molonlabe

"This story raises a lot of troubling issues, one of which is why we make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns.

Those who knew the shooter saw the danger signs, but no one checked with them before the shooter was allowed to accumulate his arsenal.

We should be able to stop foreseeable tragedies like this before they occur. What we're doing now isn't enough." -Paul Helmke

Hilarious. Indirectly, Paul Helmke is advocating "profiling" people as a remedy to violent crime. Paul feels that society "should have known" that Cho was a dangerous person, and precluded him from exercising his constitutional rights. I wonder if Paul would hold the same sentiment as reason to bar someone of Muslim descent, openly wearing a head wrap, reading from the Koran, from exercising any of their rights because as a society, we should "suspect" them as being a potential terrorist? I wonder if Paul Helmke would advocate random searches of suspicious -looking Urban African Americans? In 2005, African Americans had offending and victimization rates 7x and 6x higher than whites respectively. Obviously, as a society, we "should suspect" that African Americans might be involved in criminal doings, so their rights shouldn't matter either.

Post-Heller, we're going to see a lot more emotionalism from the anti's. Laughably, the arguments are even more and more absurd. posted 07/18/2008 at 10:09:04

jvarga-

Your assumption is correct. That is the argument that the anti-rights cursade is riding. But if you take a look at the statistics in states where CCW is lawfully allowed, there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that CCW causes Dangerous Crossfire (tm) or Wild West Shootouts(tm).

Of course, if you believe that banning guns for self defense outside of the home is a public safety measure, then I would counter with Columbine, Utah, Lancaster, and jsut about any other gun free zone where mass shootings occur, leaving victims about as helpless as cattle being herded for slaughter. posted 07/10/2008 at 16:14:52

Got any citations to substantiate your strawman contagion theory? Because I have one which retutes it:

Moorhouse: I found absolutely no support that gun control laws reduce crime rates. And crime rates, we looked at property crime, violent crimes " ten categories of crimes " and in not one of them did we find any impact of gun control, nor did we find that there was this contagion effect. That is, that a neighboring state with weak gun control laws seemed to have no effect on crime rates in the primary states.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3628

Try again. posted 07/09/2008 at 11:20:56

Sorry, Tom. But the NRA's support for McCain (or more-so, their non-support for Obama) isn't about the presidency at all. It's about electing a president who won't appoint leftist SCOTUS justices.

If it takes a 40 million dollar attempt to guarantee that retiring conservative justices are replaced with like-minded conservative justices who respect the constitution, I consider it money well spent and will continue to donate my $35 every year.

God forbid it was Gore instead of Bush. Heller could have been a completely different story and millions of Americans would have had to resort to buying 50 gallon drums of cosmoline (you know, so their firearm collection wouldn't rust while buried in the back yard.)

Obama is no friend to gun owners, and chances are he will appoint SCOTUS justices just as hoplophobic as he is.

This year, it's the lesser of 2 evils.........McCain '08. posted 07/11/2008 at 16:09:20

"Seems like a great place to live in, right?"

Only if you walk on 4 legs and are insulated by a nice thick coat of wool I guess.

I thought that the ACLU would have a credibility problem from the inevitable flip-flop from their position on MIller when Heller was handed down. It never occurred to me that the ACLU would just blatently ignore 9 SCOTUS justices who solidified the already obvious individual RKBA. Looks like the ACLU has been taking those Judicial Activism(tm) classes at Helmke University.

Or maybe I'm just that naive to think that the 2A is in fact part of the rest of the BOR. Go figure. posted 07/08/2008 at 09:49:49

"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court"s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

"The ACLU has received funding from the Open Society Institute, the Arca Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Columbia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the JEHT Foundation,THE JOYCE FOUNDATION, the Lear Family Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145



Not really a surprise when you follow the Wheelbarrow Full Of Cash(tm)." posted 07/07/2008 at 13:49:30

Thanks Mimi. If you didn't post the link, I may have missed gems such as this one:

"So terrified for your personal safety that you always have to pack heat? If I drove through the worst section of town to do business maybe but take a gun to the mall? Or the airport? How about daycare? You never know when a preschooler is gong to get a sugar rush and goes crazy with his teacher's Glock. If Dodge City mentality was what we needed to survive then why did Dodge City outlaw side arms? Maybe there is some deeper desire at work here.(Note to self: Must help society crumble so I have more legal opportunities to kill some one...)" -Hillrick

Not to mention the plethora of "It's Bush's fault!(tm) GOP bashers.

Nothing but a field of strawmen over there. Higher concentration of the same old rhetoric.

As usual, the anti's using the 1st amendment only to make the 2nd more credible. They are their own worst enemy. And our strongest ally. posted 07/03/2008 at 10:16:16

"Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries that occur each year in the United States. Our efforts need to focus on reducing these deaths and injuries." Paul Helmke

I beg to differ. With 17,000 "gun deaths"/ yr comprising the majority of that statistic, it would make sense to me to dedicate a good portion of those "anti-violence" funds toward social programs aimed at the social problem which leads to suicide. Japan + higher suicides than the US + gun bans = clear evidence that implements are not problem.

It would make sense to me to pursue remedies for the complex social deficiencies plaguing the inner city (is it a coincidince that the major "players" in the anti-gun movement represent major metropolitan cities like DC, Philly, NYC, etc...), where a severely disproportionate ratio of violente crime is occurring.

It would make sense to me to acknowledge the decades of failed gun control laws and shift focus from implement control to criminal control.

Pursuing bans on lawfully owned weapons, the ability to lawfully carry a concealed weapon for personal protection, demonizing and banning popular semi-auto rifles (opps, sorry, I think the chic word for the day is "regulating" assault rifles) and other legislation which both does not work, and only effects law-abiding citizens, does not make sense to me.

THAT is what is truly "senseless" about violence crime. posted 07/02/2008 at 10:52:02

The compelling argument is that apparently, people are using .50 cals to destroy chemical plants, rail cars, and planes.

"Or, how is it unreasonable to prohibit civilians from purchasing military weapons made to destroy material targets like passenger aircraft, refineries, chem plants and rail tank cars from long distance?" -Bryan MIller, Ceasfire NJ

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/2008/06/imminent_supreme_court_2nd_ame.html

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! posted 07/01/2008 at 08:53:12

"I personally believe that the fascination and widespread popularity of these so called "assault weapons" was actually an ironic side effect of the 94 AWB and had the 94 ban never been passed, these weapons would not have become as popular and mainstream as they have."

Amen. Even though SKS's weren't banned under the '94 ban, I was a little leary about a renewal, and the possibility of an expansion of what weapons would be banned. So even though I didn't really need another weapon at the time, I made sure I secured myself a Yugo. And another one immediately after. And a couple cases of 7.62. And some accessories......

A good friend of mine who is an FFL holder always tells me that his sales volume skyrockets around elections. I think he was able to finance the new addition on his home just from the '94 AWB sunset alone.

It's like being a parent and putting restrictions on your teenagers. If you really don't want them to do something, tell them they CAN. posted 07/01/2008 at 08:42:25

I will applaud the BC's (et al) "compromising" when they begin favoring legislation which removes violent criminals from the streets, and begin favoring legislation which seeks to implement programs aimed at the inner city social problems which are at the root cause violence.

Until then, guns, ammunition, accessories, etc... are all targets of the anti-gun lobby's "reasonable" restrictions. posted 06/30/2008 at 13:04:56

"The "slippery slope," however, is now gone. The U.S. Supreme Court took it off the table Thursday in their D.C. v. Heller opinion. Government is now barred from "taking away" the guns of law-abiding Americans." -Paul Helmke

Except that Paul Helmke fails to acknowledge the lunacy going on all around him, right in his own back yard. In DC, Lanier, Fenty, and the VPC are already trying to justify the ban on semi-auto handguns, equating them to "machine guns."

Paul, what is YOUR stance on semi-auto handguns?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/28/gun-control-still-in-force-chief-says/

Now more than ever, do gun owners need to be vigilant in this continued fight to protect what is already an inalienable right to protect one's self. Gun banners will continue to seek out every loophole, every caveat, every excuse to infringe upon our rights.

Paul is simply offering false security to those on the pro-rights side. A peace offering. "Don't worry, we're not out to ban your guns, let's work together for "common sense."

Like the common sense being displayed in DC now? No thanks.

We may have received a nice shot in the arm for our side, but we have won nothing. posted 06/30/2008 at 11:01:01

Josh,

If semi-auto handguns are "machine guns" then why aren't they regulated by the 1934 NFA Act?
Why can law-abiding citizens purchase semi-auto handguns without going through a Class 3 dealer?

You should know this, being an FFL holder yourself and all. posted 06/30/2008 at 13:15:32

Reduce crime? posted 06/27/2008 at 14:32:17

Josh,

Allow me to collect myself. All of that spinning in your blog has got me a bit dizzy.

Now, I know that in order to promote your agenda, you have to include the 17,000 suicides per year in the 30,000 gun death statistics. I know you have to include 25 year olds as children in your child gun accident/death statistics. But now to equate semi-automatic handguns as "machine guns?" For real? For real for real???

I'm assuming that in addition to your FFL, you also have a class 3 dealer license then? You know, to ahve all those "machine guns" in your inventory?! posted 06/27/2008 at 13:44:55

Nice! Jadegold is back from hiatus!

jade, care to provide per capita crime statistics for the UK and compare them the the US?

WITHOUT fudging the census statistics like you did with Chicago, please. posted 06/27/2008 at 13:27:56

How 'bout it.

I guess drive-by postings are welcome here as long as it contains some kind of uneducated conservative bashing which can't be substantiated. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:32:25

Do you have a source to substantiate that that is occurring in the other 48 states which don't infringe upon the 2nd Amendment?

Didn't think so. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:43:47

What's radical about affirming what the 2nd Amendment states?

Save your liberal GOP bashing rhetoric for the Obama blogs. Leave the constitutional issues to people who can actually debate them. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:21:42

Instead of making uneducated and unsubstantiated chit-chat, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the Heller case and the SCOTUS ruling yourself instead regurgitating all of that spoon-fed rhetoric.

Unless like other sheeple, you enjoy being led around the pasture by emotionalism? posted 06/26/2008 at 12:08:29

This poor poor man. Another victim of gun violence. Police certianly didn't have to shoot him. When are we going to seriously start addressing gun violence to stop this epidemic of violent crime.

"A 27-year-old man stopped his truck on a two-lane country road near a dairy ranch on Saturday night. The area is about 10 miles west of downtown Turlock and 20 miles south of Modesto.

The man removed the toddler, who appeared to be one to two years old, from a car seat and threw him on the ground behind his truck. According to the Associated Press the began to brutally beat the little boy by kicking, punching and stomping him to death.

The police officer then shot and killed the suspect. The baby was taken to Emanuel Medical Center in Turlock and was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. "


http://www.suntimes.com/news/blogentries/index.html?bbPostId=Cz7sXeT87w4rGBCfXKodTve1JB79mhW6iTxABB1ABhbwpnc5R&bbParentWidgetId=B8k88rWwXopuz5STgLeVwBLu posted 06/25/2008 at 16:08:11

Luckily, but it just goes to show how much safer the world would be if people could only buy one hammer per month. posted 06/25/2008 at 10:22:17

Interesting situation.

A 13 year old The Children(tm) illegally possessing a handgun accidentally shoots himself in the leg during a botched armed robbery.

Paul, which category are you going to put this the Children(tm) into? The Children(tm) harmed by gun violence, criminal with easy access to handguns, inevitable Gun Violence because the NRA supports Arming school The Children(tm) with Nukes and Bazookas(tm), criminal armed with a gun undoubtedly straw purchased through the Gun Show Loophole(tm)?

I think I'll stick with the whole failure to address societal issues argument. posted 06/24/2008 at 12:38:16

kave-

Why didn't I think of that. How simple. Now all we need to do is get the word out that it is illegal to drink and drive, and our DUI problems will be gone.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll start verifying my sources from now on. posted 06/24/2008 at 12:17:16

Remember folks. It is evil black rifles, .50 cal's, and the ability to purchase more than one handgun per month which is the reason for society's violence problem. Certainly not our inability to address social problems which allow 13 and 15 year olds to commit armed robbery:

"A 15-year-old boy is being charged as an adult with an armed robbery Saturday night in south Bethlehem, which ended with his alleged 13-year old accomplice accidentally shooting himself in the leg.

Drafton Eugene Jones, 15, of 426 Pierce St. is in Northampton County Prison, charged with 12 counts -- five of them felonies -- stemming from the robbery, which took place on the street near his home."


http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b3_4shot.6473482jun24,0,1818850.story

Remember, when you ban weapons, you directly addressing the social issues which motivate 13 and 15 year olds to commit crime.

When you ban weapons, you are also fixing all of the social problems which foster violence.

When you ban weapons, crime and violence will disappear. posted 06/24/2008 at 08:57:57

Here's the actual bill, Kell, (A2116 NJ) which I believe Paul and the BC fully support. Care to comment?

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A2500/2116_I1.HTM

And here's Guscoria blatently misrepresenting it:


http://www.wzbntv25.com/WZBN_News_Video_Player.html?dfile=New_Gun_Laws_6-16-08.flv

The Brady Campaign et al never met a gun they didn't want to ban..... posted 06/21/2008 at 16:21:42

Maybe you'd like to respond to mine then, (above) instead? posted 06/20/2008 at 14:44:04

Here ya go, Solitude. Kelli has a bit of difficulty with research if it doesn't come from Crime Magazine:

"...but he would collide poetically with Al Gore, using Gore as the whipping boy for his famous speech at a Charlotte NRA raly in 2000: "When the loss of liberty looms as it does now, this is for those who would take it -- and especially for you, Mr. Gore -- from my -- cold -- dead -- hands!"

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/the-hollywood-deal/2008/04/07/charlton-heston-gave-em-all-hell

Yeah, real damaging comments.

She must be ok with the 1st Amendment and the music industry however, as Warrant's "Ode to Tipper Gore" and Ice T's rant about Al and Tipper's niece on "Cop Killer" were much more perverse.

How 'bout it, Kell? posted 06/20/2008 at 12:35:24

Sorry, D! Didn't see your post until after I posted mine. Funny how the truth has a tendency to be repeated, hugh? posted 06/20/2008 at 10:00:41

Impossible. Japan regulates and bans guns.

"Japan's grim reputation as one of the world's suicide nations has been confirmed by statistics that show more than 30,000 people a year have taken their own lives since figures first began to rise in 1998. In 2006, there were 32,115 suicides - 25 per 100,000 people; nearly 100 people a day; one every 15 minutes. The most common hour of death is 5am for men and noon for women, after their families have left for work or school.

Japan has roughly half the population of the US, yet the same number of suicides. There were 5,554 suicides of people aged 15 and over in the UK in 2006; three quarters involved men."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/japan.mentalhealth

Kelli, MMimi, Jadego.. (oops!, maybe when you're allowed back, jade), care to explain? posted 06/20/2008 at 09:48:02

¢ Five people killed at Northern Illinois University

¢ Seven people killed at Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE

¢ Two people were killed at a mall in Kansas City, MO

¢ Four people were injured by 15 rounds shot into a middle school in Fort Gibson, Oklahoma

¢ Six high school girls in Baily, Colorado were held hostage and sexually assaulted by a gunman.

¢ Thirteen people were shot and killed at Columbine High School in Colorado.

¢ Seven people, including an unarmed security guard, were murdered by a gunman in Redlake, Minnesota.

¢ Seven people were shot and killed in a Golita, California post office.

¢ Five people were dead after a gunman opened fire at a mall in Salt Lake City, Utah.

All Gun Free Zones, Kell. I wish you'd realize how ignorant you sound when you not only argue a position which is a proven failure, but also provide not a shred of logic to support it.

So sad. posted 06/20/2008 at 09:07:35

Kelli,

Are you being sarcastic or are you really THAT ignorant?

"However, we can ~ & do ~ learn a great deal on how to prevent violence when we consider actual events like NIU, Virginia Tech, etc ... as horrific & disturbing as they are!" -shedancesaroundthetruth

What did we learn besides the fact that gun free zones don't prevent violence??

Really really sad. posted 06/19/2008 at 16:30:06

But Doug Pennington said that the BC filed their amicus brief supporting DC's ban "only to influence SCOTUS."

You don't believe him?

Me either. posted 06/19/2008 at 13:08:55

Good question. Just like I'm wondering who at the Brady Campaign must now sit down and drop Wiskonsin's grade since they issued their 1st CCW:

MADISON, Wis. - Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has issued the first permit to carry a concealed weapon to a retired Justice Department investigator.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-concealedcarry,0,5407443.story posted 06/19/2008 at 11:16:23

Doug Pennington.......paging Doug Pennington.......

Doug, weren't you saying that the BC didn't advocate gun bans? But the BC supports GFZ's right? So I'm confused. If you don't advocate gun bans, then how is it that you support the DC.....er......handgun/functional firearms ban, and support GFZ's where.....er.......guns are banned?

Oh yeah, you're just trying to influence SCOTUS..... posted 06/19/2008 at 11:08:02

Haha! I guess when truth in on your side, redundancy is inevitable..... posted 06/19/2008 at 09:55:47

"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," -Peter Hamm, spokesperson for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership.

http://www.concealedcampus.org/brady_campaign_response.htm

This is Brady "common sense." Gun Free Zones(tm) have already been proven ineffective at stopping violent crime, and in fact, can be argued that it actually exacerbates the level of danger since it allows criminals to systematically execute unarmed citizens without any resistence. Now you see why magazine capacity is a moot issue when a criminal has an abundance of time to reload, and reload, and reload, while students are herded together like cattle, waiting to die.

Faced with the compound issue of both the ineffectiveness of GFZ's and grassroots movements (SCCC) to shed light on this travesty and allow law-abiding citizens to exercize their rights, the Brady's simply advocate that you drop out of school instead of being concerned about personal safety.

Then, the PR stunt to trivialize the movement:

"We know very clearly that they were organized and they are funded by the gun industry, by the companies that are selling the guns. This is not some spontaneous, grassroots organization." -Peter Hamm, referencing Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

http://www.concealedcampus.org/brady_campaign_response.htm

Paul, what do you call it when a ball player breaks out of his slump and goes 48 for 50, as in States allowing some form of CCW? posted 06/19/2008 at 09:32:22

There you go again, over-generalizing firearm accidents as common place when in fact they have been proven a statistical anomaly.

I'm really glad you called attention to that whole over-generalization issue. Makes sense.

I love how the anti's seem to imply that there should be a zero-tolerance standard when it comes to firearms when there are other consumer goods out there which are responsible for far more accidents per year than firearms? posted 06/17/2008 at 16:15:46

My link to the cop story would be an over-generalization had I prefaced it with something to the effect that I thought ALL cops were dirty and that none of them could be trusted. However, since I didn't say that, I'm not sure how you are drawing your conclusion.

What I meant to imply by the story, was that if ONE cop could demonstrate such crookedness, who's to say that there couldn't be some other bad seeds out there? In any town, any city?

I just find kelli's unquestioning trust in LEO a little naive. Esp. since they're the only ones she wants armed. posted 06/17/2008 at 16:09:34

Well how else is Rosie O'Donnell going to get her kids to school?! posted 06/17/2008 at 15:40:48

"The point is not their own bad judgment but instead, how easily one can nitpick the few bad apples out of the bunch and generalize based on an extremely (!) limited sample size. I would've thought even you, melon, could see the apparent flaws in this broad over-generalization."

Oh, wait a minute. You mean like when anti's like yourself and jadegold over-generalize all law abiding gun owners as NRA extremists who only care about arming The Children(tm) with bazookas and nukes?

Or overgeneralizing "assault weapons" as killing machines when they are used in 2.9% of murders?

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. posted 06/17/2008 at 15:39:20

Remember folks, Kelli only wants law enforcement to have access to firearms because they are trained professionals.

"A NYC police officer has pleaded guilty to Federal charges of robbing a bank in Berks County at gun point...."

http://wfmz.com/view/?id=283743 posted 06/17/2008 at 15:04:21

I'm going to give Dennis Henigan a reprieve this time around; the look on he and Paul's faces during that presser is priceless enough! posted 06/17/2008 at 13:57:58

Maybe Dennis Henigan just really really REALLY believes in the collective right argument THAT strongly........

What's that old saying about lying so much that you start to believe it to be fact? posted 06/17/2008 at 09:45:32

Oh my. That folks, is CLASSIC jadegold.

What a treat we are getting today. posted 06/16/2008 at 23:11:14

"Lets get some things done to deal with gun violence. Let's show that gun control could work if we tried it in this country..." -Paul Helmke

http://blog.nysrpa.org/?p=1408

More laws, folks. All we need is more laws. Plain and simple.

Wow. posted 06/16/2008 at 23:08:16

Doug Pennington.....paging Doug Pennington..........

http://blog.nysrpa.org/?p=1408


I don't know, Doug. Seems to me the Brady Campaign isn't as gun friendly as you claim it to be...

"Most of those challenges will likely be brought by criminal defendants trying to escape prosecution..." -Dennis Henigan on lawsuits subquent to Heller decision.

"Right wing activists judges...." -Dennis Henigan

And STILL harping on the militia/collective right.

Yeah, Doug. We believe you. ; ) posted 06/16/2008 at 23:01:28

While jadegold spends monday morning greasing up the bearings on his "Wheel-O-Numbers" (you know, the one where he got the 9.7 million figure for Chicago's population), it is obvious that some of the WD-40 vapors have distorted his perception of reality.

HIs own link demonstrates the downward trend for support of gun control. It also shows that nearly 2/3's of Americans believe in the Individual right argument, a reduction in the percentage of those who believe gun laws should be more strict, reduction in the percentage of those who feel handguns should be banned, reduction in the percentage of those who feel we need to pass new gun laws, reduction in the percentage of those who favor AWB, reduction in the percentage who oppose concealed carry, and a reduction in the percentage of those who believe stricter gun laws would reduce crime. All this from a poll where the majority of the respondents DID NOT OWN a firearm.

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm

But remember, TRENDS are only important when talking about the alleged declination of gun ownership in the US. For all other issues, it is ok to flip flop between actual numbers and trends.

Poor jade. posted 06/16/2008 at 10:42:32

Stop.....humor time!

http://vpc.org/Amici%20comparison%20list.pdf

Read the 1st paragraph of this document and then, you know, actually read the list. Especially the last entries regarding the members of congress.

Also, if you took out the words "domestic" and "violence" it would eliminate about 3/4 of that "broad" support to DC's Amici briefs.

Do they really believe that sheeple, I mean, people can't read? posted 04/02/2008 at 13:07:35

Yeah, guns are the problem with our society's violent tendencies. If you seriously believe that then you are ignorant.

When 8-10 year olds are plotting attacks against their teachers, there's a much LARGER problem with society. Like inadequate parenting.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cops-say-3rd-graders-plotted-attack/20080401150309990001 posted 04/02/2008 at 12:30:38

Yeah, real civilized. A call to ban kitchen knives because of uncontrollable stabbings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Maybe the next "civilized" thing to do would be to ban the wheel because of automobile deaths?

Standaman-
The Bazooka & Nuke argument has been beated like a dead horse. You might want to come up with an original one. posted 04/02/2008 at 11:00:39

What Kelli is saying is that she will use the "civilians are not as well trained as LEO" argument when pro-rights people argue the self-defense right, but will also chastise proactive measures taken by civilians to better familiarize themselves with their weapons and safety procedures. You should know by now that unless it's ok'd by Paul Helmke, Kelli won't se the logic. posted 04/04/2008 at 08:49:53

That's the beauty of self defense....options to suit everyone's comfort and needs. As long as you're comfortable and proficient in what you use, that's all that matters. posted 04/03/2008 at 12:49:39

Kel! Where've ya been? I missed you!

Who said anything about military use? I was talking about defensive tactical situations. I was offering my opinion about my preferred choice of home defense weapon. Like I said, I prefer a handgun over a rifle for the home (and vehicle).

But you DID enlighten me. Speaking of military uses, I suppose my M1 Carbine could be a sufficient home defense weapon. Short, hi-capacity, mobile...hell, it is a piece of Americana which helped win WWII.!!

Thanks Kel!! posted 04/03/2008 at 12:47:07

From my vantage point, I am more concerned about mobility in tactical situations. Faced with the possibility to having to move from room to room, hallway to hallway, etc... my primary concern is dexterity with the weapon. You can argue penetration, expansion, muzzle velocity and all of the details, but I would not trade a .45 for home defense for anything. MAYBE a shorty shotgun, but even then, I am more comfortable with a large caliber handgun. posted 04/02/2008 at 11:33:40

During the Heller arguments, the anti's argued that there was no evidence suggesting that a handgun is a better self defense weapon than a rifle/shotgun. Now, even though the Heller case specifically deals with home protection, this story made me think about the issue in every day situations where law-abiding citizens could encounter a self-defense scenario:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/driver-found-shot-in-freeway-wreck/20080331075509990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Now, aside from the issue of this happending in the Brady's utopian A-rated state of Kalifornia (how does gun violence continue in a state with such draconian gun control laws?), could you imagine trying to defend yourself from within your vehicle with a rifle or a shotgun? posted 03/31/2008 at 09:43:01

The problem with the anti-gunner's (see solitude and kelli's posts below) is that they like to use the technology advancement argument to muddy the right of self protection. I always said that I would be on board 100% with mandatory waiting periods as long as 1) If you already have a valid carry permit or are not a 1st time gun purchaser, you are EXEMPT (why would you need to wait to purchase a firearm if you already have one and have already demonstrated proficiency with the one you own?)... and 2) If you are a 1st time gun purchaser, the State which is regulating the waiting period was obligated to IMMEDIATELY provide you with an armed LEO for 24/7 personal protection for the duration of the waiting period.

Waiting periods are, in essence, implying that you must WAIT to exercise your right to self protection. Sounds kinda "infringy" when you put it in those terms though, hugh?

To tell someone who is purchasing a firearm because of a credible or self perceived immediate threat to their safety that they must WAIT because some yahoo politician with their own personal armed guards "feels" that it is better they wait, is a crock.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms after an arbitrary waiting period deemed appropriate by a government entity, shall not be infringed???"

Don't think so. posted 03/30/2008 at 10:08:35

And here it is, folks. While Paul and his ilk are pestering the law-abiding with their frivolous legislation, our judicial system is hard at work making sure felons are getting off easy...

http://blogs.bet.com/music/soundOff/?p=210#comment-6077

Also, take a look at the comments. Now this is not meant to be prejudicial in anyway, but when you have a whole culture which accepts that type of behavior, maybe we should start looking at changing THAT thought pattern instead of focusing on implements. And before the anti"s claim that I am racist, I am pointing to the "urban culture" not a specific race.

Where is Jesse Jackson when you REALLY need someone to relate to the urban populace? Probably protecting in front of some mom and pop gun shop i'd imagine. posted 03/28/2008 at 10:07:51

"Reasoned Discourse(tm)" posted 03/27/2008 at 11:14:31

"Will of the People(tm)" posted 03/27/2008 at 11:14:20

solitude-

How does your example (from wsbtv) have any relation or bearing on MY inherent (and soon-to-be clarified) individual right to self-protection?

Your example, while tragic, represents what, something like under 1% of per capita deaths (accidental deaths caused by firearms) in the US? So my inherent right to protect myself and my family should be infringed upon because of a statistical anomoly?

I'd like to see you argue that same logic as it pertains to medical malpractice. posted 03/27/2008 at 09:35:33

Wow. Had I known that the personal attack section of the blogs were THIS far down I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to stir up actual intellectual debate up on top, Kel. Are you and solitude a tag-team now? posted 03/26/2008 at 12:45:22

Once again the logic (or obvious lack there of) baffles me. Let's look for the possibility of guns instead of known criminals.

solitude, you aren't the same person who bashes the WMD argument are you? posted 03/26/2008 at 11:57:15

Principle, my friend.

How many man hours and subsequent wages are going to be paid out to police this new "initiative?" Why don't they place more beat cops on the corners of high crime areas, you know, where the CRIMINALS are?

More cops in the homes of law-abiding citizens carrying-out futile searches means less cops actually DOING THEIR JOB. Why not send out flyers containing an anonymous tip line where people can call to report the possibility of illegal possession of a firearm? posted 03/26/2008 at 11:37:41

Talk about Hitler calling Stalin a Communist.........

So, Kel, you telling me that I don't have the right to self protection just because you "feel safer" when people aren't carrying firearms (legally)? Since when does a self-perceived "feeling" trump a constitutional right?

Do you actually believe the drivel that eminates from your mouth or are you just THAT conditioned into believing that "everything gun" is bad?

I "feel" safer when motorists drive at least 10mph slower than the posted speed limit on the highway. Does my personal feelings about safe speed trump the law which governs legal speed limits? posted 03/26/2008 at 11:17:09

I am now convinced that the Anti's really have not yet made the correlation between crime and who commits crime. You would think it would be easy, you know, since the word "criminal" is very similar to the word "crime."

"Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police."

Oh, I get it, the safe homes initiative is aimed at LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, you know, those who are willing to cooperate with police.

One of these days the Anti's will realize that in order to combat crime, you have to actually target the CRIMINAL. posted 03/26/2008 at 09:20:45

So Kel, keeping criminals off the streets is more absurd of an argument than regulating implements? Are you serious? And it even sounds like you've already thrown in the towel on the overcrowding issue. So just because our prisons are overcrowded, incarceration of criminals is no longer a sane solution?

Was there something in your pancakes this morning?? posted 03/24/2008 at 12:55:42

"4) Registering BULLETS. (Gotta like Chris Rock's idea -- make each bullet cost $1k. You'll think twice about puttin a cap in someone's ass.)
5) Considering most firearms rights types are serious about their guns, perhaps there's a way to disincentivize "Saturday night specials," either through economics at the manufacturer end or the storefront."

Hum, allow me to be presumptuous for a minute....you are not racist are you? Because your advocation of #4 and #5 seem only to target a specific socio-economic cross-section of society. Are you really taking the position that only people who can afford expensive guns and ammunition have a right to self defense?
posted 03/24/2008 at 12:48:18

'tude,

Can you cite any specific examples of a gun "just going off?" When you say "going off" do yuo mean, like the kids today say, "going off the hook" or do you mean the actual discharge of the weapon?? posted 03/24/2008 at 12:37:53

Why are all of your proposals focused on the implements themselves instead of a long range goal (and more appropriate goal) of addressing the behavior which is at the root of ALL forms of crime? It is this specific illogical thought pettern that baffles me.

It is power and control issues which are the root cause of most rapes. Not the gun which forces victim compliance, and certainly not the genitalia.

It is a deteoriation of self image which is the cause of anorexia or bulimea, not a love/hate relationship of twinkies which leads to binging and purging.

Likewise for "cutters." It is not the availability to razorblades which causes people to cut themselves.

It is opportunism coupled with socio-economic struggle and feeling of "have-not" (among other things) which causes theft and burglary, not the weapon or the getaway car.

I can go on and on.....

What good is regulation when we have not sufficiently reached out to curb the REASON for violent crime? Certainly a person as astute as yourself would not take the position that an implement turns an otherwise "law-abiding" person into a criminal, would you?

But that is what you imply when you focus on regulation of implements. Does regulating bullets solve the problem of an inner city bastard child not having a solid male object as a role model? Does it put food on the table and pay the bills?

I respect your intellectual thoughts, but in the end, they are no more relevant to solving the true root of crime than solitude's personal attacks. posted 03/24/2008 at 12:04:09

You didn't. Feel free to continue with your irrelevant wittiness. posted 03/24/2008 at 11:45:29

"The originalists are floundering, because in 1791, the concern was to allow citizens to have at home any weapons then available."

Is it your position then that the Founding Fathers intended to include cannons as a "reasonable Arm" for unrestricted possession by the general citizenry for purposes of self-defense? I'm asking this because many who use the "rocket launcher" and "nukes" argument don't ever make that correlation. posted 03/24/2008 at 11:43:37

Molon Labe, solitude. posted 03/24/2008 at 08:50:32

I completely agree with you, but that would entail legalization (or at least decriminalization) of drug use and I just don't think our country is ready for that step. There are too many agencies making too much money off of The War On Drugs(tm).

The LEAST we could do is double the size of urban police forces with the money wasted on anti-gun legislation. Our streets aren't safe because there are inadequately staffed police forces policing them.

posted 03/24/2008 at 08:45:48

" I think they will have no choice but to uphold each state's or localities rights to enact their own gun laws for the good of their citizenry." posted 03/25/2008 at 09:00:47

"No one with any realistic, rational thought processes would really believe that the historical authors were thinking about guns in the way in which we must now discuss them..." posted 03/25/2008 at 08:49:36

I love it!

When it favors the anti-rights campaign, it is called "common sense."

When it opposes the anti-rights campaign, it is called "Judicial Activism(tm)."

So Josh, who are the anti's going to appeal to once SCOTUS rules in favor of true "common sense?" posted 03/24/2008 at 13:06:53