Thursday, December 20, 2012

Disarming Americans is Not the Answer

Emotions are running high throughout our troubled land right now, and understandably so, in light of the horrific massacre of twenty innocent young children and seven adults at the hands of a mentally deranged gunman last Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  I have had decidedly very un-Christian thoughts regarding the evil done at the hands of this killer myself.  That said, there are many people that are letting emotion overcome their sense of reason.  That can only serve to exacerbate an already terrible problem.

Already there are well-meaning, if not well-informed, people that are petitioning for greater gun control from our White House, as if that would have prevented this problem.  And of course, there are the opportunistic and cynical politicians that are abiding by Rahm Emanuel’s dictate to “let no good crisis go to waste”. 

I even saw a blog listing various Facebook posts from some despicable people calling for the murder of the NRA president and its members as their proposed solution to this gruesome problem.  Evidently those geniuses are unaware of the fact that the National Rifle Association has always adamantly supported that felons and the mentally ill not have access or ownership of firearms and have worked with law enforcement accordingly. 

There have also been a slew of people calling for the repeal of the second amendment.  I cannot help but shake my head in sadness and some disgust that these likely well-meaning people would want to disarm themselves thereby making even greater evils a possibility on down the road.

The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

Now there is a very good reason why our founders placed this amendment as the second one to our Constitution.  The people, that means individual Americans, have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of and by necessity to “secure a free State” and the Supreme Court clearly ruled that this is an individual right in supporting that understanding. 

Many gun-control advocates have argued that the second amendment is a now-archaic right and was written so that the federal government could arm citizens for the national defense via militias and was not ever intended as an individual right.  After all, we have a standing army now, so there is no need for private citizens to be armed, right?  This is nonsensical because if such had been the intention of the framers of the constitution, they would have said as much in the body of the constitution where the rights, duties, obligations, and restrictions on the federal government were listed.  The fact that the right to bear arms is listed in the Bill of Rights along with the other rights guaranteed to The People, clearly indicates that this was always intended to be an individual right, and so it absolutely must be. 
  
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  - Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

  
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” -- George Washington

  
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
 
Disarming law-abiding citizens via more stringent gun-control legislation is hardly the answer to curbing such massacres.  As long as there are people in our society that are bent on doing evil of their own free will, or because of mental illness, they will find a way to do so.  Indeed, last week in China (a land where private ownership of firearms is illegal) a deranged man with a knife stabbed 22 children. 

Even with this horrible crime in Connecticut last week, the very tough gun control laws already enacted and the “gun-free zone” signs on the elementary school did not dissuade this person bent on committing evil.

Putting aside any emotional aversion one might have towards firearms, think how different an outcome there might have been in Sandy Hook Elementary and how many kids could have been saved if only the Principal or one of the teachers had been carrying a firearm.  Creating gun free zones like schools, or the theater in Aurora, Colorado where the evil  person killed twelve people earlier this year, only ensures that the perpetrators’ victims will be unarmed and easier targets accordingly.

Indeed, overshadowed by this horrific slaughter last week was the sad, but not nearly as tragic killing of two people at the Clackamas Towne Center mall in suburban Portland, Oregon that previous Tuesday.  The person that was responsible for those killings was well-armed with an AR-15 and had a bullet proof vest on at the time.  How come this man who had thirty round magazines was unable to kill more than two people in a very crowded mall of Christmas shoppers?  It is because one of the patrons at the mall, Nick Meli, was legally carrying a concealed fire arm.  When the shooting started, he drew his weapon and the evil perpetrator saw him.

“He was working on his rifle,” said Meli.  ”He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”  The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.  “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.  Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.  “I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli.  “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

The gunman knew that there was a citizen that was armed and wasn’t going to be an easy victim.  All of a sudden, his plans for massacre were curtailed.  He now had to worry about being killed himself before fully implementing his plan.  Nick Meli saved untold lives in that mall last week simply by drawing his weapon and not even firing a shot.  How come this profound lesson is not being reported in the media? 

Back in 2007, a lone shooter entered the “gun-free” Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City and opened fire.  He killed five people and managed to injure many others.  The only reason why there weren’t more deaths or injuries is because an off-duty police officer was eating dinner at one of the mall restaurants with his family.  When he heard the shooting, he quickly secured his family, drew his firearm and managed to pin down the assailant until other police arrived.  Had an armed person not been there to stop this evil man, dozens more people could easily have been killed – all in a gun free “safe” area.

In 1997, a sixteen year old boy bludgeoned his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School which he attended.  He shot and killed his girlfriend that had broken up with him and one other person.  The assistant principal, Joel Myrick, went to his vehicle, retrieved his legally owned .45 pistol, and subdued the evil shooter until police arrived.  Again, an armed citizen prevented the likely killing of many more innocent people accordingly.

Perhaps it is time we start talking about real solutions to these too-common mass killings.  Outlawing firearms in violation of the second amendment is not the answer.  Indeed that will only inflame an already horrible problem and ensure that future people will more likely be victims without the ability to defend themselves.  I know the pain and outrage that many Americans are feeling because of this horrific evil.  I share that with them.  We need to work to decrease the likelihood of these problems and not react in knee-jerk fashion to disarm those citizens that are law-abiding so that they are unable to adequately defend themselves and their loved ones. 

Benjamin Franklin understood it quite well: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

45 comments:

jim marquis said...

You left out the most important part of the China story...none of those childen ended up dying.

T. Paine said...

Jim, no offense is meant, my friend, but is that your best rebuttal to the information I provided?

If you click on the link, you will see in the story that other knife attacks have occurred there and 20 other kids HAVE been killed in the past, so even then, your argument doesn't hold water, sir.

Anonymous said...

"And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "
Thomas Jefferson

T. Paine said...

Anonymous, I was always just slightly uneasy with that quotation from Thomas Jefferson -- until now when I see that the preservation of our liberties are indeed in jeopardy.

Dave Dubya said...

I know of one mother who fatally bought into the idea of safety through firearms.

One liberty we don't have is freedom from mass killings.

I am a firearm owner, but I certainly support sane restrictions on civilian-owned weapons. A line needs to be drawn. We can still have our Second Amendment rights without owning machine guns and mortars. The same would be true without thirty round magazines in military rifles. Is it "tyranny" to have only a ten round magazine?

When the NRA starts paying for armed school guards I'll listen to them. And when Republicans start authorizing more tax dollars for mental health treatment, I'll listen to them. All I hear now is "slippery slope" politics as usual.

When will I ever hear compromise from the ideologues?

S.W. Anderson said...

"The second amendment states, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'”

The first thing you have to understand is what the framers of the Constitution meant by "well regulated militia." The Revolutionary War was fought largely by volunteers, most of whom were farmers. The Continental Army had relatively few full-time, professional soldiers, so reliance on volunteers was a necessity. Many volunteer farmers left the fight at planting and harvest times because their families' livelihood depended on having crops and getting them in. So did the country, to have enough food to get through winter. Those volunteer farmers typically brought their own muskets with them when they showed up to fight. That was important, too.

Where the NRA, especially, and gung-ho gun enthusiasts go astray about the Second Amendment is in claiming that any and all Americans who own a gun somehow constitute "a well regulated militia." They don't, not by any sane, sensible definition. Today's civilian gun owners bear no more relationship to the volunteer farmers who mustered in to fight the British nearly two and a half centuries ago than a bunch of today's fishing/pleasure boat owners have to the U.S. Navy.

Unlike 238 years ago, we have a sizable, well-trained and equipped professional military. Augmenting that, we have today's rendition of a well regulated militia of volunteers in the National Guard and reserves. By simple definition, those organizations are well regulated. By simple definition, every Tom, Dick and Harry who owns a Glock, a deer rifle or an AR-15 is just a gun owner. There's nothing well regulated about them, where national security is concerned.

The answer to gun violence is not to add more guns in the hands of more people. You can come up with anecdotal evidence of gun-toting citizens preventing or lessening the fatalities caused by a crazed gunman, I'm sure. I heard a group of law enforcement professionals having a panel discussion of that on C-SPAN a few years ago. They acknowledged that such things can and do occur, but overall were not the least bit enthusiastic about average citizens with a gun intervening in a shooting inicident or crime scene. They know and they stressed the importance of training and experience in dealing with situations like that, and the added danger to bystanders and officers if some Barney Fife type gets it wrong. Then, there's the very real danger that police arriving at the scene will mistake the gun-toting citizen trying to stop the shooter for the criminal, possibly with fatal consequences. That kind of mistake very nearly happened in the parking lot where Rep. Gabrielle Gifford was shot by Jared Loughner.

I'm sure you can find anti-guns/anti-NRA people making extreme and ridiculous comments on blogs. I'm I can come up with equally extreme and ridiculous statements by pro-gun/pro-NRA types on other blogs.

The thing to keep in mind is that no one in a position of responsibility in government that I know of is suggesting wholesale banning of guns. Suggested reforms I'm aware of make sense: ban combat arms such as semiautomatic rifles; limit clip capacity; close the gun show loophole; and require psychological screening for gun buyers.

Reforms such as those strike most Americans as moderate, reasonable and necessary. Opposing them as if they're the end of the world and claiming the Second Amendment guarantees some absolute right to own and carry any weapon anywhere, anytime will only serve to alienate the public against gun enthusiasts, revealing too many of them as completely unreasonable, unbalanced extremists who are part of the problem, not the solution.

S.W. Anderson said...

"Anonymous, I was always just slightly uneasy with that quotation from Thomas Jefferson -- until now when I see that the preservation of our liberties are indeed in jeopardy."

Nonsense. If you define liberty as the unquestioned right to own a semiautomatic rifle, a mortar or a barrel full of grenades, and the right to carry and use them as you deem fit and necessary, you're no friend of liberty. You're a threat to civilized society.

Wise up and see the black-helicopters, secret detention camps paranoid delusions and propagandizing for what it is. You're being used and manipulated.

The days of the Old West, of the wide-open frontier with sparse population, little "professional" law enforcement and six-gun justice belong to history. We're a country settled, mature and populated with 330 million people. We have professional soldiers and police. Like it or not, you're living in the 21st century, and you can't conduct yourself in the manner of 150 or more years ago. Society won't tolerate it.

General Urko said...

I hate to correct Mr. Paine, but Ben Franklin was talking about economic freedom in his famous quote that you note. He was not talking about civil liberties like gun ownership. However, he understood that once you gave up economic freedom your civil liberties are soon to follow. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with a list of less expensive welfare programs have all attacked our economic freedom. As the government gets bigger and bigger by taking our tax dollars for programs that will or are failing, the people get more anxious then the natural step is to curb civil liberties. No, the current economic problems did not cause the young man in question to shoot a bunch of children. However, we lurch towards restricting civil freedoms as we feel weaker economically due to government largess, which proves Franklin correct.

I wanted to also talk about some of the misnomers made by some about the Second Amendment. The Founders absolutely believed in personal firearm ownership or for people to decide not to own firearms. It would be inconceivable to them that government could own weapons, but every day Americans cannot. Furthermore, gun ownership has skyrocketed in this country over the last ten years and gun violence has dropped tremendously. Do they correlate? Maybe? Maybe not? The answer is it doesn't matter. Why? Those facts alone disproves that ownership alone by law abiding citizens does not increase gun deaths or gun violence.

Government's social programs are what cause the problem. Their incessant meddling in the private lives via the welfare system is the cause of poverty and all the ills that comes with it. Now, this young man seems to come from a well to do family, but most gun violence is perpetrated in the poor neighborhoods in which I grew up in one, so I have taste for it. Although, we were more likely to resort to fist in my town instead of a gun to settle a dispute. Why is that? The vast majority of us still lived in two parent homes and were from the working poor. However, that same neighborhood, while bad when I lived there, is even worse today due to welfare programs making it more profitable to sit around then work at a low end job. Welfare has promoted the one parent family in which it has devastated the black neighborhoods. Before the famous "War on Poverty" by Democrats in the 1960s, we had 75% of black children born to two parent families. The opposite is true now. We had just about 100% of white children born to two parent families. Now, that number is at 50% and you will find 50% of hispanic children are born to one parent families. We know that one parent families will overwhelmingly produce poverty and from that comes crime, which means gun violence. While we concentrate on government taking our liberties because of some disaffected upper middle class white kid shooting up a school, we need to focus on what is causing this problem which is government running our lives. Until we curb welfare and government largesse, we will never cure gun violence or I should say minimize it. You may say well violence is down. But at what cost? We are incarcerating more and more people. Is that how we want to fix this problem? We want to do it by putting more people in jail and curbing our liberties. No! We don't even want people buying guns because they believe that things have totally gotten out of hand. Americans need to take a serious look at how government has caused our culture to be less religious, more course, less caring about human life, less family oriented, and that my friends starts by looking at ourselves then limiting government to the confines of the Constitution not curbing our liberties or making it even bigger.

T. Paine said...

Unfortunately that mother did not have her firearms locked up so that only she had access to them. Sad, but not very smart, considering she had a mentally unstable son.

No civilians are allowed to own fully automatic machine guns or mortars and never have been able to do so. That argument is fallacious, Dave.

It would be tyranny to allow criminals to have access to AR-15’s and 30-round magazines when we law-abiding citizens aren’t.

I agree that the government needs to fund mental health care for those that cannot afford it. This is an area where you and I concur. As for the rest of the slippery slope politics, it is amazing how often the erosion of our liberties do indeed seem to gradually slide down that hill.

As for compromise from ideologues, I think thou shouldst look into thine own mirror, sir.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Anderson, your recital of American history is indeed accurate. It was also something I acknowledged in my post, along with quotes from several of our Founders that expanded upon their intentions that all American citizens should indeed have the right to own and bear firearms regardless of militia status. Yes, we don’t need to worry about some “Red Dawn” invasion today; however, when the government starts confiscating weapons from civilians, then we have much to fear. That seemingly innocent task has been done with great atrocities following in the 20th century under leaders such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and so on. The government works for us and should have a healthy respect and fear of its civilians. It should NEVER be the other way around, because that is the beginning of tyranny. Even under well-intentioned notions of “protecting us”, greater evils can then eventually follow. While the reactionary left is currently up in arms, if you will excuse the pun, over this latest evil atrocity, there are still a vast majority of Americans that still understand that the 2nd amendment guarantees that we will retain our other rights in the Bill of Rights. This is one task where the left still has an uphill battle on their hands, and I thank God for that one small spark of sanity in America. Disarming or even restricting further law-abiding citizens of sound mind from owning any weaponry that is currently available to civilians will only ensure that the bad guys are better armed, and thus have the advantage. It shall not come to pass, as long as the Constitution is still the law of the land.

T. Paine said...

Anderson, that is a straw man argument that Dubya already attempted to make. Mortars and grenades are illegal for citizens to own and always have been. Nobody is advocating for these to be made legal any more than they want private ownership of ICBM's.

We simply don’t want further limitations placed on the law abiding, which the non-law abiding will have a defacto grand-fathering of their ownership thereof.

Further, no one is advocating we return to the days of the Wild West. That said, I have a right and a moral obligation to protect my family. If some nut case comes and starts shooting up the mall that we happen to be shopping in, I want to be armed as well as I possibly can be in order to make sure that his evil taking of innocent life is minimized as much as possible, to include my owned loved ones.

Waiting for the cops didn’t help anyone in Columbine, Aurora, or Sandy Hook. Like I said, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. How many lives could have been saved if only the principal or another teacher had a concealed weapon to stop Adam Lanza? THAT is the society we live in today, Mr. Anderson, like it or not.

As long as we still have a congress and a president that has even a semblance of respect for the Constitution, we will retain our God-given and Constitutionally-stated right to keep and bear arms. It is for protection against society and primarily government that this was so important of a right to many of our Founders. If government can take away our 2nd amendment right, then what prevents them from taking away the rest of them – for our own good, of course?

T. Paine said...

General Urko, while your statement regarding Ben Franklin is correct, the underlying premise of his argument absolutely applies to our 2nd amendment right, and indeed all of our Constitutional rights.

As for your analysis of the root causes of violence in America, I find myself concurring with you, sir.

Anonymous said...

"The thing to keep in mind is that no one in a position of responsibility in government that I know of is suggesting wholesale banning of guns. Suggested reforms I'm aware of make sense: ban combat arms such as semiautomatic rifles; limit clip capacity; close the gun show loophole; and require psychological screening for gun buyers.

Pure B.S. Show where any one of the items you list if in place would have stopped the killings in CT? Simple question, schools are no gun zones, how did that law prevent the shootings in CT? Next, define a semiautomatic combat rifle. Why not include pistols?

If the solution to gun killings is more rules that don't work, why don't you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, take all guns from private hands, including the police and National Guard, leaving only the Federal Govt to legally have guns?
Didn't we repeal Prohibition and look how many deaths have been prevented by doing so. So it can be done with the 2nd as well. Why not, if you believe more gun control is the way to go?

Annie said...

There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period.

Ted Nugent

Just the Facts! said...

To those who know stronger gun control laws are the answer. Try this very simple experiment.

This Friday night go unarmed to gun store, gun show or shooting range nearest to you.
Next,
This Saturday night go for a walk unarmed in the nearest version to you of Detroit.
Report here:
Where did you feel the safest? Where was politeness and civilized behavior the accepted standard?

FandB said...

The second amendment is often thought of as being grammatically incorrect or poorly written, which is quite unusual in light of the superlative prose of the rest of the constitution. I believe it only appears to be grammatically incorrect because it is being interpreted incorrectly.

"A well regulated militia [i.e. army or military] being necessary to the security of a free state..." In spite of the fact that George Washington, among other of the Founding Fathers, abhorred the idea of having a standing army under the control of the federal government, it was recognized that the newly founded U.S.A. needed an army in order to protect itself from outside threats such as England, etc.

"...the right of the [PEOPLE] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the government is in control of an army (militia) to defend itself from outside threats, the PEOPLE will also have the right to possess firearms to protect themselves from the possible tyranny af the federal government whch would be enforced through its army - i.e. to protect themselves from internal or domestic threats.

This interpretation eliminates the apparent grammatical incorrectness of the 2nd Amendment, and knowing that the framers were very much artisans of the written word, in my opinion this is the only interpretation that makes sense. It also makes sense in light of the experiences and struggles of the Founding Fathers, and the fact that their desire was that men should be allowed to live their lives free of government tyranny.

In a (modernized) nutshell, since the government has to have an army to protect itself from outside threats, the PEOPLE have to have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from a government that might conceivably use that army against them.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,

... when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

This is the fear that allows for handy unlocked weapons in the first place. “Paranoia will destroy ya” or save ya, but know the odds.

No civilians are allowed to own fully automatic machine guns or mortars and never have been able to do so. That argument is fallacious,

First, that was not my argument. Read what I wrote: “I certainly support sane restrictions on civilian-owned weapons. A line needs to be drawn. We can still have our Second Amendment rights without owning machine guns and mortars. The same would be true without thirty round magazines in military rifles. Is it "tyranny" to have only a ten round magazine?”

I did not advocate confiscation. I did not advocate the repeal of the Second Amendment. I suggest some sanity similar to the logic for banning machine guns and mortars. Mmkay? It is an act of compromise. None is offered by the gun nuts. None. We all know who the “party of no compromise” is, and I cannot see them in the mirror.

Second, your statement about machine guns is fallacious. Does the St. Valentines Day Massacre ring a bell?

It would be tyranny to allow criminals to have access to AR-15’s and 30-round magazines when we law-abiding citizens aren’t.

This would be the fallacious argument. Nobody advocates this.

Criminals make bombs too. Does that mean the NRA supports a right to bear bombs? Shall we do that to “stay even”?

the government needs to fund mental health care

Yes, it does. Where is the compromise from the Right on funding such public health care? Hmm?

the erosion of our liberties do indeed seem to gradually slide down that hill\

Except for Republican initiated warrantless surveillance and restricting voter rights and opportunities, I take it.

The bottom line is unavoidable. If we never allowed the sale of military style weapons with large capacity magazines more people would be alive. What about their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Time to stop that madness. The weapon for the next slaughter can very well be waiting on the shelf to be sold. What compromise do you suggest?

FandB said...

When the time comes that We The People need to take up arms against a tyrannical progressive oppressive government, assault weapons with large magazines will be necessary. That is why progressives continue fighting to take that right away. It has nothing to do with school shootings, or crime, or hunting. It has everything to do with tyranny and the ability of the government to oppress a large part of its citizens.

Dubya has been indoctrinated thoroughly into the radical leftist progressive camp - there is no hope that he will ever be able to see the truth clearly. The leftist school system and leftist media have done their job on him. He only sees what the progressives tell him to see. Regardless of that fact, when the government attempts to prohibit the right of the people to keep and bear arms, especially when this is happening in conjunction with the government attempting to limit the rights of religious freedom, the time to take up arms is getting closer.

Anonymous said...

"Time to stop that madness. The weapon for the next slaughter can very well be waiting on the shelf to be sold."

The voters have spoken, they want another 4 years of madness. It is Obama's fault this has happened.

Dave Dubya said...

Paranoia and delusion are rampant here, I see.

You act like I advocate confiscation. I do not. I did not. I will not. I really do own firearms.

I'm just not so nuts to think I need hundred round drums to fight the US military. Guess what, you're outgunned no matter what.

Militias, the core of the Second Amendment, helped in our Revolution and protection of frontier states. They were never intended to be for sedition and insurrection.

You seem to believe the only purpose of our Constitution's Second Amendment is to promote rebellion when most voters disagree with your radical ideology. That is paranoia.

I suppose you're only equipped to argue against what you believe I think as opposed to what I actually say.

That's all part of what paranoia is. You have all the answers, just like paranoid schizophrenics. Oh, look, another conspiracy against you! No, just kidding, although you may see them along with black helicopters. Never mind the Bush warrantless surveillance, eh? Not a real issue at all. We're talkin' about freedom right?

"Obama's fault" Do you need to buy into that crazy crap too?

Why should we trust you with a weapon when you say you need it to shoot progressives?

What would you say if I told you I only keep my guns to shoot conservative wackos?

Insanity abounds. And as I said, "The bottom line is unavoidable".

Human sacrifice is the price we pay for your paranoia. You crow about freedom. Where is our freedom from mass slaughter? Form madness?
When are you going to admit we need to pay taxes for public mental health? Who's gonna pay for the crazy NRA plan for a cop in every school? That's "evil government" you feel the need to arm against, isn't it? More tax cuts for the rich won't help in any case, will they?

Insanity.

Anonymous said...

Dave,

Elections have consequences. The voters have spoken, they want four more years of the same past four years.
Obama now owns everything that happens. Isn't that the way Obama treated Bush?

Dave, what part of Senator Feinstein's proposed "gun control" law do you not like? Come on, enter the debate as a gun owner not as an ideology of the far left.

Just the Facts! said...

Question for you Dave,
as a legal owner of guns, how would you feel if your name and address was published in your local newspaper as was done by the "progressive" Gannet owned Journal News?

With your employment as a correction officer, would you be ok knowing that some of your former "guest" now know where you live?
Have you tried the experiment I offered on 12/24/12?
Noted again you blame Bush for warrantless surveillance, has Obama stopped them?
You want more taxes for mental health care, so do I but not at the FEDERAL LEVEL. At the state level is where this issue should be dealt with.
In short, nothing you have posted, short of the taking of guns out of private hands would have prevented Sandy Hook. And to be blunt, I'm not sure that would have prevented it from happening. Don't forget, the killings took place in a "gun free zone". That law didn't stop the killings.

Dave Dubya said...


JTF,
Why do you assume I approve of publishing names and addresses?

That is a tactic long used by the Right too, or do you care for that information? That is how they retaliated in fact.

It's wrong no matter who does it.

Obama continuing Bush's policies is still wrong. Look at the latest approval by the Senate and House. They care less for our civil liberties than their re-election.

Republicans don't seem to mind Obama continuing those measures at all.

The difference between you and me is I can call both D's and R's out. Your loyalty and authoritarian nature forbid questioning your anti-democracy, obstructionist Party of the Rich.

While there are no guarantees of safety, that is not an excuse to do nothing.

The bottom line still stands. Nobody, or far fewer would be killed by large magazine semi-automatic rifles if they weren't sold to the public.

Why increase the likelihood? Really, why? This seems to be just what you want. Please explain.

enter the debate as a gun owner not as an ideology of the far left.

Pay attention.

I repeat:

You act like I advocate confiscation. I do not. I did not. I will not.

Read what I wrote:

“I certainly support sane restrictions on civilian-owned weapons. A line needs to be drawn. We can still have our Second Amendment rights without owning machine guns and mortars. The same would be true without thirty round magazines in military rifles. Is it "tyranny" to have only a ten round magazine?”

I've seen nothing but NRA parroting from all of you. Who's paying for the "school shield". Are you suggesting more taxes, aka "gubmint spending", for both mental health and school defense?

How progressive. In reality Republicans will not do it. Everybody knows this.

You can ignore my bottom line all you want, but it stands. More weapons with large magazines mean more death from such weapons.

Period.

Time to limit sales of those WMD's. Nobody "needs" assault rifles with thirty and hundred round magazines.

If you can't protect your ass with a shotgun or a ten round clip, you'll lose anyway.

More Americans died here in America from those military style weapons than from the mythical WMD's we went to war in Iraq over.

What do you say we do about it? Any ideas at all that differ from his Exalted Highness La Pierre?

If you want discussion or debate you need to contribute, not just NRA parroting and demanding more from me.

I at least offer a small step towards sanity.

Say, wasn't there an armed guard at Columbine?





Just the Facts! said...

"While there are no guarantees of safety, that is not an excuse to do nothing."
Wrong! And nothing is not what is being offered. Senator Feinstein has a plan, do you support it? How about Rev. Jackson's plan to use former convicts as armed guards? Or we can make schools areas "High Capacity Magazine Free" zones. (While we are at it, how about the UN creating a SUICIDE BOMBER FREE ZONE law, and requiring all nations to agree to it? That ought to work.)

"Republicans don't seem to mind Obama continuing those measures at all."
Republicans are not in control of the office of the President or the Senate, remember? I guess it's fair to say that because those actions are continuing, the Democrats don't seem to mind at all.

"That is a tactic long used by the Right too"
Proof please.

"The bottom line still stands. Nobody, or far fewer would be killed by large magazine semi-automatic rifles if they weren't sold to the public."
What about large capacity magazines for pistols? They are ok, but the same for rifles are not?

"If you can't protect your ass with a shotgun or a ten round clip, you'll lose anyway"
What about a 11 round clip, or two 10 round clips, gonna limit them to?

"More Americans died here in America from those military style weapons than from the mythical WMD's we went to war in Iraq over."
Really wish the liberals who voted for that war would get voted out of office, don't you?

"I've seen nothing but NRA parroting from all of you. Who's paying for the "school shield"
Really?
I'm not a member of the NRA, they do not speak for me. Further, more than a 3rd of our public schools already have armed guards protecting them, so you want those guards removed?
The private school where the Mayor and the President send their kids have armed guards, what's your take on that?

"Exalted Highness La Pierre?"
Wow Dave, I can feel your progressive love all the way through the internet. I see you're still keeping it as classy as always Dave.

It is my belief that the citizens of each state need to decide if they want guards and if they do, how much to spend on guards at their public schools. I believe the same for the amount of money to be spent for mental health care. It is my belief that just like the Gun Free Zone law failed in Sandy Hook, the limitations on magazine size will also fail. But it is my belief that if the voters in a state want to limit the capacity of magazines, they have the right to do so. I think it will fail. I object to the Federal Govt being looked at as the source for funding of school guards, and mental health care.

One question Dave, what is your position on concealed carry?

Dave Dubya said...


"While there are no guarantees of safety, that is not an excuse to do nothing."

Wrong! And nothing is not what is being offered.

What part is wrong? You’re a very poor debater. And so far you continue to offer nothing, apart from what the NRA, who does not “speak for” you, says. Sounds just like they really do speak for you. Tell us anything different if they do not. How about the Republican Party? Got any different ideas than they spout? I didn’t think so.

When will the NRA offer to pay for school security? Never. In fact they lobby for the gun manufacturers who would stand to profit from our tax dollars if they had their way. That’s not offering anything. It’s taking our money, all for the promise of safety.

Say, wasn’t there an armed guard at Columbine? Why not consider other ideas? Nothing offered.

"If you can't protect your ass with a shotgun or a ten round clip, you'll lose anyway" Speaks for itself. Tell us how many cases where a person needed more than ten rounds for self-defense? Rifle or pistol. Go ahead, make my day.;-)

Proof please

You call yourself informed? Doctors who performed legal abortions have had their personal information given out. Some were even shot by your armed and dangerous “good conservative Christian “folks.

I don’t know of any conservatives shot after their info was released to zealots. Do you?

I don’t know of any conservative churches shot up like the Right Wing liberal hater did to Tennessee Unitarians. Do you?

"Exalted Highness La Pierre?" What else can befit a guy with all the answers, speaks for thousands, and is never wrong?

Concealed carry should be sanely regulated through screening, training, and licensing. What do you think?

Just the Facts! said...

Hey DAVE, chill out man. Several ideas have been offered, from your ridiculous DNC approved idea about limiting magazine capacity, to Feinsteins great ideas, to weapon confiscation, to repeal of the 2nd, to Rev Jackson's idea. BTW, do you find it odd, painfully so, that the Rev and the President are both from Chicago. Which just passed the 500 murdered mark for 2012. The painfully odd part is the strong gun control rules there are really working, right? One has to wonder how those murders were committed. I bet it just bad Karma!

Me thinks Dear Dave, the problem is you really really don't like being show as the true left wing ideology that you are. You are starting to sound like MSNBC's mouth breather Ed Schultz.

If NRA members live in a state that votes to pay for armed guards at schools, then the NRA will pay.
Man you really really do have a thing about making somebody pay don't you? That and always blaming conservatives for all the problems in America.

"Exalted Highness La Pierre?" What else can befit a guy with all the answers, speaks for thousands, and is never wrong?"
I can think of a couple people who benefit from that title, you for starters and our current President, who by the way, can no longer blame others for his failures, he won, get over it! I know I'm over it.

"Say, wasn’t there an armed guard at Columbine?"
I can't say for sure, but if there were, based on their lack of performance, wanna bet they belonged to a Public Workers Union, like so many of the employees at our public schools.

"Doctors who performed legal abortions have had their personal information given out."
Really? Do you think Planned Parenthood should be forced to pay for armed guards to protect them?

"I don’t know of any conservatives shot after their info was released to zealots."
I don't know of any liberals that were shot up after their personal info was released to zealots, but I do know the OWS terrorists threaten people going to work, and at their homes. Somebody must have given the armed wing of the Progressive movement the address!

Thank you for your reply on CCW, does the state you live in have the sanity requirement? In fact while we are at it does any state allow for CCW without the person being "sanely regulated through screening, training, and licensing."
I guess this means you agree with me that if the adults murdered at Sandy Hook had broken the "Gun Free Zone" law and had carried a gun, they may have stopped the crazy mentally sick shooter? I wonder why the adults at New Town school didn't even have pepper spray on hand, or is that against the law in CT?
So the law abiding person is shot by the law breaking person and your way to fix it is to limit the number of bullets a gun can have in it's magazine when it takes just one bullet to kill? You going to limit the number of "legal magazines" a person can own? Or the number of bullets? You really think by having more laws, that the insane and criminal will ignore, is going to stop them?
Have any of the inmates that you are guarding gotten where they are by NOT breaking a law? Did the law stop them from committing their crime? My Dad used to tell me "locks only keep honest people out". I say only sane, honest people obey the law. The rest, you get to guard if we are lucky enough to catch them.

Dave Dubya said...

You really think by having more laws, that the insane and criminal will ignore, is going to stop them?

Never said that. Why have laws then?

The bottom line is unavoidable. If we never allowed the sale of military style weapons with large capacity magazines more people would be alive.

This still stands. Nothing you say can change that.

Just the Facts! said...

Dave,
Wonder how many of the 500 people killed in the Presidents home city were killed by "military style weapons with large capacity magazines"?
To answer you question about laws, I guess your right why have laws, they get broken anyway. Look at our immigration situation. Because they are related to the President, two aliens who are not legally here, remain here.

Can you tell me why there should be gun free zones if the law doesn't work? What would have happened if any of the adults at the school had a firearm. Think more or fewer kids would have been murdered?
You seem to be drifting a little bit on your magazine capacity position. When you started you were against large capacity magazines for rifles. Now you have expanded that to "military style weapons with large capacity magazines". Does that include pistols? Why the change? Could it be because of the upcoming interview of Obama and his promise to regulate guns further in 2013?
Coming from the fast and furious President I find that very hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to say the least.


The 62-year-old convicted felon who gunned down two firefighters and wounded three first responders on Christmas Eve in Webster, New York used weapons his neighbor illegally purchased for him, according to state and federal authorities.

The neighbor, 24-year-old Dawn Nguyen, was arrested on Friday after police traced the serial numbers on two weapons used by William Spengler, the shooter: a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun, both purchased in 2010.

While this so-called “straw purchasing” is illegal, the U.S. Department of Justice sanctioned the practice between 2006 and 2011.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed straw purchasers to illegally purchase approximately 2,000 firearms as and transport them across the United States’ southern border as part of Operation Fast and Furious, in an apparent attempt to track the guns to high-level officials in Mexico’s drug cartels.

None of those top officials has been arrested, and the operation has led to the deaths of an estimated 300 Mexican nationals and at least one U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Dave Dubya said...


When did I defend "gun free zones" anyway? This is your obsession, not mine.

No change. The bottom line is what it is.

The bottom line is unavoidable. If we never allowed the sale of military style weapons with large capacity magazines more people would be alive.

Time to end the sale of assault rifles to the public. As I said, the rifle that will be used for slaughter sits on the shelf, waiting to be sold, just like all the others that were used for mass murder. More of the same is insane.

Cut the endless supply off. It is a logical choice.

Those crazy enough to think they need them already have them. Enough already.

You can't show me who needed a thirty round magazine for self defense, can you?

T. Paine said...

Duyba: “You can't show me who needed a thirty round magazine for self defense, can you? “
I thought I already addressed this issue. How would you like to have been one of the Korean store owners in Los Angeles during the riots that ensued after the police officers’ trial after the Rodney King beating? I bet the law-abiding citizens that had 30 round magazines were damned glad they did. Rioters even seeing an AR-15 or AK-47 with large magazines in the hands of their previously intended victims probably would move on to the next one instead, without a shot even being fired. Bullies and cowards and thugs tend not to want to mess with those that are willing and capable of defending themselves.
I bet those families that stayed in their homes after Katrina were damned glad to have the large capacity magazines to defend themselves when all civil society broke down in New Orleans and the police were not around to help them.
And how about rioters like what happened in Seattle during the G-8 summit a few years ago? Same thing goes there.
With the potential for future hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes etc., and the propensity for some of our less-well-mannered citizens to want to exploit those situations for their own ends, I think having more than just a revolver at hand seems to me to be a responsible choice.
When the dollar finally collapses and our economy tanks in the future due to the idiot progressives of both parties giving “free stuff” to low-information voters and other various greedy morons, people will end up suffering quickly and some of the less scrupulous will come looking for food and other necessities from whatever source they can take it from. It will probably be a good idea to have a weapon that holds more than half-a-dozen rounds then too.

T. Paine said...

Like I said, we cannot undo what is already done. Bad guys already have such weapons. If absolutely determined, many will still have the ability to acquire them, even if they are banned. That means that only the good guys will be hamstringed by your proposed ban, thus keeping the advantage in the hands of evil.
No thanks, Dave. I’ll keep my weapons with higher capacity magazines.
As for mental health services, I am all for individual states taxing its citizens to provide help for those that are unable to provide for themselves and might have the propensity to be a danger to themselves or others. The federal government should stay out of it though.
As for the NRA’s proposal, I don’t think putting armed guards in schools is necessarily the answer. If some school districts choose to do so, then that is up to the school administration, teachers, and parents. If some districts want to allow responsible teachers to have concealed carry weapons in class, that too is fine. Frankly that would be my choice, as it would be less costly for the tax payers.
Believe it or not, most people that go through the hassle of getting a concealed carry permit tend to be very responsible. They also tend to be quite knowledgeable about their firearm and proficient in its use. Casual gun-owners don’t usually go through that hassle.
Of course I am more inclined to trust We The People than are most progressives. As typical, they tend to think the solution is to be found with government and the people need to be controlled. With such poor success and such grotesque waste coming from government being the standard, I guess I never understood that illogic. I guess it doesn’t matter to progressives though, because it isn’t “their money”.

Dave Dubya said...

“You can't show me who needed a thirty round magazine for self defense, can you? “

Question stands “addressed”... but unanswered.

When the dollar finally collapses and our economy tanks in the future... It will probably be a good idea to have a weapon that holds more than half-a-dozen rounds then too.

There’s that fear I’ve been talking about.

Bad guys already have such weapons.

Yes, thanks to NRA supported sales of such weapons. If the weapons were not available, they would not have them.

So the real reason “bad guys” have those weapons is they were commercially available to the public. Right or wrong?

This is not as Left/Right as you want it to be. You and the NRA want more in circulation. I do not. In fact, even police chiefs agree with me.
First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were also halted.
Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent. Public opinion polls continue to prove that more than 75 percent of the public supports a reauthorization of the current ban.
The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership approved a resolution calling for its reauthorization at our 2003 conference. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

Note this ban did not include confiscation.
More agreement:
No thanks, Dave. I’ll keep my weapons with higher capacity magazines.

Why do I need to repeat myself? Are you impaired? Good God, man, read before you argue against what I don’t say.

Okay, one more time:
Read what I wrote: “I certainly support sane restrictions on civilian-owned weapons. A line needs to be drawn. We can still have our Second Amendment rights without owning machine guns and mortars. The same would be true without thirty round magazines in military rifles. Is it "tyranny" to have only a ten round magazine?”

I did not advocate confiscation. I did not advocate the repeal of the Second Amendment. I suggest some sanity similar to the logic for banning machine guns and mortars. Mmkay? It is an act of compromise. None is offered by the gun nuts. None. We all know who the “party of no compromise” is, and I cannot see them in the mirror.


Now read it again until you understand. You are exhibiting symptoms of paranoia, my friend,. Believe me; I know it when I see it. I am NOT out to take anything away from you. Ok? Settle down, you’re safe with me.

Dave Dubya said...

Right now a weapon of mass murder waits on the shelf, one you want to be sold. Time to stop the madness. Enough is enough, This is arms proliferation and it is dangerous. Chances are if you’re paranoid, you already have your weapon. No need for more flooding our country with these weapons.

Many of the weapons of mass murder were bought by “good guys”. Note I do not oppose possession or support confiscation of rifles pistols and magazines from rightful owners. Stopping further sales is a step towards sanity.

I am more inclined to trust We The People than are most progressives.

The fact you are fearful and armed indicates otherwise.

As typical, they tend to think the solution is to be found with government and the people need to be controlled.

Ah, tell that to your Republican-built warrantless surveillance state, “free speech zones” for peaceful dissent, peace activists spied on like terrorists, etc. Regulating weapons of mass slaughter is not “controlling people”. Invading their private lives and communications is.

Sounds like you want it both ways, old buddy.

I never understood that illogic

Examine your premise first.

I’m afraid I cannot respond if you continue misreading or misinterpreting what I say.

Debate my real words, not your preconceived image of what you think I believe. You Righties have a remarkable tendency to do that, you know. Your black and white world does not exist. In fact, it runs red with the blood of innocents. Is agreeing with the “more guns the better” NRA lobby all you have?

Say, wasn’t there an armed guard at Columbine? Too bad he was up against nuts with legal semi-autos. You can’t stop insanity, but we can talk about how to make it a bit less easy for them to arm themselves for combat and slaughter.

The bottom line is unavoidable. If we never allowed the sale of military style weapons with large capacity magazines more people would be alive.

This still stands. Nothing you say can change that.

I also don’t expect to change your thinking. You may deeply believe that the line between your freedom and tyranny is the difference between a ten round magazine and a hundred round drum.

You may deeply believe that you are actually going to need massive amounts of firepower. That is paranoia, my friend. I’m sorry you live in such fear of your fellow Americans...that you somehow claim to trust more than progressives do.

FandB said...

Dubya: “Question stands “addressed”... but unanswered.”

Actually, the question is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights for self defense, it was included in the Bill of Rights so We The People can defend our country against a tyrannical government.

Dubya: “Yes, thanks to NRA”

Yes, you should be thanking them.

George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. would be in disbelief at the levels of encroachment the Obama administration is making against We The People and our Civil Rights.

The “warrantless surveillance state, “free speech zones” for peaceful dissent, peace activists spied on like terrorists, etc.” is growing by leaps and bounds under your god-king Obama, Dubya.

Dubya: “Regulating weapons of mass slaughter is not “controlling people”.” --- Yes it is. Look at history. When the government is allowed to ban private ownership of weapons, dictatorship and genocide follow soon afterward.

Dubya: : Say, wasn’t there an armed guard at Columbine?”

According to those involved, having an armed guard at Columbine did save lives and did make quite a difference in the outcome. http://www.examiner.com/article/fact-check-columbine-high-s-armed-guard-saved-student-lives

Dubya: “I also don’t expect to change your thinking”

We really don’t expect you to change your thinking either Dubya. As I mentioned above, you are so totally and fully indoctrinated by the progressive left-wing moonbats that you’ll never be able to see the truth again. All I need to do is watch MSNBC(D) for 10 or 15 minutes and I know what your beliefs have become on every issue.

The problem is, the UN gun grab, along with the progressive party’s desire for complete control, are creating an extremely dangerous situation for this country. The progressives cannot be allowed to steal the 2nd Amendment rights of We The People. They will try, and they are trying. The Sandy Hook shootings, as tragic as they are, are just being used by the left-wing wackos to push their gun-grabbing agenda. Never let a good tragedy go to waste, as Obama and his cronies always say.

It is a shameful tactic.

T. Paine said...

Dave, you misunderstood much of what I said and then claim I am misunderstanding you. Despite Senator Feinstein talking about putting forth legislation to ban Glocks, AR-15’s and all high magazine capacity weapons, I realize you are being much more subtle and were only arguing against the magazines. (Never mind that there aren’t any less than 10 round magazines for anything built on the AR platform.)

Your suggestion of not wanting the weapons even available for potential future bad guys to acquire is much the same as the WMD debate only on a smaller scale. North Korea, Pakistan, and soon Iran will all have nuclear weapons. Following your logic, the solution to those bad guys having weapons is to make sure that the United States and its NATO allies don’t acquire any more nukes. Doesn’t make much sense, does it, Dave? After all, they didn’t get those weapons from us.

A murderer can kill someone with only one bullet. He doesn’t need a ten, eleven, thirty, or one hundred round magazine to do so. I guess life doesn’t add up to non-acceptable levels until it is 30 or more though, for most anti-gun advocates. Of course we both know that isn’t the case. It is simply an incremental step in the process. First, “we adopt common sense legislation” to ban “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. Then we need to get rid of handguns because they are easily concealable by bad guys up to no good. Then we outlaw all rifles because of bad guys that want to be snipers like that idiot shooting the firemen recently, or the D.C. sniper.

Now I am not saying that you specifically support all of these measures, Dave, but there are many folks that are advocating the same things you are now, only to come back and incrementally chip away at that freedom in the future.

As for my paranoia, I am not fearful of being attacked. I am simply being prudent in preparing for the possibility. I would only be fearful of such possible attacks if I were NOT thusly prepared.

Dubya: “Right now a weapon of mass murder waits on the shelf, one you want to be sold.”

A rifle or hand-gun is only a tool. It is an inanimate object that is incapable of murder on its own. It has to be mis-used by a person. I have no problem with background checks to ensure that those people that are criminals, violent, or not mentally stable do not acquire them through legal means. Unfortunately there is nothing to prevent them from doing so through illegal means, if they so desire though. Just like Pakistan violated international mandates and acquired nuclear weapons illegally from North Korea. Laws only restrict the law-abiding. They don’t restrict those truly bent on doing evil.

As for the Republicans and warrantless surveillance, I agree with you completely. How come you don’t have the same anger at your Democrats that have not rescinded those laws, and in fact have only exacerbated such constitutional violations? Why the double standard, sir?

I do, in general, trust my fellow Americans. That doesn’t mean that I am going to depend upon the police or the government to always be there to protect me when one of those Americans decides he wants to do harm to me or mine. This is especially true when, as you noted, the government seems to be the greatest perpetrator of infringing upon my constitutional rights as of late.

T. Paine said...

FandB, Just the Facts, and Anonymous, thanks for excellent comments and holding the fort in my absence last week!

Just the Facts! said...

Dave,
Here's a change end all gun free zones.
They don't work and you don't defend them.

That's enough for me! Dave, I'm on your side on this one.

Just the Facts! said...

"If the weapons were not available, they would not have them." DD

Want a bet?? That is the best example of pie in the sky progressive thinking I've read in a week. Do you have any idea how cheap and easy it is to make a magazine? Any high school shop class could make them with the tools they have available and get the raw materials from any hardware store.
It's not rocket science.

Anonymous said...

Damn that GW Bush, he's just stomping all over our Constitution...opps, sorry, forgot he hasn't been in office for four years

Dave Dubya said...

JTF,
Yeah, I bet you 10,000 bucks it aint cheap and easy to make an AR-15 in shop class.

F&B,
It is a shameful tactic. Yet you continue without fail. Your crazed McVeigh version of the Second Amendment was not the point.

TP argued:

... when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

My unanswered question was exactly relevant to his argument of self protection. By the way, the purpose of your militias was also self defense, although not intended as you admitted to your own paranoid seditious manner. Self protection was also the issue in recent Supreme Court Second Amendment cases.

OK? So, to nice as I can, STFU with your dishonest and distracting accusation of irrelevance.

As I said, you continue without fail with the shameful tactics.

So, back to the farce:

George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. would be in disbelief at the levels of encroachment the Obama administration...

Hmm. Who’s missing in that list? I wonder why? No encroachment by the Shrub Administration? You crack me up.

More comedy:

“Encroachments” growing by leaps and bounds under your god-king Obama, Dubya

So I can call Obama a corporatist, Republican-lite pawn of Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex; and you see that as “god king” worship?

LOf’nL

This is Monty Python lever absurdity.

Yet you never fail:

Look at history. When the government is allowed to ban private ownership of weapons, dictatorship and genocide follow soon afterward

Look at history when a right wing party of the elites dismantle democracy by corruption and vote suppression. Really,

Again, how many times???? I AM NOT ADVOCATING A BAN ON OWNERSHIP....so STFU about that, too. You never fail.

Oh and yes, let’s look again at history. What country fell into dictatorship after banning civilian owned semi-automatic military style weapons with hundred round magazines? Do tell.

And while you’re at it, do tell us what country fell into dictatorship while allowing civilian owned semi-automatic military style weapons with ten round magazines? Hmm? Be a sport and tell us. .Please....

You are a clown, sir, acting the buffoon.

In fact I happen to know a recent dictator who allowed, even released, many, many AK 47’s into the streets. Guess who that was? We’re still paying the price for that mess, and the abominations against our Bill of Rights by the warmongering neo-con puppet Decider.

“Ignorance is strength” is one way to dictatorship. You got that one down real good.

Yes, thank you for having the curiosity to check out Columbine. It was fortunate the deputy was there. He could well have saved lives. It was also unfortunate he couldn’t stop the slaughter that was done. Isn’t it?

So that idea is no magic cure either, right? How about a compromise...?

Yeah, that’ll be the day.

And here it is again, folks. Just like clockwork, albeit the clock with stuck hands that is right only twice a day,

you are so totally and fully indoctrinated.... I know what your beliefs have become on every issue.

As I ever-so-accurately stated, and patiently repeat just for you:

“I’m afraid I cannot respond if you continue misreading or misinterpreting what I say.

Debate my real words, not your preconceived image of what you think I believe. You Righties have a remarkable tendency to do that, you know. Your black and white world does not exist. In fact, it runs red with the blood of innocents. Is agreeing with the “more guns the better” NRA lobby all you have? “

The Sandy Hook shootings, as tragic as they are, are just being used by the left-wing wackos to push their gun-grabbing agenda.

I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. Why did those crazy left-wing wackos ignore all the other previous mass slaughters until this one? Thanks for the enlightening little nugget.

And for dessert we have this quaint projection:

Never let a good tragedy go to waste

Yes, sir, Mr. F&B, or is it Fox & Benghazi?

Thank you. You never fail.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,

Now there you go again: you misunderstood much of what I said

I can only stand for so many unfounded and unexplained accusations. But at least I understand, and I still like you.

Remember when you falsely accused me of not willing to compromise, As for compromise from ideologues, I think thou shouldst look into thine own mirror, sir. and then ignored my question?

“What compromise do you suggest?”

This is more of your pattern. You spit out baseless accusations and expect debate. Come on.

Following your logic.... Oh, no, I doubt that very much.

the solution to those bad guys having weapons is to make sure that the United States and its NATO allies don’t acquire any more nukes. Doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Not at all, mostly because you were not following my logic at all.

Yes, indeed, . It is simply an incremental step in the process down the slippery slope fallacy.

So tell me, is “being prudent” having how many weapons? Is it prudent to have thirty round mags? Hundred round mags? I say ten rounds is prudent enough. I’ll even allow for whatever you fit inside a pistol’s handle. Beyond that is paranoia. Some say one round is paranoia. Go figure.

How come you don’t have the same anger at your Democrats

Here is yet another example of your assuming you know what I think.

First, they are not “my” Democrats, for Pete’s sake. Get real. Their owners are far wealthier than me. The Dems work for the Military Industrial Complex and Wall Street, just like Republicans. Except Republicans represent only Big Money, while Dems often pretend to represent the rest of us. Don’t you know this yet?

Second, you must have low reading retention if you still think I have no outrage at the Democrats complicit with the Bush/Cheney assault on out economy and Bill of Rights.

In fact, I wrote a rather eloquent open letter to Senator Obama, expressing my disagreement and disappointment with him way back when he supported the Bush/FISA Amendment. You can read it back in the summer of ’08 postings at my blog.

So here we go again....

Where’s the compromise?

Come on guys, can you say something, anything, that is different from the usual NRA crap?

Until you do, I see nothing else you have to offer.

No compromise, no communication, no reasonable discussion.

So make your accusations now and enjoy it. I have no more to say to your nonsense, false assumptions, and NRA slogans.

Just the Facts! said...


"Look at history when a right wing party of the elites dismantle democracy by corruption and vote suppression."

Ahh,
I'm looking and I don't seem to find any evidence supporting your claim that a right wing movement in the USA has done this. Further when I see the words "elites" and "Big Money" I suspect the user if more that just to the left of center.
Research shows the democrats did a lot of this with their poll tax and Jim Crows laws. Then currently the democrats who I'm sure you are not claiming to be Right Wing, seem to have a way of losing the votes of our overseas Armed Forces voters. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the democrats support Big Labor's desire to do away with the secrete ballot in their elections? That doesn't sound very democratic.
I guess if you call requiring proof of legal eligibility to vote as suppression that counts. But I would think with all the voter fraud the right wing does, you would want that?
Bottom line Dave, whether you like it or not or whether you recognize it or not, your positions are the same as what I hear members of the DNC support. So it is difficult for me to accept that the Dems are not yours.

You ask for compromise in the gun control laws, I ask for gun control laws that will work. You ask why one needs a large capacity magazine, I would ask why one wouldn't? You want Federal regulations, I want State regulations. You want to tar and feather the NRA, I say don't join them if you don't want to.

Just as an aside, I feel the need to respond in this manner to something you posted earlier.

A. JFK was not killed by a military styled assault weapon. The law passed after his death is one gun control law that has worked IE: no longer able to purchase a gun through the mail.

B. The guns used to shoot RFK, Regan and Ford, were not assault weapons, they were cheap Saturday Night pistols that were supposedly outlawed.
C.None of the targets listed above were shot by "Right Wing Nut Jobs", so why do you fear the conservatives so much?

Just the Facts! said...

How typical of Dave to claim he wants honest debate, but then closes his mind when he can win. Sigh, I had such large hopes for you Dave.

But I fear not, I'm sure you will soon be parroting the party line soon enough as it moves from one destructive position after another.

Just the Facts! said...

Make that "can not win".

TP you were correct, Dave is a great example of liberalism getting its nose of the camel under the tent with his nice proposals.