the possession of a rightful owner; 2) prove the gunman is a person presently not prohibited from possessing a gun; and 3) prove the man with the gun, is properly authorized and licensed to carry the gun on the street AND ..**.is ‘proven’ to not create a potentially dangerous situation.** Neither the dispatcher or the 911 caller is capable of determining 1) 2) or 3.) And what person (other than miscreant,) would try to have you believe A) the 911 caller or B) a dispatcher, are capable of properly determining the answers to 1) 2) and 3.) Hello, determining 1) 2) and 3) isn’t the public’s job. It’s law enforcement’s job – thence the 911 call for – a law enforcement response. After all, there’s no way the public can tell a bad guy with a gun from the good guy with a guy, by just looking at him.
Lawmakers and law enforcement have failed the public by not controlling guns and so when a ‘man with a gun shows up, miscreant thinks the public must prove he’s a criminal as well. The next step? Forget about calling 911? Does miscreant think the public needs to just suffer the consequences or.. take ‘enforcement’ into their own hands?
Miscreant suggests some of his responses to 911 calls were a waste of time. How does he know what would have happened if police weren’t called? Or how calling may have helped a battered woman. She may have thought, wow, having to call 911 – that crazy creep is way out of control. Answering a call for police assistance, evaluating a ‘situation’ on the street, is law enforcement’s job. What is this – the Wild West? Shoot out at town hall, high noon? Bring guns, we’re going to the public square and settle this for once and for all? Well, maybe it’s happening. Well hello. Could that be why certain people feel the laws aren’t there, the law enforcement isn’t there – so they have to take matters into their own hands-with guns? Result: Chaos of the worst sort. Men with guns walking around in public places, no questions asked.
Hypothetical: Call from court house. “I saw a gun in a man’s file.” Dispatcher asks, “So?”- (miscreant’s test question,) “Is anyone waving the gun around?” 911 caller, “No.” Dispatcher, (miscreant’s test question,) “Is the man behaving suspiciously?” Caller, “No, he’s quite calm as a matter of fact.” “Well that does it, I’m fining you for calling 911 and for attempting to have the police address the situation. Your name and address, caller, Now come directly to the police station, you’re under arrest. Ha
Here’s the question for politicians otherwise call ‘lawmakers.’
How are the innocent people on the street, suppose to tell the difference between – a bad man with a gun and a good man with a gun?
Here’s another question: Why should the man who expects to settle his problems by gunfire, be allowed to bring his guns and gunfire to a crowded public square? Don’t say lawmakers haven’t created this situation.(300,000,000 guns, 80,000,000 households with guns, millions of people who should never touch guns) Regulations? What regulations.
The 911 caller could be looking at – an insane person – with a gun. Let’s see, he has a mustache. His socks don’t match. ( No folks, he’s a man who brought a gun to town, Seems he thinks there is some score to be settled with gunfire.)
Besides miscreant, don’t you think when a man is out and about with his gun, it would be a good idea for the LAW to check to see if he’s legal? Why not? The average person is going to have his car, his license inspected, his title, his insurance checked, his auto speed, his seat belt, his breath checked if necessary,jsut to mention a few things. It’s passed time lawmakers and law enforcement start having a look at and catalog those 310,000,000 guns in America. It is just stupid, lazy and deadly not to. Just because a man straps a gun on himself and heads for town, doesn’t mean he’s of sound mind, or that he’s a ‘good’ guy by golly. (I’m making the point about the man who brings a gun on the street but millions of unfortunate people live near such people. And don’t forget the home gun shootings.)
The people need to know it is safe to come to the public square. Dozens of officers arrive after a shooting -they are just the clean up crew, not law enforcement. Enforcement needed to take place before the shootings took place. Lawmakers and law enforcement have failed the public. It is apparent, the record keeping and co-ordination of 310,000,000 guns in approx 80 million households, the records of tens of millions who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase or touch guns – don’t exist. Free for all guns…WWWhhhheee. Just what the gun special interests and NRA love – sales.
Bringing guns along to settle ‘their problems’ – with guns and gunfire in the public square – is sick. It is the lawmakers job to pass the laws, have them enforced to insure public safety. Take for example, the security precautions for politicians. Best around? Why? because they know there is a problem with gunmen and they are having themselves protected, as if their lives are more valuable than the people they serve, which btw includes all the people. The very people whose job it is to protect the public – fails the public, protects themselves – lovely. Miscreant, what if a 911 call regarding a ‘man with a gun,’ came from the gov’nor’s office, would your following quote apply for those bothersome, silly, paranoid people as well?
” Miscreant quote, “That being said, one would hope any competent 911 dispatcher would try to determine, by asking the right questions, whether or not the caller is actually reporting a potentially dangerous situation, before sending the cavalry, or if the caller is trying to make a statement of their own. RE: Is it holstered? Is she waving it around? Is she behaving suspiciously?” End miscreant quote. See how wrong that is?
Could you please repeat that? I wasn’t listening.
Perhaps my hearing is bad from all those years at the range as a firearms instructor, or I forgot to turn off my disingenuous bullshit filter.
Okay, we’ll start the test with a few easy questions:
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. When a 911 dispatcher receives a call from someone about a person openly wearing a holstered firearm, he/she should:
A. Try to extract, from the caller, all the relevant information about the incident in order to determine if an actual crime has taken place, and/or to provide the responding officer(s) with as much information possible in order to enhance their safety, and the safety of the public.
B. It’s not the job of the dispatcher to gather any information before sending an officer to potentially dangerous situation.
C. Scream like a little girl, and immediately dispatch a SWAT team and the National Guard as back up.
D. None of the above.
2. Some situations where it may be appropriate to carry a concealed firearm are:
A. By the nature of one’s profession, there is an an above average chance they may be a victim of a serious crime.
B. NEVER, because of the possibility of “another humongous, screaming, bloody, liable loop hole, that sucks of destruction, hate, revenge, anger, pain, death and all the horrors a man with a gun can deliver.”
C. Only police soldiers, criminals, and bodyguards of very important politicians should be able to carry concealed.
D. All of the above
3. Explain…‘how’ the ordinary persons on the street should know – a ‘man with a gun’ – is automatically ‘legal?’ ‘How?’
A. Everyone (legally) openly wearing a firearm is a potential killer, and should be treated as such.
B. In order to make an informed decision, take into consideration the full context of the situation, and proceed responsibly.
C. I know the person is exercising his/her right to openly carry a firearm, but I just want to use the police to fuck with him/her.
D. Both “A” and “C”.
TRUE/FALSE
3. You can “out” someone by using only their gender and generic profession.
4. All chaps are “assless”
MAD MEN WITH GUNS
FIRST, miscreant tries to ignore what he said about 911 responses to reporting, “man with gun.” So I’ll start with what miscreant had ‘actually’ said:
Miscreant quote: “That being said, one would hope any competent 911 dispatcher would try to determine, by asking the right questions, whether or not the caller is actually reporting a potentially dangerous situation, before sending the cavalry, or if the caller is trying to make a statement of their own. RE: Is it holstered? Is she waving it around? Is she behaving suspiciously?”
Followed up by this,
Miscreant quote, “Bottom line: I can’t understand, or agree with the need to carry open in public, but would consider someone calling in a legal activity, without thinking it through, as a form of harassment, and a waste of police resources.”End quote
Hmm, “calling in a legal activity, without thinking it through …a form of harassment and a waste of police resources.” Yet miscreant knows, the public cannot tell which ‘man with gun’ is legal.
NEXT, miscreant, in attempting to fudge together an answer to the ‘man with a gun’ problem, offers multiple choice A,B,C,D – so let’s look at the ‘choices’ he offers:
“3. Question – Explain ‘how’ the ordinary persons on the street should know – a ‘man with a gun’ – is automatically ‘legal?’ ‘How?’
A. Everyone (legally) openly wearing a firearm is a potential killer, and should be treated as such.
B. In order to make an informed decision, take into consideration the full context of the situation, and proceed responsibly.
C. I know the person is exercising his/her right to openly carry a firearm, but I just want to use the police to fuck with him/her.
D. Both “A” and “C”.
Anonymous Response:
Choice A) Failed. Notice miscreant ‘inserted’ (legally) into choice A, when the question involves the public being able to determine – ‘a bad man’ from ‘a good man.’
Choice B) Failed. Think about the amount of time the two mothers had to make an “informed decision” in the court house lobby, when the man with the ‘legally’ purchased gun pulled it from his file; a man who stood around pretending to be, appearing to be, the “good guy” (as hundreds of people including law enforcement,) glanced at him, as he kept warm in a court house lobby while avoiding metal detectors for 35 minutes. (Obviously, ALL of these people, were unable/failed to notice if he was – ‘legal’ or not.)
Choice C) – Failed. That miscreant has flashbacks of feeling past 911 callers were f-ing with him – does not a valid choice make.
Choice D) – Failed. Because miscreant tried to sneak in the word (legally) in choice A; and choice C is a miscreant bullshit choice.
So the answer to the question, how can the ordinary persons on the street know, the “man with a gun” in the public square -is ‘legal.?’ –
Remains, Choice E) – He can’t.
He can’t. A person on the street, can’t know, if he is safe from “the man with a gun.”
And that is very important. It violates the public’s right to safe in public places.
Lawmakers have (by default, negligence, political folly) created an illegal, dangerous, free-for-all, deadly public nuisance – ‘men with guns.’ Gun interests, NRA and republican politicians knew this and shut down the gun studies by the CDC. If lawmakers allow ‘men with guns’ to continue to roam free, they should be sued out of existence, like an auto manufacturer who knowingly supplies exploding gas tanks, like a filthy CO2 belcher, like a lead toy distributor, like an E coli farmer. Because the government is providing (by default, negligence, political folly) the mechanism for citizens to be shot at any moment without notice, whether: a group of toddlers, a teacher, a clerk, a plaintiff, armed guards, a guy mowing his lawn, a lawmaker, a person at a stop light, a movie goer, a person at home, at church, on a boat, in a meeting, mall, game (endless list here.)The only entity that can stop this slaughter, in the very government that ‘enabled’ and created it and knowingly tolerates it, due to special interest pressures.
New laws won’t address the problem, unless they also include compiling the data on the 310,000,000 weapons, the millions of nameless possessors, the millions of people who should never come near a weapon, coordinating all information to be readily available on computer programs that update changes daily. There are lists of corporations/organizations that handle more complicated and numerous units than 310 million. Coordinating information by computer is simple, what’s missing , is the will to effectively remove the threat. Lawmakers have created the present situation of – instant lawlessness. It is as if the government has said, the chemicals in your water, rising sea levels, the discrimination at your job, the pedophiles on your streets, the mad men with guns – you deal with it; – adapt.
The lawmakers know, the phony distinction, the pretend solution NRA offered of ‘good guy, bad guy’ is shot full of bullet holes, it’s proven every day. LaPierre popularized the good man, bad man notion – but the fact remains, when the public is looking at a good guy, bad guy, they can’t tell them apart. Both can roam freely about, until they fire their guns. Time for the politicians to do their job and rid America of it’s homegrown security threat – ‘mad men with guns.’
“Methinks someone here does not want to engage in a meaningful dialog”. You are so right miscreant, that would be you! Anonymous notes that you dodged, ducked and tried to turn the tables to his question. That is precisely what the gun industry and their lobbying arm (the NRA) have been doing for years. By keeping the public discourse on gun safety muddled and confused, nothing will ever be done. Please note that little of Pandora’s original post was ever discussed in a “meaningful dialog”. The thread was quickly hijacked and taken to Mikeyland. Your long and wordy posts have lead to two primary conclusions; 1. You see no reason for a person to carry open (short of hunting, I agree), and 2. There are some reasons for people to carry concealed (I presume to protect themslves of other people with guns).Ok, what else have you added to this meaningful dialog? Oh yeah, you did out your doctor, her’s is probably the only pratice in lower slower with the demographics that you laid out.
Seriously, people… ?
Your rambling responses are so convoluted and repetitive, I stopped reading them shortly after the first one. Consider adding a table of contents and an index on the next one, and I may reconsider. In the meantime, suck on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZMxQpVS5cro
Unfortunately, I can foresee more of this happening in the future. Consequently, more laws and ordinances are likely to be promulgated due to people testing the limits of the current open carry laws. Actually, I believe both the police and the harassed handled the situation as well as possible.
@Miscreant “In the meantime, suck on this:”
So, What’s the take home message? That gun owners are utter a-holes?
“Actually, I believe both the police and the harassed handled the situation as well as possible.”
HA! The police WAS the harassed. The other guy was the a-hole who wasted their time for jollies.
Let’s face it… Guns suck, and the people who love them suck even more.
OH YEAH, LA PIERRE IS A CLEVER DEVIL
He should have said, the BEST way to stop a bad guy is before he picks up a handy gun.
He should have said, the BEST way to stop a bad guy from having guns handy, is by passing and enforcing gun laws.
Who are the good guys?
The guys who OBEY the laws.
Who are the good guys?
The guys who DON’T settle their ‘problems’ with guns.
What are the BEST laws?
The laws the will stop the men who would take the law (in their mind, a gun) into their own hands.
Who are the best lawmakers?
The lawmakers who will pass laws that make America the safest country in the world.
To all the law abiding good guys, law making good guys and law enforcing good guys across America – you are
America’s future.
LAWMAKERS, THIS IS WHAT LAWLESSNESS LOOKS LIKE
Let’s say -the man IS on his way to shoot someone, in the video linked below, provided by miscreant.
(Miscreant – don’t bother to read this – you won’t like it.)
The man has a loaded gun in his possession. His presence as ‘a man with a gun’ on the street has frightened citizens enough to call 911 to report ‘a man with gun.’ Said man with gun refuses to identify himself to officer, putting the officer at ‘unknown’ risk. The gun hasn’t been checked for ownership; it hasn’t been proven that the owner of the gun approves of man on the street having his stolen gun. It hasn’t been proven that the man on the street has a “permit” to carry. There is no background check to see if the nervous man with gun is mentally stable to possess a gun. People on the street are frightened by the man with a gun and the man with the gun believes – that’s his right. With the man refusing to give the officer his name, claiming it’s his right not to, the officer cannot know if the man is a felon, or that the man has a recent restraining order placed against him. The officer hands back a loaded gun to the man on the street, not even knowing if he will be shot by that very gun and gunman – as the police officer is law abiding, the man with the gun, is not. After three people were shot, the police don’t even have the name or address of the man who was handed back that very gun, so they can’t warn others that he is on the loose, armed and dangerous.
Miscreant says, quote, “Actually, I believe both the police and the harassed handled the situation as well as possible.”
Note: Miscreant calls the “man with gun” on the street, the person who is being “HARASSED” Miscreant has nothing to say about the lack of laws to protect the safety of the public, even when they call 911; Miscreant has nothing to say about the frightened people in the neighborhood, or the police officer at risk or that such a 911 call from alarmed citizens, could have located a stolen gun, stopped a homegrown terrorist, nabbed a person without a ‘permit to carry,’ found a mentally ill man on the street with a gun, jailed a felon with a gun, protected the person with the restraining order against the man with a gun; and not handed a loaded gun over to some who shouldn’t have a gun, saving three people’s lives.
Anonymous says, that’s stark, raving mad of miscreant to only want to protect a ‘man with a gun’s’ imagined rights, when there is no PROOF that such a man – has qualified for the right to carry. And at the very same time, innocent citizens, law enforcement have no rights at all.
Miscreant backs one big assss loophole in chaps.
Criminals also would appreciate how miscreant respects their ‘right’ to carry, no questions asked.
Criminals and people LaPierre calls “good guys with guns,’ never shoot anyone – except for when they do.
Do the same ‘man with a gun’ on the street rights apply in all adults walking around Wilmington, Westover Hills, Rehoboth Boardwalk,Yorklyn,Dover Browntown Claymont? If they do, consider yourself under siege by the ‘lawless’ element.
Fact is, if criminals and people LaPierre calls good guys, weren’t ‘enabled’ by lack of gun laws and lack of gun law enforcement, people wouldn’t be getting shot by them so often. But the special interests and NRA wouldn’t like that. Violence, sell guns. Smoking, causes cancer. Don’t tell anyone. It’s bad for business, (but good for your health, ssshhh.)
A man with a clear background check, properly trained, sound mental health, proper ownership of gun and ammo and ‘permits,’ and a legitimate reason to be walking around with a gun, would have no objection to telling an officer his name. Criminals, however, would like to roam the streets armed and dangerous, no questions asked.
One would suggest, all person that meets all requirements in the above paragraph, could call in to his local police station and report that he will be carrying, at a time and place, in a given time span, for a given reason. The person making large cash store deposits could have a permit to carry from the store to the bank, for example. Huge fines, imprisonment for obvious violations. That would help separate the good guys, from the “pretend good guys” and the criminals. Report of man with gun on street – Officer says, ‘hand over your gun,copy of permit and valid identification.’ After all, what kind of country would let a man carry a deadly weapon, without identification and proof of ‘permit on his person?’ A country run by special interests. and their lawless lawmakers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZMx
Part II of anonymous comment:
For Miscreant video, see Miscreant’s Comment, 2/24/13 – 10:21 pm
LINK would not copy correctly onto above anonymous comment.
See if this works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZMxQpVS5cro